Bill Clinton - Favorability Rating

Do you have a favorable or unfavorable impression of Bill Clinton?

  • Favorable

    Votes: 100 74.1%
  • Unfavorable

    Votes: 35 25.9%

  • Total voters
    135

B_NineInchCock_160IQ

Sexy Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Posts
6,196
Media
0
Likes
40
Points
183
Location
where the sun never sets
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
What do I think of when I think of Bill Clinton?

Over 80 dead in Waco.

Randy Weaver's dead son and baby at Ruby Ridge.

The strength of a bombed aspirin factory.

The weakness of thousands dead at the World Trade Center.

Hundreds dead at Embassies throughout the world.

Loreal Corporation giving the Chinese our missle secrets with Bill's blessings.

His meeting with the enemy in Moscow while Amercan soldiers are dying in his cowardly place in Vietnam.

In short, a weaker country, closer to war and nuclear annihilation, a disgraced Presidency, and a foreign policy that was a joke to the rest of the world.

And what was he doing while all of this was going on? Getting a bj in the Oval Office.

and yet George managed to one-up him on every one of those charges. Amazing.
 

cocktaste

Superior Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2007
Posts
3,254
Media
0
Likes
5,370
Points
593
Location
Chadds Ford Township, PA, United States of America
Love the man to death! Probably one of the smartest in decades. Wrote his speeches, wrote his biography free hand, got into one of the best schools even though he was dirt poor. Just an amazing guy, especially with what he had to put up with. The Nafta thing was to make a bridge across the isle that never should have been done. Bush Sr. started that process before he came into office.
 

Dr. Dilznick

Experimental Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Posts
1,640
Media
0
Likes
4
Points
183
Age
46
Sexuality
No Response
Bill was a weiner, and I say that with great admiration, but we all know it's true. He was a centrist, which is by its very insinuation kind of weasl-like. He's for a little of this, a little of that- try to massage everyone's feelings to the best of your ability and negotiate, negotiate, negotiate. That's just who he was.
I guess maybe my experiences have made me look at weak-kneed "liberal" ideas with a more critical eye, and this might make me more inclined to lean towards the center if the left is just talking nonsense. But as for Bubba? Let's just say I don't get all glassy-eyed and start salivating like Pavlov's dogs whenever his name comes up.
 

SteveHd

Sexy Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2006
Posts
3,678
Media
0
Likes
79
Points
183
Location
Daytona
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Between Republicans, Democrats, lobbyists, special interest groups, the way the primary system works, our electoral college, and the partisan hacks on air we call pundits... trying to get elected president when you are talented, ethical, and/or have any good ideas at all is pretty much a losing proposition anymore.
That's a key part of the problem. Too many people complain about the quality of candidates. Instead, they need to complain about the system that produces them. Maybe the so-called "broker conventions" were better? But they produced flawed candidates too. I don't know what would be better.
 

madame_zora

Sexy Member
Joined
May 5, 2004
Posts
9,608
Media
0
Likes
51
Points
258
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
What do I think of when I think of Bill Clinton?

Over 80 dead in Waco.

Randy Weaver's dead son and baby at Ruby Ridge.

The strength of a bombed aspirin factory.

The weakness of thousands dead at the World Trade Center.

Hundreds dead at Embassies throughout the world.

Loreal Corporation giving the Chinese our missle secrets with Bill's blessings.

His meeting with the enemy in Moscow while Amercan soldiers are dying in his cowardly place in Vietnam.

In short, a weaker country, closer to war and nuclear annihilation, a disgraced Presidency, and a foreign policy that was a joke to the rest of the world.

And what was he doing while all of this was going on? Getting a bj in the Oval Office.

See, this is the difference between the left and the right. Most of us on the left agree that bill was no saint, but we found his sins to fall within a perceived "margin of error". Really, only the daft care about who sucks someone's cock, but as for his actual dirty dealings- yeah he was probably not blameless. In fact, blameless human beings probably don't exist. That's the problem with the right- no perception of reality, so no real point worth pondering.

Clinton did not have the benefit of having both a democratic ruled house and senate. I heard the rumblings of some of the charges about the shady circumstances under which the plane went down carrying Ron Brown, and I couldn't say with authority what really happened- no one could. The thing is, with all the checks and balances in place, and all the people who would have loved to see him fry, I would think there would have been charges brought if there was a case ot be made at all. Look at the scanty evidence brought up for the Whitewater trial. With unlimited hours and manpower, not a single charge was made to stick. So frustrated was Starr that he went into Clinton's sex life to find him committing a crime.

