for Top Gun...

[USMC the Almighty]

I have seen you call Bill Cinton a "great president" and a "phenomenal president" a number of times on these boards. So my question to you is why? What makes him stand out from the other custodial presidents?

[Beetle Bailey]

I have seen you call Bill Cinton a "great president" and a "phenomenal president" a number of times on these boards. So my question to you is why? What makes him stand out from the other custodial presidents?

People have short memories. Many of the members of this forum are not old enough to remember many presidents. So I guess it's just a matter of comparison with what they know. If all you know is Bush, Clinton and then Bush again; Clinton begins to look pretty good.

[top gun]

I have seen you call Bill Clinton a "great president" and a "phenomenal president" a number of times on these boards. So my question to you is why? What makes him stand out from the other custodial presidents?

Well I'm 50 years old so my personal political memories go back to when I was in elementary school.

I remember JFK. I still remember many of his inspirational speeches. His standing up to Russia. His stepping up in the Civil right struggle. I remember school being let out the day he was assassinated and my mother crying.

I remember Nixon. Burglary, Cover-Up... eventual resignation... Watergate. I remember the constant lying about how great the war was going in Vietnam when it absolutely wasn't (sounds sort of familiar again).

I remember Ford. A decent person. Bland president. Gave a full pardon to his crooked predecessor Nixon.

I remember Carter. A wonderful God fairing peace minded man. Couldn't see his way steering the country very well with two hands and a flashlight though.

I remember Reagan. "Plausible deniability" I don't remember anything about that during the Iran-Contra arms for hostages scandal. Was a good public speaker that made people feel good. Ran up the cost of the arms race until it bankrupted Russia. A good thing except that all of his extreme deficit spending came back to wreck our own economy (and history is now repeating with Republican deficit spending is in FULL swing).

I remember Bush #1. Good person actually... a lot more centrist than Reagan. Not an inspiring public speaker but had some understanding of foreign policy. Was saddled with all that Reagan arms race debt that came a calling as it always does... Terrible economic times for the country... up there with Carter's.

I remember Bill Clinton. As good as they come public speaking and explaining a message. Someone who brought the Democratic Party away from the Jessie Jackson far Left over the the middle. Worked hard to keep people talking together about peace in the Middle East. Presided over an almost perfect economy for two full terms (8 years) much of which happened through consumer confidence going through the roof do to his "war" on the Republican built deficit. Not only under Clinton's watch did we pay that monster off but we even built up a surplus.

While it's true he was relentlessly witch hunted from the Right on anything imaginable to try and kill off a JFK style wildly popular political legacy he did have a flaw for the ladies. I don't like it because it hurt the Democratic Juggernaut that would have surely come to pass had he not made those types of personal mistakes... but also I've concluded that these were not job mistakes. I wish he would have done what Bush #2 has done repeatedly when asked about his rampant drug use in college and just say "no comment on my personal life" but he didn't. Still if his his wife and daughter can forgive him and he ran my country well... then he did the job I elected him for. The proof was in the numbers. President Bill Clinton continued to have about a 62% job approval rating even after Impeachment when he concluded his 2nd term and left office.

I don't want to remember Bush #2 but I will. Lied us into war. Growing our government at it's highest rate ever dollar wise. Spending our tax money and building up a budget deficit like there is no tomorrow. Terrible at foreign policy. Hurt our standing in the world. Endorses civil liberty abuses against not only those captured in war but also the American people themselves. Looks the other way on torture. Commutes Libby's jail sentence to assure he never speaks on the involvement of Cheney and himself in the CIA operative outing. Probably not even at his low point yet and he has like a 27% job approval rating.

Looking at it all I have no choice but to appreciate what JFK and President Bill Clinton did for our nation. Steering the ship and not wrecking the ship is important.

[Truth-Bringer]

I remember Bush #1. Good person actually...

I'd have to disagree on that. He's just another NWO elitist. Another economically liberal/collectivist Republican.


I remember Bill Clinton. As good as they come public speaking and explaining a message.

Irrelevant. Someone can lie eloquently and brilliantly - that does not change a lie to truth though. We saw how passionately and eloquently he could lie to the nation as he claimed to "not have sex with that woman" while wagging his finger at us in the camera. Yeah, right... Charisma, public speaking ability, status - those things are all ultimately irrelevant. The only thing that matters is logical truth - and clinton had a problem with speaking the truth.


Someone who brought the Democratic Party away from the Jessie Jackson far Left over the the middle.

Please explain what a President Jesse Jackson would have done that would have been much more "far left" than Clinton. Please explain the specific policy differences between what you term as "far left" and "center left."

Worked hard to keep people talking together about peace in the Middle East.

And failed. And he did not change our foreign policy which is the cause of the terrorist attacks against us.

Presided over an almost perfect economy for two full terms (8 years) much of which happened through consumer confidence going through the roof do to his "war" on the Republican built deficit. Not only under Clinton's watch did we pay that monster off but we even built up a surplus.

Good God at the revisionist history we're getting here... Although it was a political move to deny Clinton spending power - the Republican Congress was what held him in check.

And "perfect" economy? You guys who ignore the national debt while focusing on the deficit are quite funny. As long as the national debt keeps rising, bad times are ahead. Even some offices of the government are admitting this now:

http://www.gao.gov/cghome/d07527cg.pdf

Clinton did nothing to reduce the national debt. The national debt was far higher when he left office. The only difference is that it didn't grow as fast as it has under Bush, but that's still not a moral policy. One cannot say "Well I'm moral because while I placed future generations of unborn Americans in greater debt, I didn't do it as fast as Bush."


