Have You Noticed? Clinton Didn't Cause Any Of This Shit!

[ThomWV]

Well,Hillary maybe, but not Bill.

[0007]

1. The tunes they're playing these days are, "The problems started

in the 90's" Hmmmmm. Go figure!

[blm]

34. They did - Had Clinton opened the IranContra and BCCI books in 93, there

would have been NO 9-11, NO invasion of Iraq, reduced terrorism all over the world, and NO Bush would have even been allowed NEAR the White House ever again.

So....yeah.... all the problems today DID go back to Clinton's fateful decisions when he first took office.

[jeff30997]

2. Butbutbut...What about the stain?

:sarcasm:

[NotGivingUp]

3. Bill Clinton is NOT and HAS NOT BEEN our friend.

[Ready4Change]

5. I disagree.

The Clinton economy of the '90s was my friend. His reasoned foreign policies were my friend. His administrations on social and environmental efforts were my friend. His turnaround of the growth of government debt was my friend. His actions to pursue AQ and OBL where my friend, and his recommendations that the Bush WH continue those efforts WOULD have been my friend, and the Bush WH not thrown those recommendations in the trash can.

About the only way Clinton hasn't been my friend lately is by not ripping Bush a new one at every single opportunity. But he has gotten in a few polite jabs. So sue the man for having a little decorum. In my opinion, his behavior has been a reminder that the White House hasn't always been filled with arrogant, crass bastards.

[ThomWV]

9. Amen Brother ... or ... Sister

Complete agreement.

[Arkansas Granny]

10. My feelings, precisely. Mistakes were made during his Presidency,

but for the most part, I agreed with his policies.

[madokie]

12. I agree with you, in my 58 years I had no better years than the Clinton's

[nolabels]

17. Looking at the world through rose colored glasses?

In subtle ways and not so subtle ways the guy helped triangulate us to where we are today. His reasoning of keeping corporate c.e.o.'s on his rolodex just so they could stay happy was not with it pitfalls to say the least. Blaming him for we are today is not possible but thinking there was no ying without yang will get you nowhere. All in all Bill probably did the best he could do, but a saint, he is not in my book. As to contrast Clinton to *, the difference in contrast is night and day

[dweller]

7. i'd have a beer or two with him n/t

or his senator wife.


dp

[Minnesota Libra]

4. Oh but to hear neocons/fundies tell it Clinton did it and idiot boy.......

....is now trying to straighten it all out.:grr:

My question to one neocon was, "Exactly what has your WH god straightened out anyway? The economy under Clinton was growing, and now the economy is tanking. Our young people are sitting ducks in the middle of an Iraqi civil war and the world hates the US now, whereas under Clinton the world respected us. So pray tell exactly what it is that your god has straighten out.":eyes: The person grunted and walked away without another word.:applause:

[meegbear]

8. Tell me about it ...

a read a story posted on bartcop last year that was "buried" by the MSM. It was about Bill Clinton walking down "Bill Clinton Boulevard" in Sarajevo to cheering crowds and giving a speech about peace in the region.

Dipshit can't even goto a "town meeting" without stacking the deck.

[nonconformist]

6. In 20 years, your grandchildren will be reading about how

the all-powerful Clenis knocked down the World Trade Center.

[Bucky]

23. Not if we can get another Democrat in the White House by then

I'm old enough to remember how they practiced many of their Clinton attacks on Carter. It's a reflex action. Republican hate, blame, and make excuses for their own shortcomings. They avoid all responsibility. It's what they do. Whether it's Clark, Obama, Feingold, Warner, or whoever, the next Democratic president--the one who finally wins with a margin big enough to make Diebold useless inadequate--will no doubt be blamed for the next generation of bad news in the world.

[Virginia Dare]

11. I'd trade the Chimpster-in-Chief and his merry band of...

criminal psychopaths for eight more years of Clinton, any Clinton, any day of the week. Was he a perfect Democratic President? Nope. Would Hillary be? Nope. Screw it, I'd take Chelsea at this point. But please, God, somebody get us out of this living nightmare we are in. We need somebody who has the cojones to scorch the earth of these assholes. Take down the whole damn Republican Party. I don't give a rat's ass if they screw every intern in the place, let's get some sanity back in our government.