Do you think I'm saying that proves he's innocent? Hardly. It means exactly what I said- he was not charged with a crime, due to lack of evidence. Either it was never there to begin with, or he's smart enough to make it go away. Either thing is possible, and the latter is more likely.
 

madame_zora

Sexy Member
Joined
May 5, 2004
Posts
9,608
Media
0
Likes
51
Points
258
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
That's a key part of the problem. Too many people complain about the quality of candidates. Instead, they need to complain about the system that produces them. Maybe the so-called "broker conventions" were better? But they produced flawed candidates too. I don't know what would be better.


People's expectations are just absurd, honestly. I really start to get myself good and pissed hearing about every fucking candidate's "character flaws" as if human being exist who don't have them! Shame on everyone who gets into someone's private life and personal business to asses his "worthiness" to do a fucking job! Nobody on the planet would be "qualified" according to some of the whiners on here. These people are applying for a JOB, not sainthood. Grow up you assholes. They don't owe it to us to bare their souls and have us judge their worth unmasked- who do we think we are anyway?

How about we all stop tattle-tailing like we're in third grade, and start actually weighing the value of a person in a position based on their performance? I know, I know, it's a shocking concept, because we all know what's reeeeeeeeeeeally important is how he feels about gawd, but maybe we could just give it a try. Let's try judging them based on their resumes, that's what historians will do.

How would YOU stand up in close public scrutiny? Do you smoke weed? Take more of your prescribed meds than you really need? EVER had an affair, EVER? Honestly? Really? (in case you don't get it, I don't believe you. MOST people have had an affair at some point, they just lie about it, even to themselves). Ever beat the dog? How about the kids? Are you always 100% honest on your taxes? Ever trade on an inside "tip"? How about driving drunk, ever done it? Ever had relations, regardless of if it went all the way to sex or not, with someone underage that you knew better than to entertain? Really? Ever made racist, sexist or generally rude remarks about certain groups of people? Ever gotten your friend a job by bypassing normal routes? Ever let someone give you a gift for letting them bend the rules? Ever turned a blind eye and let something happen you really knew you should have stopped?

These are all crimes politicians regularly commit, but my point is that we do too. We hold them to extremely high standards, while we hold ourselves to none. I'm not saying it's all okay, I'm saying that we'll never find a cabinet full of saints, because saints do not desire money and would never do a job like that for money. We get money-grubbing bastards because that's who applies for that kind of job, duh.
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
Except for events in 1948, 1956, 1967, 1970, 1973, 1977, 1980, 1982, 1987, 1991, and 2000.

.....

I was talking about the Middle East at the time that Bush invaded, not the entire history of the Middle East.

The history of the middle east started in 1948? That explains a lot.

20 years from now, when there may be peace in the mid east,....

20 years? I hope so, but I doubt it.

What the world seems to have forgotten was that the middle east was relatively peaceful BEFORE Bush invaded.

Relative to what, the Somme? I suppose with 'only' two overt conflicts going on in 1990 one could assert it was having a quiet day.

...Hussein kept a better job at keeping the peace than Bush's fucked up administration, but then they don't really want peace so I guess the invasion is a success.

I've heard Hussein called many, many things, but peacekeeper?That's a first.:smile:

Sorry, rather off topic.
 

B_big dirigible

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Posts
2,672
Media
0
Likes
12
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
Much of this sort of debate hinges on things we can't define in any useful way. What does a "favorability" rating mean?

Does it mean that we think he is a "good man"?

I don't think he is. After watching him in action for years, I'd say BJC is an absolutely hollow man - there's nothing at all inside of him. It's weird - I don't think I've ever seen anything like it elsewhere. Jesse Jackson once said something similar about BJC, and if he was accurately quoted, it's just about the only thing JJ and I agree on. George Will opined that BJC was the worst man to ever occupy the presidential office, making clear that he was not saying that he was the worst president - a useful distinction. If Aaron Burr had ended up president after the 1800 election, I think he might have given BJC a run for the title of worst man in the office. Maybe.

Does it mean we think BJC is "a skillful politician"?

I don't think he's that, either. Politically, he was astonishing clumsy. I voted for him the first time around. Almost immediately, he bungled the Somalia operation. Recall that Bush Senior had, right at the end of his term, initiated an operation to use US army resources and capabilities to airlift food and medical supplies into Somalia, to alleviate some of the human suffering caused by a chronic civil war. While a laudable intention, I thought that was a mistake, as it was likely to grow into a commitment, which would saddle his successor with another problem; the classic example of that was the Eisenhower administration's plan for a little something involving Cuba, which Kennedy allowed to proceed in its half-baked, unfinished, poorly planned version as the notorious Bay of Pigs embarrassment. As it turned out, Bush Sr made a much better job of it - the goods were delivered, and US forces left. But then BJC almost immediately sent them back in to chase after some Somali warlord who may or may not have been annoying somebody. The goal was a bad idea, the plan was slapdash, US forces were committed with inadequate resources (recall that they were picked up by Pakistani troops who were allowed to have armored personnel carriers), and the US looked like a bunch of weak pansy surrender-monkeys while Osama took notes.