While it's true he was relentlessly witch hunted from the Right on anything imaginable to try and kill off a JFK style wildly popular political legacy

ROTFLMAO. JFK style? Wildly popular? The guy was never even elected with a majority vote. He was a total fluke candidate who wouldn't have won in 1992 without the recession hitting.

I don't like it because it hurt the Democratic Juggernaut that would have surely come to pass had he not made those types of personal mistakes...

Democratic juggernaut? Again, ROTFLMAO. After you had a sitting speaker of the house voted out for the first time in over 150 years! And you lost Congress in a massive landslide... The American public isn't predominantly liberal - they're just predominantly ignorant and easily deceived by slick politicians like Clinton:

http://houseofpolitics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1023


but also I've concluded that these were not job mistakes. I wish he would have done what Bush #2 has done repeatedly when asked about his rampant drug use in college and just say "no comment on my personal life" but he didn't.

Well that's because he was so used to lying. (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/LIES.html)

You want the truth about Clinton's term? Then start looking behind the scenes. (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/politics.html)

The proof was in the numbers. President Bill Clinton continued to have about a 62% job approval rating even after Impeachment when he concluded his 2nd term and left office.

After the Republican Congress had pulled him to the right and restrained his spending. Clinton just lucked out thanks to the dot com boom. Clinton had nothing to do with that. In fact, it would have never happened without the Reagan tax cuts - simply because people would not have been able to profit from creating all these new companies.

I don't want to remember Bush #2 but I will.

Bush has been a disaster, but Clinton was no savior. They're Nero and Caligula.

[SW85]

No, they're both Neroes. (Caligula's reign was mercifully limited to four years).

You may have left out China-gate, Truthbringer (I admit I skimmed your post) -- the selling of nuclear weapons technology to China in exchange for campaign donations. That alone is enough to sour me on the man permanently, and that's before you add in the general sleaziness that marked his administration (the adultery, sexual harrassment, and yes, there were just as many scandals as there were under Bush and they all faded quickly into obscurity -- Travelgate, Filegate, Whitewater, etc).

The only thing Clinton has done better than Bush II was spin, as witnessed by the fact that people still like him and are willing to vote for his hectoring shrew of a wife.

[Coyote]

No, they're both Neroes. (Caligula's reign was mercifully limited to four years).

You may have left out China-gate, Truthbringer (I admit I skimmed your post) -- the selling of nuclear weapons technology to China in exchange for campaign donations. That alone is enough to sour me on the man permanently, and that's before you add in the general sleaziness that marked his administration (the adultery, sexual harrassment, and yes, there were just as many scandals as there were under Bush and they all faded quickly into obscurity -- Travelgate, Filegate, Whitewater, etc).

The only thing Clinton has done better than Bush II was spin, as witnessed by the fact that people still like him and are willing to vote for his hectoring shrew of a wife.

Maybe people still like because...in hindsight, they realize he wasn't so bad afterall...especially now that the rightwing spin is wearing thin.

[top gun]

Truth-Bringer;16581]I'd have to disagree on that. He's just another NWO elitist. Another economically liberal/collectivist Republican.

Please understand I'm only listing the pros and cons as I've seen them. I didn't say I voted for him. I'm just comparing generalities.

Irrelevant. Someone can lie eloquently and brilliantly - that does not change a lie to truth though. We saw how passionately and eloquently he could lie to the nation as he claimed to "not have sex with that woman" while wagging his finger at us in the camera. Yeah, right... Charisma, public speaking ability, status - those things are all ultimately irrelevant. The only thing that matters is logical truth - and clinton had a problem with speaking the truth.

Well you're wrong here. Being able to present a vision clearly and connect with the American people is VERY important. In fact that's often what gets people elected in the first place. You can be as book smart as the day is long but if you can't connect you won't win much or stay long. A good example would be Adlai Stevenson v. Eisenhower.

FAR to much was made over Clinton having an affair. Yes it was wrong to lie about it under oath. But those questions had absolutely nothing to do with the nation nor his job performance. He was brilliant and a very hard worker for the American people.

I'm not justifying the lie but I do think people like to be overly critical at times and block out the circumstances and the laws of human nature. Every single day THOUSANDS of men and women walk right up in divorce court, swear to tell the truth, and then lie about having affairs. This isn't lying us into war or burglarizing the opposition party. I try to keep some perspective here.

Please explain what a President Jesse Jackson would have done that would have been much more "far left" than Clinton. Please explain the specific policy differences between what you term as "far left" and "center left."

Come on my friend. Jesse Jackson was/is far Left of Clinton. Clinton supported and authorized sweeping changes in welfare reform. Clinton focused on balancing the budget and ridding us of a Republican monster budget defecit and many other issues bringing the Democratic Party fairly peacefully towards the middle.

And failed. And he did not change our foreign policy which is the cause of the terrorist attacks against us.

I'm not trying to be argumentative but that's just BS and you know it. No president can prevent all terrorist attacks. They can try to minimize them. They can work with other nations toward peace. But they cannot just make it happen. They can however make it worse as we have now.

To blame Clinton for not stopping terrorism in the future is a interesting concept. I presume you are a fair minded, good for the goose good for the gander type person. Being such you must blame Ronald Reagan for not stopping terrorism during his 2 terms in office that led to the Marine barracks bombing in Lebanon?????????? Because it is the exact same scenario!