:rant:

[Ilsa]

13. Interns? Hell, I don't care if the Clintons are

doing goats at this point. Besides, we all know the Bushes and Roves are "ratfuckers". (Hey, they said it.)

[meganmonkey]

14. NAFTA?

I mean, I get your point, but he wasn't a saint, and a lot of the overall job losses are an effect of policies he supported :shrug:

[Bucky]

24. Not exactly. Clinton had a two-tiered program for Nafta & trade issues

He supported Nafta, sure. But he also worked to offset the inevitable job losses by (1) supporting worker retraining programs (which Bush has slashed at least twice) and (2) by passing tax credits to employers who create jobs in the US (which Bush has undone, thereby turning domestic job creation into something a business gets punished for under the current tax code).

Clinton was a pro-free trader, but he had an excellent record on job creation--good jobs, not just the McJobs that Bush is taking credit for.

[meganmonkey]

28. Southeast Michigan's unemployment was skyrocketing

before Bush was in office. I live in an incredibly economically depressed area, and many of the folks around here (including loyal Dems) blame Clinton.

If we are comparing Clinton to Bush, obviously Clinton is 'better'. But looking at Clinton as an individual President, well, I think if we want to secure a better future we need to look critically at our past, not based on the rhetoric of the time but on the actual experiences of working Americans. If he had really tried to get universal health care (instead of just paying it lip service) and hadn't passed NAFTA, my view of him would rise about 75%.

[MadHound]

15. No, he didn't directly cause this shit

But he sure as shit set us all up for it. We moan and groan about how the MSM isn't covering things that matter. Guess what, Clinton set us up for this, what with the '96 Telecom Act, which enabled the massive media mergers that plague us today.

We whine and whimper about how people are falling through the cracks, and into despair. Gueass what, Clinton set us up for this with his vaunted welfare "reform", which has stripped away a huge component of our social safety net.

We shout and holler about how ridiulous and obscene the financial sector has become. Guess what, Clinton really set us up for this one, what with the repeal of the Glas-Steagle Act, the allowance of maga mergers in the financial sector, and the gutting of regulatory procedures.

And all throughout the Clinton era, hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis were consigned to death by the Clinton administration, either through sanctions or thrice weekly bombing runs. And it was during the Clinton administration that we first shattered a couple of critical records, the gap between the rich and the rest of us, which widened to a chasm, surpassing the record set in the robber baron days. The other record set, also orginally marked during the First Gilded Age, was that of how much wealth was concentrated into how few hands.

No, Clinton didn't cause any of the shit we're experiencing now. However he did set the stage for these matters, either enabling them to happen, or magnifying their effects.

Clinton was a charasmatic president, but he was certainly no liberal. He was a pro-corporate moderate who did what was best for Corporate America while paying lip service, and that's all, to liberal ideals. His personality dazzled people, and blinded them to what he was doing. Apparently, judging from the posts around here, he is still blinding people. Or maybe he just looks good in comparison to Bush, which I understand. However, while I understand such fond nostalgia, I don't think blind worship of the man is in order. He allowed Corporate America even greater control over our government, and his actions magnified the damage that is now being done by Bushco.

For an objective analysis of the Clinton administration, I would suggest that you start with two books, both by Kevin Phillips. The first is Wealth and Democracy, the second is his latest, American Theocracy.

[ThomWV]

18. And You Don't Blame Newt's Republican Congress For Any Of That

In case you forgot, there was this thing called Republican control of the Congress and a silly little bit of their's called the "Contract With America".

[MadHound]

20. Well first off, Clinton did have the power of the veto

And while the 'Pugs did have control of Congress, they didn't have the numbers to overcome a veto unless there was some serious Democratic defection. Secondly, a lot of these programs were either endorsed by Clinton(NAFTA), or were actually proposed and pushed by Clinton(welfare reform, '96 Telecom Act, etc.).