OK, so he wasn't too good on foreign affairs. Well, I figured at the time, nobody's perfect. How about domestic politics? Immediately after the inauguration, BJC allowed himself to be run in circles by the press. "Gays in the military" became the crisis du jour. WTF? That was hardly a campaign issue. The press set on him, as it likes to do - that's fancied as "speaking truth to power", even if the truth is some trumped-up garbage - and BJC let them do it. He weaseled out of it with "don't ask, don't tell" - which isn't a policy, it's a dodge. I'm not faulting him for trying to avoid a no-win question, I'm faulting him for allowing an unelected and crisis-driven press to set the agenda. He allowed the press to dominate him right from the beginning. Bush Jr avoided that, usually, by ignoring the press - not ideal, but probably a better approach than BJC's.

Then we had NAFTA touted as some great accomplishment - oh look, he managed to get this thing through congress! Woo-hoo! Actually, that congress was desperate to get NAFTA (for better or worse), so BJC fought hard to - give congress exactly what it wanted. Hmmm. And what did he get in return, political horse-trading-wise? As I recall, he sold out for nothing much in return. Well, that doesn't make a man a red-hot political operative.

The most memorable domestic political "accomplishment" of BJC's presidential career, the one which will be used in TV documentaries about America and the presidency for the next century or more, was when he looked right at the camera (that is, at us, the electorate), wagged his finger, and told us that he hadn't done what we later learned, in spades, he had indeed done. The "crime" itself was trivial - some middle-aged satyr prancing about the office where some genuinely great men have done some genuinely great work, while distasteful, hardly counts as the crime of the century. But the finger wag was the memorable part - how dare we actually ask a question of him! Who are we, anyway? Actually, we're his bosses - try wagging a finger at the guy behind the desk the next time you go into a job interview and see how that works out. If he had handled it in just about any other way, the results couldn't have been worse. Making a situation worse by his posturing is not the sign of a skillful politician.

And then there was the spectacle of Hillarycare. The less said about that amateurish debacle, the better.

OK, so he's no miracle man on foreign or domestic politics. How was he on the "bully pulpit"? That has been a useful, maybe even vital, tool of the Presidency since Teddy R's skillful utilization in the trustbuster days. FDR's boosting of, well, socialism, and LBJ's pitches for the Great Society were further campaigns run from the bully pulpit. Did BJC use the pulpit to get America talking and thinking about some previously invisible social crises?

Well, no. He gave long diffuse speeches which never revealed a clear thought or insight, or hinted at anything which hadn't been said better by other men thirty years earlier. (I'm comparing BJC's bloviations to Kennedy, whose speeches I'm just barely able to remember.) His inability to move the conversation past the current stumbling blocks was astonishing. He could never get, say, abortion, past a "woman's right to choose." If that was enough, the problem would be long past. Rote repetition of simple-minded mantras is a job for a TV spot or a full-page ad in the Times, not for the presidential pulpit.

BJC never really said or did anything presidential - he never really stopped campaigning. Normally once one gets into the office, it's time to stop talking about how wonderful it's going to be and to start doing it. That never happened. At best he went from telling us what a great president he'd be (or what a great president the two of them would be - remember that "two for the price of one" fantasy?) to constant speculation about how history would remember him. But remember him for what? Being obsessed with how history would remember him, apparently. In that case, he's probably at the top - I'm aware of no other American president who fretted so much, and so publicly, about the question, while doing nothing substantial or at least memorable to answer it.

I don't believe BJC wanted to be president at all - he wanted to be JFK, and probably did ever since he met JFK when he was a kid. Of course war hero was out of the question; whether BJC was a draft-dodger or not isn't such an important question, and I'm inclined to give anyone the benefit of the doubt on that. But unlike JFK, BJC certainly didn't do anything to try to rescue his shipwrecked crew. So skip that - maybe he could still be a pseudo-JFK. The measure of his failure? Compare Marilyn Monroe to Monica.