Good God at the revisionist history we're getting here... Although it was a political move to deny Clinton spending power - the Republican Congress was what held him in check.

There you go again. Personal feelings aside the truth is well documented. Clinton wanted and pushed for sweeping spending cuts. It's been noted hundreds of times even on 60 Minutes that President Clinton even had a small sign plaque on his desk in the Oval office that read... "It's the economy stupid!" Not exactly something someone unconcerned with the economy would have.

And "perfect" economy? You guys who ignore the national debt while focusing on the deficit are quite funny. As long as the national debt keeps rising, bad times are ahead. Even some offices of the government are admitting this now:

http://www.gao.gov/cghome/d07527cg.pdf

Clinton did nothing to reduce the national debt. The national debt was far higher when he left office. The only difference is that it didn't grow as fast as it has under Bush, but that's still not a moral policy. One cannot say "Well I'm moral because while I placed future generations of unborn Americans in greater debt, I didn't do it as fast as Bush."

The economy was excellent. I was born in 1957 so I remember well life through every president JFK and on. I've felt good and bad economies. The national debt is important. The budget defecit is important. The fact is Clinton started attacking a major problem built up during the Reagan years. That's just the fact of the matter.

And it's not who's more "moral" about the economy... it's who's at least trying.

ROTFLMAO. JFK style? Wildly popular? The guy was never even elected with a majority vote. He was a total fluke candidate who wouldn't have won in 1992 without the recession hitting.

I'll just say two things. Recession hitting why :D and 62% job approval rating even after impeachment.

Democratic juggernaut? Again, ROTFLMAO. After you had a sitting speaker of the house voted out for the first time in over 150 years! And you lost Congress in a massive landslide... The American public isn't predominantly liberal - they're just predominantly ignorant and easily deceived by slick politicians like Clinton:

You're entitled to your opinion. I think we are seeing the pendulum swing back now aren't we. The Republican contract with America ended up being the culture of corruption manifesto. Gingrich was running around with his secretary during the Clinton witch hunt, left his wife while she was in the hospital and married her... didn't even try to run for re-election. Gay Republicans popping out all over. People started noticing the hypocrisy from that side of the aisle my friend.

After the Republican Congress had pulled him to the right and restrained his spending. Clinton just lucked out thanks to the dot com boom. Clinton had nothing to do with that. In fact, it would have never happened without the Reagan tax cuts - simply because people would not have been able to profit from creating all these new companies.

Now you're just being silly so I won't even make much comment. None of that Reagan "Trickle Down" or as Bush #1 called it "Voodoo Economics" did crap but make the rich a little richer. Not a big secret.

As the old joke goes... Remember the time when the only thing the president screwed were his girlfriends?

Man I miss those times!!!!!!! :D

[top gun]

No, they're both Neroes. (Caligula's reign was mercifully limited to four years).

You may have left out China-gate, Truthbringer (I admit I skimmed your post) -- the selling of nuclear weapons technology to China in exchange for campaign donations. That alone is enough to sour me on the man permanently, and that's before you add in the general sleaziness that marked his administration (the adultery, sexual harrassment, and yes, there were just as many scandals as there were under Bush and they all faded quickly into obscurity -- Travelgate, Filegate, Whitewater, etc).

The only thing Clinton has done better than Bush II was spin, as witnessed by the fact that people still like him and are willing to vote for his hectoring shrew of a wife.

Well of course I disagree. I think the country would be very lucky to have another Clinton the Whitehouse. But any leading Democratic candidate would be light years better than George W. Bush so I'll support any of them. :)

[USMC the Almighty]

[COLOR="DarkRed"]I remember Bill Clinton. As good as they come public speaking and explaining a message.

So were a lot of Presidents. I'm asking you what made him stand out.

Someone who brought the Democratic Party away from the Jessie Jackson far Left over the the middle.

No, that was actually the Republican Congress that forced him to moderate his position.

Worked hard to keep people talking together about peace in the Middle East.

Unsuccessfully of course. He banked his entire legacy on Middle Eastern peace and he failed.

Presided over an almost perfect economy for two full terms (8 years) much of which happened through consumer confidence going through the roof do to his "war" on the Republican built deficit.

Has almost nothing to do with President. He was fortunate to be in the middle of the computer/information age.

Not only under Clinton's watch did we pay that monster off but we even built up a surplus.

So did Calvin Coolidge. This alone doesn't make him stand out.


While it's true he was relentlessly witch hunted from the Right on anything imaginable to try

...though not nearly to the extent that the leftist media goes after President Bush.

President Bill Clinton continued to have about a 62% job approval rating even after Impeachment when he concluded his 2nd term and left office.

No, during the impeachment hearings, he actually dipped below 30%.

[top gun]

USMC the Almighty;16659]So were a lot of Presidents. I'm asking you what made him stand out.

I think I answered that and in pretty good detail in my response to truth-bringer so I won't type it all out again. He did a very good job as to working hard and leading our country. He didn't win a world war or anything but as I said often times sailing the ship competently and not sinking the ship is pretty darn important.

No, that was actually the Republican Congress that forced him to moderate his position.

As someone who was extremely involved at the time I can tell you unequivocally that is a untrue. Clinton had a great desire to trim the budget and he did just that. If you want to believe the old scam that Republicans are somehow "frugal" go ahead but the numbers are crystal clear on the matter.

Unsuccessfully of course. He banked his entire legacy on Middle Eastern peace and he failed.

