Guest slamminshaun Posted July 17 Report Share Posted July 17 Other then #5, I don't see how Clinton could take credit for any of that....allow me to be more specific, what laws or actions did Clinton sign or take that were soooooo ground-breaking? Don't give me this "the economy was good, therefore he was the best president ever" when you know damn well the Fed Chariman drives the economy....NOT the president. Clinton was just lucky enough to be president when the information age started. Ok...give me a law....give me a policy....give me something, just don't give me this lame ass "good economy" crap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest trancepriest Posted July 18 Report Share Posted July 18 Other then #5' date=' I don't see how Clinton could take credit for any of that....allow me to be more specific, what laws or actions did Clinton sign or take that were soooooo ground-breaking? Don't give me this "the economy was good, therefore he was the best president ever" when you know damn well the Fed Chariman drives the economy....NOT the president. Clinton was just lucky enough to be president when the information age started. Ok...give me a law....give me a policy....give me something, just don't give me this lame ass "good economy" crap. [/quote']What's so lame about a good economy? Are you a communist? I also thought you Republicans loved lower government spending?-----In August 1993, Clinton had signed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 which passed Congress without a single Republican vote. It significantly raised taxes on the top 2% of taxpayers without providing middle class tax cuts as he promised during the campaign. Additionally, it mandated that the budget be balanced over several years, and put spending restraints in place. The Republicans objected vociferously, claiming that it would wreck the economy. In November of 1994, the Republicans took control of the House of Representatives. They were upset at being forced into spending cuts by the bill, but they could not ignore it without appearing to be softer on deficit spending than the Democrats.In 1996, the GOP passed a budget with significant spending cuts, thinking that Clinton could either sign the bill (a major political defeat) or veto it (resulting in a shutdown of most government services). GOP leaders believed that their recently energized supporters would stand with them, while the shutdown would be blamed on Clinton's veto of the spending bills. Clinton instead vetoed the bills and staged a media blitz, rallying his constituencies to blame the shutdown on the Republicans. The public agreed with Clinton's interpretation of the situation, and the Republicans suffered a major political defeat. The perception that the congressional Republicans were dangerous radicals stayed with the public for the remainder of the Clinton presidency, and Clinton repeatedly made skillful use of this perception to pass his initiatives while blocking any Republican agendas.----My... my... Republicans that want higher government spending. So let me get this... Clinton made our nation stronger by reducing the deficit and lowered government spending and George took the surplus and spent it on finding non-existent Weapons of Mass Destruction.... hmmmm... I guess Clinton was more of a Republican. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slamminshaun Posted July 18 Report Share Posted July 18 First, you said, "In 1996, the GOP passed a budget with significant spending cuts,"Then you went on to say, "My... my... Republicans that want higher government spending."Are you confused or something? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest trancepriest Posted July 18 Report Share Posted July 18 First' date=' you said, "In 1996, the GOP passed a budget with significant spending cuts,"Then you went on to say, "My... my... Republicans that want higher government spending."Are you confused or something?In August 1993, Clinton had signed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 which passed Congress without a single Republican vote. It significantly raised taxes on the top 2% of taxpayers without providing middle class tax cuts as he promised during the campaign. Additionally, it mandated that the budget be balanced over several years, and put spending restraints in place. The Republicans objected vociferously, claiming that it would wreck the economy. In November of 1994, the Republicans took control of the House of Representatives. They were upset at being forced into spending cuts by the bill, but they could not ignore it without appearing to be softer on deficit spending than the Democrats.GOP leaders believed that their recently energized supporters would stand with them, while the shutdown would be blamed on Clinton's veto of the spending bills. Clinton instead vetoed the bills and staged a media blitz, rallying his constituencies to blame the shutdown on the Republicans. The public agreed with Clinton's interpretation of the situation, and the Republicans suffered a major political defeat. The perception that the congressional Republicans were dangerous radicals stayed with the public for the remainder of the Clinton presidency, and Clinton repeatedly made skillful use of