So, maybe BJC didn't make very good use of the pulpit. What else might a "favorability" rating mean? The late Arthur Schlesinger Jr (a historian, not to be confused with James Schlesinger, sometime member of various US cabinets) occasionally published a poll taken among American historians and other poobahs, rating the US presidents. What's mainly clear is that even people who have studied the question can't really agree on what makes a great, or good, or poor President. On thing that Schlesinger's pollees seem to agree on was that the pre-Civil War presidents , from Zach Taylor to Buchanan, get poor ratings, I'd guess for basically fiddling while the slave states burned. I think BJC will end up being ranked down there with those paragons. In fact the BJC presidency can be seen as eight years of lost opportunities. It wasn't so much what he did as what he didn't do, should have done, or could have done which defined the BJC years.
 

kewger

Just Browsing
Joined
Apr 12, 2006
Posts
32
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
151
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
and yet George managed to one-up him on every one of those charges. Amazing.

Perhaps you could list me the time when over 80 Americans were killed by the ATF/FBI under W's watch.

How about the time when an American Mother holding her baby was shot by an FBI sniper along with the time when a young boy was shot running away from an FBI sniper under W's watch?

How about naming the attack when, after U. S. property and embassies were bombed five times, W. responded with the bombing of an aspirin factory?

Also, what military secrets were sold by W. to gain contributions to the Republican party?

And as I recall, didn't W. serve in the military, while coward Clinton went to Stockholm and Moscow to show his support for the Communists while brave American soldiers were being killed BY THE THOUSANDS in Vietnam to defend the free world?

Liberals can never argue on facts, they always use emotion. The do gooders always want to act on THEIR EMOTIONS with OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY. If that's not the definition of a liberty thief, I don't know what is.
 

madame_zora

Sexy Member
Joined
May 5, 2004
Posts
9,608
Media
0
Likes
51
Points
258
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Perhaps you could list me the time when over 80 Americans were killed by the ATF/FBI under W's watch.

How about the time when an American Mother holding her baby was shot by an FBI sniper along with the time when a young boy was shot running away from an FBI sniper under W's watch?

How about naming the attack when, after U. S. property and embassies were bombed five times, W. responded with the bombing of an aspirin factory?

Also, what military secrets were sold by W. to gain contributions to the Republican party?

And as I recall, didn't W. serve in the military, while coward Clinton went to Stockholm and Moscow to show his support for the Communists while brave American soldiers were being killed BY THE THOUSANDS in Vietnam to defend the free world?

Liberals can never argue on facts, they always use emotion. The do gooders always want to act on THEIR EMOTIONS with OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY. If that's not the definition of a liberty thief, I don't know what is.


I'll admit it up front- I don't have whatever it would take to answer you seriously after you admit to supporting our position in Vietnam, and even bringing up the issue of who killed the most Americans between bush and Clinton. I do have a song:
 

Matthew

Legendary Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Posts
7,291
Media
0
Likes
1,503
Points
583
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Liberals can never argue on facts, they always use emotion. The do gooders always want to act on THEIR EMOTIONS with OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY. If that's not the definition of a liberty thief, I don't know what is.

JQBlonde redux?
 

amiegrrl

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Posts
248
Media
0
Likes
8
Points
163
Location
Midwest USA
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Female
Perhaps you could list me the time when over 80 Americans were killed by the ATF/FBI under W's watch.

How about the time when an American Mother holding her baby was shot by an FBI sniper along with the time when a young boy was shot running away from an FBI sniper under W's watch?

How about naming the attack when, after U. S. property and embassies were bombed five times, W. responded with the bombing of an aspirin factory?

Also, what military secrets were sold by W. to gain contributions to the Republican party?

And as I recall, didn't W. serve in the military, while coward Clinton went to Stockholm and Moscow to show his support for the Communists while brave American soldiers were being killed BY THE THOUSANDS in Vietnam to defend the free world?

Liberals can never argue on facts, they always use emotion. The do gooders always want to act on THEIR EMOTIONS with OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY. If that's not the definition of a liberty thief, I don't know what is.

Agreed with Madame Zora ... wow. DID Dubya serve in the military? I don't recall his distinguished military record ever coming up for conversation. I doubt it exists... I find it amusing that you refer to Liberals as "Do-Gooders". I couldn't agree more. I guess if being a Liberty-Theif means standing up for the rights of PEOPLE versus money-mongering, self-righteous bigotry, and worthless wasting of other people's children's lives .. Then right on. Speaking of other people's money .. didn't we have a SURPLUS before W. came into office? Hmmm... facts, facts... funny things...
 