I hate to burst your bubble, but Clinton was not the god many people here make him out to be. Sure, he looks great in comparison to Bushboy, but then again so would Satan. But compare him to other Democrats, and even some moderate Republicans we've had in the office over the past sixty years, and Clinton comes off looking rather shabby, and very pro corporate.

[nolabels]

19. Yea, kind of forgot some ot that stuff

With current onslaught of the Bush crime family, it's kind of hard to remember where you before.

Would it be possible to say Clinton was a good manager but a not so good visionary?

Btw, should anyone really hold a POTUS responsible for the entire nations moral character?

[Inland]

21. Now tell us again how Nader didn't enable shit we're seeing now.

Pretty funny, really. Clinton prosperity set us up for recession. Clinton didn't go to war in Iraq, but he "set it up" so someone else would. Clinton raised taxes on the rich, but set it up so that someone would lower them. Then you disvow causality, as if "setting us up" and "causing" and "enabling" are somehow different beasts.

But then again, the unstated campaign is against democrats, so you've got to argue that democrats are the same as republicans, an as "proof" of that, that good times are the same as bad times, peace causes war, that pro-middle class policies lead to anti middle class and pro-rich polices, that budget surpluses cause budget deficits. What looked like peace and prosperity was really setting us up for war and economic doom.

It's the same arguments one hears from another opposing party, the republicans, and everyone else who has a direct interest in defeating democrats. If there's a problem, it's the democrat's fault.

You know who's to blame for Bush and his policies becoming law of the land? The people who got him elected. That is, everyone that didn't vote for Gore for 2000.

[MadHound]

25. So, you cannot directly refute my assertions with facts

Instead you resort to name calling, vague inuendo, and off topic ramblings. Poor form friend, stick to the topic. Can you, or can you not refute what I've stated? Do you deny that Clinton enabled the consolidation of the media, ripped away our social safety net, killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis, shipped out manufacturing sector overseas, or enabled the financial sector to run rampant across the country?

You insuate that I'm espousing a Naderite position, sorry, but I'm not. I'm pointing out the reality of the Clinton era and how his actions did indeed harm us. It is your type of bipolar thinking that has allowed the Democratic party to advance these sorts of corporate controlled candidates with the mantra of "Democratic forever, right or wrong". The majority of Democrats turned off their critical thinking skills when Clinton gained office, and thus Clinton was able to advance the corporate agenda virtually unchecked by those from within his own party. Any good liberal should have seen what was going on during Clinton's first term, and thus should have held him accountable during the election process. Instead, they were blinded by the man's charisma and the fact that he was a so called Democrat, and let him have another term. And oh what damage he wrought then.

Blind acceptance, and following blindly any leader simply due to the fact that they have a D behind their name is foolish. If you want government of the people, by the people and for the people, then you as one of the people have to be involved and engaged. And that includes looking at our leaders objectively and asking one's self if this leader is doing what I want them to do. If not, hold them accountable and vote them out of office. If so, reward them. But sadly, too many Democrats were in thrall to Clinton's charisma during the ninties, and rewarded him for allowing increased corporate control of our government. Sad, very sad.

Oh, and for your information, I both worked and voted for Gore and Nader, and every single Democratic presidential candidate dating back to McGovern. I have earned the right to criticize the Democratic party, so you can take your Naderite comment and put it, well I'll let you figure that out.

[Inland]

26. Your assertions are merely innuendo and juxtaposition.

Bush was "enabled" by winning the election in 2000, by fair means or foul. Nothing else.

Can't blame Clinton for that. I'm pretty sure he voted for Gore.

But one CAN blame some jerk who put a huge amount of time into telling people not to vote for Gore. That would be Nader.

All you have is Clinton preceding Bush, not causality, not "Setting Up".

There's nothing to refute. Clinton's record is good. But people who have agendas, admitted or not, can't evaluate it fairly. Because every sky has a cloud or eventually becomes cloudy, a perfect day is a precursor to rain, if you're green, or because all the rain got out of the way during the early eighties, if you're a republican.