this perception to pass his initiatives while blocking any Republican agendas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jamu Posted July 18 Report Share Posted July 18 Ah... damn... ah... snap... someone just got owned. I think I am gonna step back for that and just enjoy it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slamminshaun Posted July 18 Report Share Posted July 18 Ah... damn... ah... snap... someone just got owned. I think I am gonna step back for that and just enjoy it. Hardly...Lincoln reunited the countryRoosevelt took us out of the Great DepressionTruman took us to victoryKennedy took us to the moonJohnson gave us the "Great Society"Nixon's foreign policy was unparalleledReagan beat the Russians, no more nukes pointed at usBush helped tear down the wallClinton...gave us a balanced budget :Yeah, he's definitely one of the greats. You know what's sad? Shortly after 9/11, there were many liberal commentaries that opined that it was unfortunate 9/11 didn't happen during Clinton's era since it would've helped shape his legacy. I guess balancing a checkbook isn't sexy enough for the history books. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jamu Posted July 18 Report Share Posted July 18 Yes because avoiding an economic disaster in our country is a small feat. : Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest swirlundergrounder Posted July 18 Report Share Posted July 18 Funny' date=' I was just thinking...what good did Clinton do for the world? I mean, c'mon...he's the king of kings in the Democratic party, but what did he actually do? Usually I ask people this and they say something like "he didn't go to Iraq, he didn't invade a country on a lie, blah, blah, blah" Fine..that's what he DIDN'T do. Tell me what he DID do that was so f'n amazing that liberals worship him like a god. [/quote']Here's one thingHmm do you see this today with Bush in office? Rabin and Arafat shaking hands and coming to the closet point for peace in the middle east since the inception of Israel. Now look at what's going on there today! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slamminshaun Posted July 18 Report Share Posted July 18 Yes because avoiding an economic disaster in our country is a small feat. :Avoiding? We were hardly on our way to an economic disaster with the dawn of the information age in the horizon. You guys give presidents WAY too much credit for the economy. Give props to Bill Gates instead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slamminshaun Posted July 18 Report Share Posted July 18 Funny' date=' I was just thinking...what good did Clinton do for the world? I mean, c'mon...he's the king of kings in the Democratic party, but what did he actually do? Usually I ask people this and they say something like "he didn't go to Iraq, he didn't invade a country on a lie, blah, blah, blah" Fine..that's what he DIDN'T do. Tell me what he DID do that was so f'n amazing that liberals worship him like a god. [/quote']Hmm do you this this today with Bush in office? Rabin and Arafat shaking hands and coming to the closet point for peace in the middle east since the inception of Israel. Now look at what's going on there today! You cropped the picture damn it....Arafat had his fingers crossed....LOLSlick might've got them to the table, but they were hardly close to inking a deal. It's kinda hard to broker a deal when you make statements like "I'd die for Israel if they were attacked" (Bill Clinton). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest swirlundergrounder Posted July 18 Report Share Posted July 18 Funny' date=' I was just thinking...what good did Clinton do for the world? I mean, c'mon...he's the king of kings in the Democratic party, but what did he actually do? Usually I ask people this and they say something like "he didn't go to Iraq, he didn't invade a country on a lie, blah, blah, blah" Fine..that's what he DIDN'T do. Tell me what he DID do that was so f'n amazing that liberals worship him like a god. [/quote']Hmm do you this this today with Bush in office? Rabin and Arafat shaking hands and coming to the closet point for peace in the middle east since the inception of Israel. Now look at what's going on there today! You cropped the picture damn it....Arafat had his fingers crossed....LOLSlick might've got them to the table, but they were hardly close to inking a deal. It's kinda hard to broker a deal when you make statements like "I'd die for Israel if they were attacked" (Bill Clinton). Well Bush sure as hell isn't bringing them to the table... