Originally posted by Freddie53+Jun 22 2005, 06:06 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Freddie53 @ Jun 22 2005, 06:06 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>
Originally posted by jay_too@Jun 22 2005, 11:07 AM
Originally posted by Dr Rock@Jun 22 2005, 12:41 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Onslow
@Jun 22 2005, 12:27 PM
He has however, in my view been a more than adequate president and (this is where I will be attacked) much better than his predecessor.[post=323021]Quoted post[/post]
how?
[post=323027]Quoted post[/post]
This should be an interesting response.
[post=323050]Quoted post[/post]
Onslow,
Overall your post was wonderful. But how can you say that Junior was much better than Bill Clinton? During the Clinton years Bill Clinton took a huge budget deficit and turned it into a surplus. We had peace. Bill Clinon was very highly respected in the world. Junior is not. Sure Bill did something in his personal life that violated the vows of his marriage. But that was a problem betwen Bill and Hillary. Not the rest of us. After spending millions of dollars the Republicans couldn't find anything on Bill or Hillary. Under Clinton in the end, no one in the Clinton Administration has been found guilty of any wrong doing. That is the best record of any president in modern history. This information is at one of the displays in the Clinton Library in Little Rock, Arkansas.
UJdeddddddddddddddddddddddddddd
The US owexxxxcd less money when Clinton left office then when he went in.
There was peace
It was the longest period of prosperity.
Crime went down.
The US was respected in the world.
Under Junior.
We have the largest budget deficit in history
We are at war in which our country is not unified on the progress of this war.
We are im a recession.
The US, particularly George Bush, is hated in parts of the world.
So how could you come up wih George Bush being a better President then Clinton?
[post=323078]Quoted post[/post]
[/b][/quote]
Perception versus reality sometimes doesn't make any difference as far as the bottom line is concerned, but there are factual errors in your post about Clinton. First, Clinton didn't "take" a huge deficit and turn it into a huge surplus. His own administration was not forecasting surpluses until they began occuring, then they made the error of forecasting them as far as the eye could see, all the while disregarding any chance of an economic downturn or national catastrophe when it came to those 10 year forecasts.
Also, we went through a stock market bubble that resulted in several years of never before seen increases in all stock market averages, which has the by-product of making states and nat'l govt's giddy with unexpected revenue trains when people have to declare that income on their taxes.
In one sense, it's both fair and unfair to pile on GW Bush for the deficits he's run up while President. I despise reckless spending as it cannot continue unabated, but then again I've never been at the helm of the wealthiest country on earth when it suffers the worst one-day attack on its own soil in its entire history...nor had to deal with the economic turmoil that the attack caused. Just like your bottom line responds to massive infusions of cash so does the bottom line of nearly 300 million other Americans, hence why the guys and gals in DC are so fond of spending your money (and that of 4 generations from now) and will be until everyone is willing to stand up and change the system. But that's another post for another day...
Clinton highly respected in the world....true if you equate respect with not trying to force anyone to do anything that someone else (like our friends the French) didn't want them to. The cold war might have been won but threats to our country and way of life didn't take the 10 years off. They spent that time trying to figure out how to exactly strike at us, and showed about 4 yrs ago they passed their final exams. It's easy to say we're "not respected" when we offend the mighty French, Germans, and Russians but also remember they all were in bed with Saddam and/or currently are with the Iranians, so is it any wonder they blather on at length at ANYTHING we want to do if it involves their secret/not so secret, vested interests? Let's not forget the highly vaunted UN's "Oil for Food" scandal that was little more than welfare for a mideast dictator that will be on trial soon.
Briefly, since we're talking about Bill's problems staying in his briefs, even old senator Byrd himself stated, on the day of the impeachment vote, that (word to the effect) that we'll be letting him off today since his approval ratings are so high. Sen Byrd didn't dispute the legal angle, just that it was mostly lost on the public with a president they so univerally liked. As to special prosecutors, that was luckily one feature of DC life they let expire a few years ago. However, I wonder how many times Hillary loves being reminded it was a "vast, right wing conspiracy" that was behind fanning the flames of the story of her husband and the beret wearing intern? I seriously doubt there were any Republicans in the room when she and Bill were getting it on with a stogie or placing white spots on blue dresses.
As to being unified in the war effort, in what recent wars has our country been unified? The senate barely gave Bush I "permission" to go to war in Desert Storm...the public was behind our efforts in the Balkans so long as Clinton fought it from above 15,000 feet and with only smart bombs and cruise missles. It's hard to be unified for any war from what I've learned from history, short of an effort like WWII. Our society encourages openness and debate, therefore you have to realize "unified" is a relative term.
I don't approve of each and every thing Prez Bush has done or proposes to do. Hopefully nobody is a mindless automoton in that respect no matter their party affiliation or persuasion. However, I cannot understand why those of you that oppose him oppose EVERYTHING about him. If you oppose his views on gays, that is your principled right and I can understand that. Don't like how he's proposing we prosecute the war in Iraq, fine, make your point. But if you support stuff what like Sen Durbin of Ill recently said (and has since apologized for) that claimed our camps at gitmo were comparable to Gulags and Concentration Camps...then I humbly suggest you watch some WWII/Cold War history clips to get a refresher on what they were all about.
I even guess Bush standing up today, stating that he'd like to push forward on building nuclear power plants will be blasted as yet another attempt by Bush to destroy the environment, pay back his buddies in the energy industry, or who knows what, but I'm assured of one thing...it'll be blasted by the left. At least some things are dependable in life.................
Sincerely,
Steve