Another thing that is just not so. President Clinton did work hard as he did with many things to keep the Israelis and the Palestinians talking and at truce. Not all things work out long term just because America wants it that way. We are not the World Police... although you couldn't tell that at this moment. If I go with your premise than let's say that Reagan also failed due to the terrorist bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon.

Has almost nothing to do with President. He was fortunate to be in the middle of the computer/information age.

I really don't know what to say. Times were about as good as they get for 8 straight years with consumer confidence (which has a lot to do with belief in leadership and course) and you say Clinton barely had to show up for work. 911 happens and all the messes since then with Bush a the helm... those are all Clinton's fault. It so obviously partisan sour grapes and nothing more. But you have a right to spin as you wish... I guess?

So did Calvin Coolidge. This alone doesn't make him stand out.
And yet again... he was a respected world leader that did a good job running my country. That's all I ask. I don't want a Pope and I don't expect Superman.

...though not nearly to the extent that the leftist media goes after President Bush.

The right loves to spin that. The truth is most Americans are moderates not hard Left nor hard right. MAINSTREAM media is mainstream. Moderate mainstream may not be neo-con hard right but then it's not trying to be... it's MODERATE my friend!

No, during the impeachment hearings, he actually dipped below 30%.


Do ya think??? After all that Republican witch hunting and demonization that led to nada except about having a consensual adult affair that he then tried to keep personal and protect the feelings of his wife and child by disclaiming it.

This is why I so love it when the Republicans get caught out being gay or seducing Congressional pages. Or like when Newt served his wife divorce papers when she was in the hospital so he could marry his secretary. All this Republican holier than thou stuff...

And "OF COURSE" Clinton's numbers dropped during the impeachment hearings... take your foot off the spin machine for a second :)... what I said was even with that they were back up to 62% when he left office. But I was even wrong. It was actually 65%! :)

USA TODAY
01/17/2001 - Updated 08:03 PM ET

Clinton: Retired, but hardly retiring

By Mimi Hall, USA TODAY

Going out on a high

Despite his legal difficulties, Clinton leaves office with a 65% approval rating in a recent USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll, the highest for a departing president in the half-century of modern polling. And, barring an accident or illness - on Tuesday doctors said a lesion removed from Clinton's back was a common and treatable skin cancer, Clinton could remain active in public life for another 20 or 30 years.

[Truth-Bringer]

Please understand I'm only listing the pros and cons as I've seen them. I didn't say I voted for him. I'm just comparing generalities.

Have you ever voted for a Republican or a third party candidate for President? Because you appear to be nothing more than a partisan Democrat hack.:rolleyes:



Well you're wrong here. Being able to present a vision clearly and connect with the American people is VERY important. In fact that's often what gets people elected in the first place. You can be as book smart as the day is long but if you can't connect you won't win much or stay long. A good example would be Adlai Stevenson v. Eisenhower.

Again, this is the problem with the ignorance of the general population that I mentioned earlier. There is no "vision" to be presented. Our leaders should be stewards for the protection of each individual's unalienable rights under Natural Law. Each and every individual should have the liberty to engage in any peaceful, honest, voluntary activity that he or she chooses to participate in. Government should only become involved if someone uses force, fraud or coercion against innocent people. That is government's only legitimate role.

Now that is a logical truth. I shouldn't have to "sell" it to anyone. You should accept the truth and respect my right to engage in any peaceful, honest, voluntary activity that I choose. And I should respect your right to do the same.


FAR to much was made over Clinton having an affair.

Yes, far too much was made over the affair. They should have focused on his real crimes.

Yes it was wrong to lie about it under oath. But those questions had absolutely nothing to do with the nation nor his job performance. He was brilliant and a very hard worker for the American people.

Brilliant? No. He was misguided. Hard worker? He was a hard worker for himself and trying to secure some type of legacy.

I try to keep some perspective here.

How about the perspective that this didn't happen just once, but was happening with multiple women on a near constant basis? And that he was accused of harassing and raping some of the women? How about the perspective that it didn't happen with any other President? How about the perspective that a female foreign operative could have gained access to the President in this manner? In truth, there are lots of different perspectives to think about.


Come on my friend. Jesse Jackson was/is far Left of Clinton.

I'm not disagreeing with that. How's your reading comprehension these days? I'm asking you to DEFINE WHAT THAT MEANS EXACTLY.

Clinton supported and authorized sweeping changes in welfare reform. Clinton focused on balancing the budget and ridding us of a Republican monster budget defecit and many other issues bringing the Democratic Party fairly peacefully towards the middle.

Clinton wanted none of that. The Republicans took control of Congress and passed welfare reform on their own. Clinton just looked at the polls and saw it was popular and signed it based on an opinion poll. Clinton never would have pushed for welfare reform on his own.

And as far as the deficit, the original tax package in '90 was supposed to reduce the deficit - IT DIDN'T. I remember Jay Rockfeller being asked why it didn't work - his answer: "Because Bush didn't care." ROTFLMAO. "Caring" does not make a policy work. The percentage cuts or increases are what they are. Whatever happens is based on the laws of economics - not on "caring."

The Republicans were the ones who forced cuts in the spending levels. The Democrats fought it tooth and nail. I still remember the press conference with the Democrats in Congress at that time. They claimed there would be "children starving in the streets" after the Republicans alleged cuts of the school lunch program. No such thing ever happened after the cuts in spending occurred. I still have yet to see any starving children who were denied their lunches.



I'm not trying to be argumentative but that's just BS and you know it. No president can prevent all terrorist attacks.