Sometimes the truth is enough.

[MadHound]

27. Um, stop dodging the topic, go back and reread my original post

Clinton's support of NAFTA, welfare "reform", the '96 Telecom Act, the repeal of the Glas-Steagle Act, deregulation of the financial industry, the sanctions and bombing campaigns in Iraq, all this and more were done by Clinton. This isn't vague inuendos friend, this is fact, you can go look it up in a book, or on the Federal Register.

And yes, this did set us up for Bush, and magnified the disasters caused by Bush. Exhibit A, the media. We would have a much more diverse media who would be much more likely to get out the truth about Bush and his illegal, immoral war if it was for the mega media mergers that were enabled by the '96 Telecom Act.

Exhibit B People who have lost their jobs would still have a social safety net left to catch them if it hadn't been for Clinton's welfare "refor" As it is now, people are in misery because most of that social safety net is in tatters.

Exhibit C, We wouldn't be experiencing predatory lending practices, risky economic bubbles, and have our economy teetering on the brink were it not for the repeal of the Glas-Steagle Act and other financial deregulatory measures enacted by the Clinton administration.

Exhibit D, We wouldn't be experiencing the crisis out outsourcing if Clinton hadn't gotten the ball rolling with NAFTA. That shipped our manufacturing sector overseas, and then it crippled the high tech sector, which was further hobbled by Clinton's push for increased issuance of H-1B visas. Now that these two sectors have been decimated, signs indicate that our service sector is next.

These are facts friend, not idle speculation. Don't believe me, go read your Phillips, Zinn, Chomsky, etc. Hell, go read the back issues of the Federal Register, and then form your own conclusions. No leader, no matter what the letter behind their name, is above reproach, and all should be held responsible for their actions. That you are willing to do so, along with so many others, bodes ill for both the future of the Democratic party, and the future of the US. You may wish to wallow in this fantasy world of Clinton worship, but that is just you. Many of us prefer to deal in the reality based world, where real actions have real consequences. This isn't a Green thing, a 'Pug thing or a Dem thing, it is a human thing. Why don't you wake up and come join us rather than living in a simplistic world where everything D is wonderful and everything else is evil. It is that sort of blind, unrealistic mind set that has gotten us to where we are today, more of the same ol' same ol' won't help us get out of this mess either. It is our duty as citizens to hold our leaders accountable, and while we failed to do so with Clinton, it is better late than never, and by doing so we hopefully won't repeat that mistake.

[Ready4Change]

29. Electricity.

I view your Clinton talking points like I view electricity. They are all topics where the outcome depends on the implementation.

For example, you can use electricity to illuminate a room, or to torture a prisoner.

NAFTA can be used to expand and strengthen business and the economy, or to drive down wages and funnel money into the pockets of the rich.

Its not the tool being used. It's HOW the tool is used.

Under Clinton, policies were more often used in ways that helped everyone. Under Bush, policies are nearly always used in ways that increase the wealth of the richest, and drive the rest into poverty.

Under Clinton, foreign policy was used to strengthen our bonds with other nations, to improve the USA's position by improving the position of all cooperating nations. Under Bush, foreign policy is used purely to impose USA physical dominination over other nations, even at the expense of the USA's reputation.

[MadHound]

31. Except for one thing friend

With Corporate America firmly backing Clinton at the time, anybody with any foresight and sense whatsoever could see that Clinton's policies would be disasterous. Hell, even before Clinton got into office Perot was decrying NAFTA, yet the Clinton administration went ahead with this. Same thing with the '96 Telecom Act, one could see with the corporate influence riding high in the Clinton administration, media mergers would, in the long run, do a very extreme disservice to the American people.

And hell, corporate influence or no, no matter how it is implemented, repeal of the Glas-Steagle Act was bad news. And how is it justifiable, under any interpretation of usage, to say the welfare "reform" was a good thing?