SteveHd

Sexy Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2006
Posts
3,678
Media
0
Likes
79
Points
183
Location
Daytona
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
DID Dubya serve in the military? I don't recall his distinguished military record ever coming up for conversation. I doubt it exists...
For the record, GWB joined the Nat. Guard and was trained to fly F-102 jets. History note: The F-102 had about one fatal accident per 40,000 flight hours. A risky plane by military standards.
 

B_big dirigible

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Posts
2,672
Media
0
Likes
12
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
DID Dubya serve in the military? I don't recall his distinguished military record ever coming up for conversation. I doubt it exists...
That and related crises like Rathergate only dominated American political discourse for about three or four years, so I can see how somebody might have missed it all.
 

SpeedoGuy

Sexy Member
Joined
May 18, 2004
Posts
4,166
Media
7
Likes
41
Points
258
Age
60
Location
Pacific Northwest, USA
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
Perhaps you could list me the time when over 80 Americans were killed by the ATF/FBI under W's watch.

No. 3000 killed while rocket boy read from a children's book.

How about the time when an American Mother holding her baby was shot by an FBI sniper along with the time when a young boy was shot running away from an FBI sniper under W's watch?

What kind of mother holes up in a fortress with a violent, survivalist wingnut resisting a duly issued arrest warrant?

How about naming the attack when, after U. S. property and embassies were bombed five times, W. responded with the bombing of an aspirin factory?

How about lying to contrive a reason for an attack on an entire nation that had nothing to do with 9/11?

Also, what military secrets were sold by W. to gain contributions to the Republican party?

How about that our "ally" Pakistan sold nuclear secrets to governments considered terrorists by the Bushistas?

And as I recall, didn't W. serve in the military,

Frat boy W patrolling the skies over Texas against the vaunted Cuban Air Force? I guess so, when he wasn't missing his flight physicals.

If that's not the definition of a liberty thief, I don't know what is.


You're right. You don't know.
 

kewger

Just Browsing
Joined
Apr 12, 2006
Posts
32
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
151
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
Agreed with Madame Zora ... wow. DID Dubya serve in the military? I don't recall his distinguished military record ever coming up for conversation. I doubt it exists... I find it amusing that you refer to Liberals as "Do-Gooders". I couldn't agree more. I guess if being a Liberty-Theif means standing up for the rights of PEOPLE versus money-mongering, self-righteous bigotry, and worthless wasting of other people's children's lives .. Then right on. Speaking of other people's money .. didn't we have a SURPLUS before W. came into office? Hmmm... facts, facts... funny things...

W. served in the Air National Guard protecting you, Madame Zora, from the Russian Bear Bombers while brave American soldiers were fighting the Russian-backed Communist North Vietnam troops. Willie was sucking a joint in Stockholm or Moscow at the time.

Definition of a liberal do-gooder: Someone who wants to legally steal the income of a productive person to give to another, usually an alcoholic, drug users, or bum who refuses to work. Lenin, Stalin, and Mao were experts in this area. No one has the right to steal my money for their own pet purpose. I believe in the US Constitution.

We had a surplus because 1. A Republican Congress spent less than the rate of inflation 2. The Reagan tax cuts spurred the economy (yeah, thats right, supply side economics actually works) and, 3. We had no war because Willie refused to fight, letting W. take the heat for his refusal to defend the US. And then we saw the result, 9/11. How much have you heard from Gadhafi lately? Peace through strength, cowardice only gets you hung.
 

kewger

Just Browsing
Joined
Apr 12, 2006
Posts
32
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
151
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
No. 3000 killed while rocket boy read from a children's book.



What kind of mother holes up in a fortress with a violent, survivalist wingnut resisting a duly issued arrest warrant?



How about lying to contrive a reason for an attack on an entire nation that had nothing to do with 9/11?




How about that our "ally" Pakistan sold nuclear secrets to governments considered terrorists by the Bushistas?



Frat boy W patrolling the skies over Texas against the vaunted Cuban Air Force? I guess so, when he wasn't missing his flight physicals.




You're right. You don't know.

Speedoguy,

I said ATF/FBI. Are you one of those conspiracy people who thinks W bombed the WTC using demolition experts?

The mother had no warrant against her. You think its OK to kill anyone that is related to a SUSPECTED and not tried lawbreaker?

Sadam was looking for yellowcake, its a known fact. And where did the terrorists run when we invaded Afghanistan? Iraq. We will find the terrorists AND THE NATIONS THAT HARBOR THEM.

Name an AMERICAN President besides Clinton that has divulged missle secrets to a Communist country.

George Bush fulfilled his military obligation to his country and has an Honorable Discharge. Bill Clinton should have been charged with treason. I never talked to one person, from the thousands who served, who knew anyone who escaped an induction notice. Bill stands alone.