No, they could not prevent all terrorist attacks, but that wasn't my point. You really like to argue Straw Men, don't you? My point is that certain policies make us a target for terrorists - which Bin Laden specifically stated in his fatwa.


To blame Clinton for not stopping terrorism in the future is a interesting concept. I presume you are a fair minded, good for the goose good for the gander type person. Being such you must blame Ronald Reagan for not stopping terrorism during his 2 terms in office that led to the Marine barracks bombing in Lebanon?????????? Because it is the exact same scenario!

Indeed I do. Which is why I'm a member of the Libertarian Party. I only vote for Libertarians. I do not vote for Democrats or Republicans, although this time I would vote for Ron Paul if he won the nomination because he is the only candidate from the major parties running who wants to change our foreign policy back to noninterventionism.




There you go again. Personal feelings aside the truth is well documented. Clinton wanted and pushed for sweeping spending cuts. It's been noted hundreds of times even on 60 Minutes that President Clinton even had a small sign plaque on his desk in the Oval office that read... "It's the economy stupid!" Not exactly something someone unconcerned with the economy would have.

And there you again. Clinton only went for spending cuts because the Republicans were forcing his hand. His smaller spending cuts were an attempt to portray the Republicans as wanting to cut spending too much. "It's the economy stupid" had nothing to do with spending cuts. Liberals falsely believe that more government spending and higher taxes equals a better economy, so why on earth would they equate "it's the economy stupid" to spending cuts. The Democrats controlled Congress for over 40 years - never once did they cut spending. Spending increased every single year under their control.


The economy was excellent. I was born in 1957 so I remember well life through every president JFK and on. I've felt good and bad economies.

The worst economy was under Carter. Reagan won big, much to the surprise of the media, and his tax cuts did spur economic growth. The evidence of that was his re-election in a landslide, crushing Mondale who represented Carter's policies.


The national debt is important. The budget defecit is important.

The budget deficit is only important in regards to its relation to the debt. The national debt is the main issue, as the interest payments rise every year, requiring more tax revenue to pay, and burdening future generations. Clinton did nothing to reduce the national debt. The national debt was far greater after he left office.


The fact is Clinton started attacking a major problem built up during the Reagan years. That's just the fact of the matter.

What did the budget deficit and the national debt do under Carter's administration? ;) If you said they went up every single year and the debt topped $1 trillion for the first time in history under Carter's administration, you'd be correct. But yet it's somehow all Reagan's fault...



I'll just say two things. Recession hitting why

Recessions occur at cycles, Einstein. Roughly 10 year business cycles.


You're entitled to your opinion. I think we are seeing the pendulum swing back now aren't we.

No, we aren't. You're still quite delusional aren't you? The Democrats owe their control of the Senate to the Libertarians. Vote totals for Democrat victory in Montana and Missouri were less than the vote totals for the Libertarian candidate in each race. People were voting against the Republicans, not for the Democrats. And you guys just had a sitting minority leader in the Senate voted out - remember Daschle? First time in over 100 years for that as well I think. And some the Democrats elected to the house were pro-gun rights and held far different views than the liberal leadership.

[Truth-Bringer]

Now you're just being silly so I won't even make much comment. None of that Reagan "Trickle Down" or as Bush #1 called it "Voodoo Economics" did crap but make the rich a little richer. Not a big secret.

The rich get richer no matter what system you have. You need to stop worrying about trying to steal their money and worry about your own rights and respecting the rights of others.

The rich did nothing but get richer under your boy Clinton. Here's an article from a liberal website with the facts:

Incomes of the ultra-rich quadrupled in eight years

By Jeremy Johnson

The 400 top-earning US taxpayers nearly quadrupled their income over the past decade, according to a report released by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) last week. The IRS report documents just how much the rich got richer in the decade of the 1990’s. It states that the adjusted gross income (AGI) of these 400 super-rich taxpayers went from an average of $46.8 million in 1992 to $174 million in 2000. Similarly, the minimum AGI required to be included in the elite group rose from $24.4 million to $86.8 million.

The nearly $70 billion in income reported in 2000 on these few tax returns constituted 1.09 percent of the total income reported by all 129 million taxpayers, or over 3,500 times the average. The percentage of income concentrated in the top 400 more than doubled from 0.52 percent in 1992.

While the IRS did not provide details on individual returns, one report indicated that several taxpayers listed incomes greater than $1 billion.

As the incomes of the super-rich rocketed up, the percentage they paid in federal income tax dropped over the eight years from 26.4 percent to 22.3 percent. At the same time, average taxpayers saw their percentage rise from 13.1 percent to 15.4 percent.

These latest statistics confirm the extent to which the Democratic administration of President Clinton presided over a concentration of wealth at the top that went far beyond that of his Republican predecessors, Ronald Reagan and George Bush, Sr.

Rest of article here. (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/jul2003/irs2-j01.shtml)

[Coyote]

Our leaders should be stewards for the protection of each individual's unalienable rights under Natural Law. Each and every individual should have the liberty to engage in any peaceful, honest, voluntary activity that he or she chooses to participate in. Government should only become involved if someone uses force, fraud or coercion against innocent people. That is government's only legitimate role.

Why?...

[top gun]

Truth-Bringer;16694]Have you ever voted for a Republican or a third party candidate for President? Because you appear to be nothing more than a partisan Democrat hack.