As far as foreign policy goes, how is it justifiable under any circumstance to impose such draconian sanctions, and instigate thrice weekly bombing runs, such that 400,000 innocent Iraqis die?

Sorry friend, but the foresight was there at the time, people knew what was going to happen if these policies were implemented, cries were raised, and yet were ignored. These policies have had disastorous effects, either on their own, or by magnifying the effects of Bush's policies, which are likewise controlled by Corporate America.

[Inland]

30. If Clinton did things that were wrong, they didn't lead to Bush's choices.

See, that's the difference between a fair evaluation of Clinton and making Clinton responsible for Bush.

Crap like "we wouldn't be experiencing" such and such shit as if Clinton could have tied Bush's hands is, well, crap. You know who's responsible for the policies of a republican congress and a republican president? Them. And the people who made them such. That is, the same people who consistently cast around for someone else to blame.

So is setting up a straw man like pretending I'm worshipping everything with a "D" besides it's name. I suppose it's supposed to be sophisticated to find causal connections between Clinton's policies and the policies he opposed, but it isn't. Nor is it "worship" of anything except peace and prosperity, which has truth as a patron saint. If Clinton's an acolyte, more power to hime.

[MadHound]

32. Please, read my posts for comprehension

Let's take the media, for an example. If Clinton wouldn't have pushed the '96 Telecom Act, do you think we would be experiencing the problems that we have now with a prone, lapdog press?

Do you think that we would have as many people falling into ruin and despair if Clinton hadn't pushed and gotten welfare "reform"?

Do you think our country would be teetering over the ecomic precipice like it is today if the Glas Steagle Act was still in place, along with other regulatory measures that Clinton weakened?

Do you think that we would have at least a somewhat vital manufacturing and high tech sector if Clinton hadn't pushed NAFTA through, or increased the numbers of H1-B visas allowed in the US?

I'm not saying that Clinton could have "tied" Bush's hands. What I am saying is that by Clinton enacting this and other legislation, he adversely effected our country, and magnified the atrocities implemented by Bush.

I would suggest friend that you visit your patron saint, Truth, and have a little talk. And then like I suggested earlier, you start doing some reading and research on just exactly which masters Clinton was serving. Hint, it wasn't we the people.

[Inland]

33. "But he sure as shit set us all up for it." No big words there.

"Magnified the atrocities". Sure, it's an atrocity thanks to Bush, but Clinton, Clinton made it atrocitier, I suppose. How's that for comprehension?

I'm reading the bull that's written. What I'm reading is someone trying to figure out a way to show how Clinton did bad things, and finding it easier if he can pretend a causality for what Bush did.

But you aren't saying Clinton failed to tie Bush's hands, and Bush didn't say Saddam was connected with 9/11, either.

It only becomes clear when one knows that you aren't a democrat. Bushites blame Clinton for making Bush invade Iraq cause he didn't do it himself, and you blame Clinton because he didn't veto the Telecom Act. And of course, I'm the one that's partisan, not you guys. Too funny.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bunkerbuster1]

16. He was an OK president who, by comparison to **

looks like a towering figure.

I am oftimes very impressed with what Clinton is able to articulate when put on the spot, until I realize there are thousands of capable people out there who can do likewise. It's just that our current administration is so very mind-bogglingly inept and evil, that Clinton seems far more capable than he is.

[90-percent]

22. Clinton's

He was so decent and so smart. A little too corporate friendly, perhaps, but he was a LEADER and the people loved him and continued to love him even when the pinheads impeached him for lying under oath about a conceptual adult act that was legal and had no effect on our country what so ever!

Now the bastards don't say ANYTHING under oath and their partisans set them up with; "aw shucks, we don't want to bother you decent folks with anything as messy as actual oath taking. That is soooo just for the little people and democrats, you know?"

I'm not a big Hil fan, because it seems like her Iraq stance was safe and expedient instead of courageous, but, I tell you what, I'll vote for Chelsea for anything first chance I get. Hell, I'd vote for Ron Reagan jr. first chance I get, too.

-85% Jimmy