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slamminshaun Posted July 18 Report Share Posted July 18 Well Bush sure as hell isn't bringing them to the table...Why should he? History has proved time and time again that negotiations and peace deals do NOT work in the middle east. The only way there will be peace is if Israel is allowed to just blow them all the fuck up. Why should Israel sit back and negotiate while the other countries in the region try to figure out how to annihilate every jew off the planet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest swirlundergrounder Posted July 18 Report Share Posted July 18 Well Bush sure as hell isn't bringing them to the table...Why should he? History has proved time and time again that negotiations and peace deals do NOT work in the middle east. The only way there will be peace is if Israel is allowed to just blow them all the fuck up. Why should Israel sit back and negotiate while the other countries in the region try to figure out how to annihilate every jew off the planet? Because the more and more Israel attacks arab targets the more and more the other Arab nations will join together against Israel. Israel may have a powerful military but you can't mess with Egypt either...The more Arabs die the more sympathy they draw from Arabs around the world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jamu Posted July 18 Report Share Posted July 18 Well Bush sure as hell isn't bringing them to the table...Why should he? History has proved time and time again that negotiations and peace deals do NOT work in the middle east. The only way there will be peace is if Israel is allowed to just blow them all the fuck up. Why should Israel sit back and negotiate while the other countries in the region try to figure out how to annihilate every jew off the planet? And since what we have tried in the past didn't work, we should give up. Excellent idea. I think its wiser to let people just kill themselves. Signs of excellent leadership shaun. Because that is important in International Politics. Make sure you move away from any position that might require you to come up with a solution to a critical problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slamminshaun Posted July 18 Report Share Posted July 18 Well Bush sure as hell isn't bringing them to the table...Why should he? History has proved time and time again that negotiations and peace deals do NOT work in the middle east. The only way there will be peace is if Israel is allowed to just blow them all the fuck up. Why should Israel sit back and negotiate while the other countries in the region try to figure out how to annihilate every jew off the planet? And since what we have tried in the past didn't work, we should give up. Excellent idea. I think its wiser to let people just kill themselves. Signs of excellent leadership shaun. Because that is important in International Politics. Make sure you move away from any position that might require you to come up with a solution to a critical problem. That is what I'm saying. Learn from history, don't repeat it. All this "give us this piece of land and there will be peace" talk is hogwash. There will NEVER be peace in that region until one country blows up the other, and imposes their terms onto the loser. Period. Diplomacy and negotiation have been going on for 50 years....50 fuckin' years!! It's over...time to fight and see who gets to set the terms. Being a great leader doesn't always mean talking it over....sometimes you need to know when to push the button to avoid your own annihilation. As recent as 6 years ago, Israel agreed to withdraw from southern Lebanon and, in return, Lebanon would disarm Hezbollah under the supervision of the UN. What happened? Hezbollah is still launching rockets at Israelis and might as well have UN flags attached to them. Now Kofi Anan wants to supervise a cease-fire between them? Who is this douche kidding??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest swirlundergrounder Posted July 18 Report Share Posted July 18 Well Bush sure as hell isn't bringing them to the table...Why should he? History has proved time and time again that negotiations and peace deals do NOT work in the middle east. The only way there will be peace is if Israel is allowed to just blow them all the fuck up. Why should Israel sit back and negotiate while the other countries in the region try to figure out how to annihilate every jew off the planet? And since what we have tried in the past didn't work' date=' we should give up. Excellent idea. I think its wiser to let people just kill themselves. Signs of excellent leadership shaun. Because that is important in International Politics. Make sure you move away from any position that might require you to come up with a solution to a critical problem. [/quote']That is what I'm saying. Learn from history, don't repeat it. All this "give us this piece of land and there will be peace" talk is hogwash. There will NEVER be peace in that region until one country blows up the other, and imposes their terms onto the loser. Period. Diplomacy and negotiation have been going on for 50 years....50 fuckin' years!! It's over...time to fight and see who gets to set the terms. Being a great leader doesn't always mean talking it over....sometimes you need to know when to push the button to avoid your own annihilation. As recent as 6 years ago, Israel agreed to withdraw from southern Lebanon and, in return, Lebanon would disarm Hezbollah under the supervision of the UN. What happened? Hezbollah is still launching rockets at Israelis and might as well have UN flags attached to them. Now Kofi Anan wants to supervise a cease-fire between them? Who is this douche kidding???Please watch the following video in this thread LOLhttp://www.cooljunkie.com/forums/index.php?board=6;action=display;threadid=30112 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.