That seems a tad bit harsh :). Actually when I look at my entire family and not just me we all tend to vote for "best" candidate at the time. I have voted for Republicans (not recently) and I always declared as an Independent until Clinton's 2nd term. Since I have been a registered Democrat... hack? :D


Again, this is the problem with the ignorance of the general population that I mentioned earlier. There is no "vision" to be presented. Our leaders should be stewards for the protection of each individual's unalienable rights under Natural Law. Each and every individual should have the liberty to engage in any peaceful, honest, voluntary activity that he or she chooses to participate in. Government should only become involved if someone uses force, fraud or coercion against innocent people. That is government's only legitimate role.


I would just say with all due respect... talk is cheap until you have to actually govern something. If it's your belief that somehow Libertarians have all the answers and things would just be so rosy if they were just given a chance I'd say the American people are not buying that sells job in large numbers for a reason.

Brilliant? No. He was misguided. Hard worker? He was a hard worker for himself and trying to secure some type of legacy.

I don't see that I'm persuading you toward the truth of the matter so it would seem just argumentative to respond further on this.

How about the perspective that this didn't happen just once, but was happening with multiple women on a near constant basis? And that he was accused of harassing and raping some of the women? How about the perspective that it didn't happen with any other President? How about the perspective that a female foreign operative could have gained access to the President in this manner? In truth, there are lots of different perspectives to think about.

How about... how about. How about if frogs had wings. Then they wouldn't bump their butts on the ground when they hopped.

Politics breed many attacks and allegations. If there were any legal charges I didn't hear about I'm sure you'll fill me in. If you think Bill Clinton was the first man in a high political power position to have an affair you are seriously misguided. It's probably actually more the norm or at the very least common. I would list names but you already know this to be true. I bet even Libs have affairs...

I'm not disagreeing with that. How's your reading comprehension these days? I'm asking you to DEFINE WHAT THAT MEANS EXACTLY.

I answered your question. You said little difference... and I gave you examples of things Clinton pushed for that Jackson was not in favor of. That means to me Clinton moved the Democratic Party to the center.

Clinton wanted none of that. The Republicans took control of Congress and passed welfare reform on their own. Clinton just looked at the polls and saw it was popular and signed it based on an opinion poll. Clinton never would have pushed for welfare reform on his own.

And as far as the deficit, the original tax package in '90 was supposed to reduce the deficit - IT DIDN'T. I remember Jay Rockfeller being asked why it didn't work - his answer: "Because Bush didn't care." ROTFLMAO. "Caring" does not make a policy work. The percentage cuts or increases are what they are. Whatever happens is based on the laws of economics - not on "caring."

The Republicans were the ones who forced cuts in the spending levels. The Democrats fought it tooth and nail. I still remember the press conference with the Democrats in Congress at that time. They claimed there would be "children starving in the streets" after the Republicans alleged cuts of the school lunch program. No such thing ever happened after the cuts in spending occurred. I still have yet to see any starving children who were denied their lunches.

I'm sorry but even with spin little of this is true. It is true SOME Democrats in Congress were against some of the spending cuts. Clinton was not... and that's my point. As I said before... believe the Republicans are frugal and the Dems are the spenders if you perfer... but no one else believes that anymore because you can't hide the numbers.

No, they could not prevent all terrorist attacks, but that wasn't my point. You really like to argue Straw Men, don't you? My point is that certain policies make us a target for terrorists - which Bin Laden specifically stated in his fatwa.

Then we can blame just about every single president since Kennedy in both parties and get off just Clinton's back. They all cared about National Security. They were not and will never be perfect at fighting terrorists many of which are completely unknown until attack.

And as a side note: Libertarian isolationism won't stop that either and you know it.

Indeed I do. Which is why I'm a member of the Libertarian Party. I only vote for Libertarians. I do not vote for Democrats or Republicans, although this time I would vote for Ron Paul if he won the nomination because he is the only candidate from the major parties running who wants to change our foreign policy back to noninterventionism.

Well then perhaps we've uncovered your real problem. It's election envy ;). As far a Ron Paul I'm sure he'll get the nomination and win the election by huge numbers because the vast majority of the American people agree with you. We will see...

And there you again. Clinton only went for spending cuts because the Republicans were forcing his hand. His smaller spending cuts were an attempt to portray the Republicans as wanting to cut spending too much. "It's the economy stupid" had nothing to do with spending cuts. Liberals falsely believe that more government spending and higher taxes equals a better economy, so why on earth would they equate "it's the economy stupid" to spending cuts. The Democrats controlled Congress for over 40 years - never once did they cut spending. Spending increased every single year under their control.

Well I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. The fact is the latest budget is probably always going to be the biggest budget because things don't ever get cheaper. That said Republican spending at multiple times including right now is just obscene.

The worst economy was under Carter. Reagan won big, much to the surprise of the media, and his tax cuts did spur economic growth. The evidence of that was his re-election in a landslide, crushing Mondale who represented Carter's policies.

Carter did have a bad economy and Reagan ran the country on credit that crashed down on his successor Bush #1 preventing him from winning a 2nd term... all true.

The budget deficit is only important in regards to its relation to the debt. The national debt is the main issue, as the interest payments rise every year, requiring more tax revenue to pay, and burdening future generations. Clinton did nothing to reduce the national debt. The national debt was far greater after he left office.

I believe both to be very important. The Democratic "pay as you go" policy seemed a good strategy for one problem. Perhaps more can be done when they gain more control to work on the other because old George ain't too shabby at running up that number either.


What did the budget deficit and the national debt do under Carter's administration? ;) If you said they went up every single year and the debt topped $1 trillion for the first time in history under Carter's administration, you'd be correct. But yet it's somehow all Reagan's fault...

I'm saying Reagan ran up huge debt on the arms race. That's all I said and that is true. There have almost if not always been deficits. I'm just pointing out that the pubbies love them too.

Recessions occur at cycles, Einstein. Roughly 10 year business cycles.

Believe what you like but all things can be managed well or horribly, top gun.

No, we aren't. You're still quite delusional aren't you? The Democrats owe their control of the Senate to the Libertarians. Vote totals for Democrat victory in Montana and Missouri were less than the vote totals for the Libertarian candidate in each race. People were voting against the Republicans, not for the Democrats. And you guys just had a sitting minority leader in the Senate voted out - remember Daschle? First time in over 100 years for that as well I think. And some the Democrats elected to the house were pro-gun rights and held far different views than the liberal leadership.

I'm not sure what your point is here. You win elections by being able to energize your base while still bringing in the Independent moderates. The truth is the hard Right and hard Left seldom change it's who can bring the Independents over to their side that almost always wins.

Yes Daschle lost. I could print out a laundry list of high ranking Republicans that did the same.

I look forward to the sweeping Libertarian wins in 08. As I said before, we will see...

[Truth-Bringer]

Why?...

Why? Because government is nothing more than a collective of individuals. No one gains any new rights by joining a collective. No rights supercede the innate, unalienable rights of the individual. What is immoral for one individual to do to another individual, is still immoral if done by a collective.

[Truth-Bringer]

Since I have been a registered Democrat... hack? :D

Well, you can deny it all you like, but you're a pure partisan.

[QUOTE]
I would just say with all due respect... talk is cheap until you have to actually govern something.

Indeed talk is cheap, and what have the actions of the Democrats and Republicans given us? Almost $9 trillion in debt, high taxes, a fiat currency whose value is continuously declining, and massive corruption in government. Yes, talk is cheap. Their actions speak loud and clear.


If it's your belief that somehow Libertarians have all the answers and things would just be so rosy if they were just given a chance

Well I think we should certainly be given a chance. Experimentation is the foundation of the scientific method. I submit that anyone who refuses to experiment is unscientific and irrational.

But there would be no utopia under Libertarians. Utopia isn't possible. But there would be liberty and a respect for rights.

As far as having the answers, it is you collectivists that believe you have all the answers. You are the controllers. You are the ones who threaten people with force if they don't do what you want them to do.


I'd say the American people are not buying that sells job in large numbers for a reason.

Appeal to the majority fallacy.


I don't see that I'm persuading you toward the truth of the matter

No, you're trying to persuade me to accept your fallacious beliefs. I only accept logical truths discerned through deductive reasoning and the scientific method.


How about... how about. How about if frogs had wings. Then they wouldn't bump their butts on the ground when they hopped.

Appeal to ridicule fallacy.


Politics breed many attacks and allegations. If there were any legal charges I didn't hear about I'm sure you'll fill me in.

Indeed. I guess you missed this one:

Appellate Court Upholds Nearly $900,000 Award in Attorney’s Fees and Costs in Clinton Scandal FOIA Lawsuit

Clinton Administration Destroyed Documents Involving Illegal Scheme to Sell Taxpayer-Funded Trade Missions for Campaign Contributions

(Washington, DC) –Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C. upheld the vast majority of a lower court award to Judicial Watch of nearly $900,000 in attorney’s fees and costs in a lawsuit related to the Clinton fundraising scandals (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Commerce, Appeal No. 05-5366) The fees were awarded on December 1, 2006, after a nearly decade-long court battle between Judicial Watch and the U.S. Department of Commerce.

The scandal involved a scheme by Clinton administration officials to sell seats on taxpayer-funded trade missions in exchange for campaign contributions to the 1996 Clinton-Gore campaign. When Judicial Watch began investigating the scandal, Clinton administration officials deliberately concealed and destroyed records regarding the trade missions to avoid releasing them to Judicial Watch. In fact, Ms. Nolanda Hill, a business partner and confidante of then-Clinton Commerce Secretary Ron Brown, testified at a dramatic court hearing during the litigation that the Clinton White House “instructed” Brown "to delay the [Judicial Watch] case by withholding the production of documents prior to the 1996 elections, and to devise a way not to comply with the court’s orders.

Ms. Hill also testified that Brown, who was killed in a plane crash during a trade mission to Bosnia, admitted to her that Hillary Clinton conceived of the scheme to sell trade mission seats. Specifically, the court heard testimony on how Brown allegedly complained about being “Hillary’s [expletive] tour guide.”

Clinton administration misconduct was so egregious that the Commerce Department took the unprecedented step of asking that a judgment be entered against itself in order to end the lawsuit prematurely and stop further revelations. The court denied the Commerce Department’s request, ordered it to conduct a new search for trade mission records and authorized additional discovery into the illegal concealment and destruction of government records."

Full article here. (http://www.judicialwatch.org/6092.shtml)

Now, I'm sure you'll try and spin this since Judicial Watch pursued it, but they have gone after Republicans as well, such as Dick Cheney:

http://foi.missouri.edu/usenergypolicies/cheneytakes.html

So please don't start screaming "vast right wing conspiracy" top gun, I'm sorry, it's not a conspiracy. The Clintons are corrupt and always have been. Some people are just blind to the truth and refuse to believe it.


If you think Bill Clinton was the first man in a high political power position to have an affair you are seriously misguided.

No, but I do believe Bill Clinton was the only President to ever be accused of rape. And I do believe Bill Clinton was alleged to have far more affairs than any other President in history. His behavior was reckless, plain and simple.


I'm sorry but even with spin little of this is true. It is true SOME Democrats in Congress were against some of the spending cuts. Clinton was not... and that's my point. As I said before... believe the Republicans are frugal and the Dems are the spenders if you perfer... but no one else believes that anymore because you can't hide the numbers.

Oh the Republicans have proven to everyone that they're not frugal spenders, as they gave Bush everything he wanted and more. As I said in the beginning, it really wasn't a matter of principle for them - IT WAS A POLITICAL MOVE to deny Clinton additional spending.

As for Clinton's spending - he always wanted more than the Republicans. Here's a clip from a CNN article: "But the House-Senate compromise is $2 billion less than what the president wanted for foreign aid." (http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/09/28/congress.spending)

If you claim Clinton was the one holding down spending against the Republicans, then produce and present evidence of that.

Here's an article showing pressure from Democrats in Congress to make him cut spending further - Clinton didn't want to do it until moderate and conservative Democrats kept pressuring him:

"President Clinton agreed Monday to roughly $55 billion more in spending cuts over the next five years, responding to pressure from House and Senate Democrats and calculations by the Congressional Budget Office that he needed to cut more to reach his deficit-reduction target." (http://www-tech.mit.edu/V113/N12/spending.12w.html)

See, it's easy to find evidence of the contrary, when I know your belief is false. CLINTON DIDN'T WANT TO CUT ANYTHING. He wanted to spend, spend, spend, like the liberal he was, but he was held in check by others.



And as a side note: Libertarian isolationism won't stop that either and you know it.

First of all, one does not have to be Libertarian to be a non-interventionist. The policy has worked well for Switzerland for hundreds of years. It was American's original foreign policy and we should return to our roots on the matter.


Well then perhaps we've uncovered your real problem. It's election envy ;).

Again, appeal to ridicule fallacy.


As far a Ron Paul I'm sure he'll get the nomination and win the election by huge numbers because the vast majority of the American people agree with you. We will see...

Again, appeal to the majority fallacy. Any other logical fallacies you'd like to use today? Here's a list to help you decide:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

[Truth-Bringer]

Well I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. The fact is the latest budget is probably always going to be the biggest budget because things don't ever get cheaper.

ROTFLMAO. What a load of crap. So we can never cut spending then?????

Central banking and fiat currency are soley responsible for inflation. Inflation is the result of the excess currency printed by the Federal Reserve, not any action of the private market place. Milton Friedman proved this before winning the Nobel Prize in Economics:

"... a world monetary system has emerged that has no historical precedent: a system in which every major currency in the world is, directly or indirectly, on an irredeemable paper money standard . . . It is worth stressing how little precedent there is for the present situation. Throughout recorded history . . . commodity money has been the rule. So long as money was predominantly coin or bullion, very rapid inflation was not physically feasible . . . The existence of a commodity standard widely supported by the public served as a check on inflation .. . The key challenge that now faces us in reforming our monetary and fiscal institutions is to find a substitute for convertibility into specie that will serve the same function: maintaining pressure on the government to refrain from its resort to inflation as a source of revenue. To put it another way, we must find a nominal anchor for the price level to replace the physical limit on a monetary commodity." - Milton Friedman, "Monetary Policy in a Fiat World"

The reason we've been able to avoid hyperinflation so far is because the income tax is used as a buffer against the fiat currency. If you repealed the income tax tomorrow and allowed the government to print money at the same leves they do today, you would see runaway hyperinflation similar to what happened in Germany in the 1920's.

The Federal Reserve even admits Friedman's conclusions are correct:

"The "Great Inflation" of the 1970's challenged and permanently altered economic theory. It vindicated the once-controversial analysis of Milton Friedman, then at the University of Chicago.

"Friedman's monetary framework has been so influential that in its broad outlines at least, it has nearly become identical with modern monetary theory," said the Federal Reserve governor Ben S. Bernanke, at a recent conference at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. (The full text of his speech is available here.) (http://www.dallasfed.org/news/research/2003/03ftc_bernanke.pdf)

Mr. Bernanke is not a former Friedman student. He did his graduate work at M.I.T. Someone reading Milton Friedman's monetary economics today is likely to miss its significance, Mr. Bernanke noted, much as an apocryphal student called Shakespeare's plays "just a string of quotations."

"His thinking has so permeated modern macroeconomics that the worst pitfall in reading him today is to fail to appreciate the originality and even revolutionary character of his ideas, in relation to the dominant views at the time that he formulated them," he said.

Against the conventional wisdom, Mr. Friedman argued that "inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon." Inflation had nothing to do with aggressive unions, greedy businesses or even oil cartels -- the bad guys who took the blame in the confusing 1970's. Prices shot up everywhere because the federal government made the supply of money grow faster than the real economy created value. Based on the historical record, he argued, the effects of monetary policy were fairly predictable.

In a 1970 lecture, "The Counterrevolution in Monetary Theory," Mr. Friedman outlined 11 propositions about how monetary policy affects the economy. All were wildly controversial, almost disreputable, at the time. Most are accepted today."



Carter did have a bad economy and Reagan ran the country on credit that crashed down on his successor Bush #1 preventing him from winning a 2nd term... all true.

What's true is that government intervention always makes boom and bust cycles far worse. That is the root cause:

http://www.ruwart.com/Healing/chap9.html



I believe both to be very important. The Democratic "pay as you go" policy seemed a good strategy for one problem. Perhaps more can be done when they gain more control to work on the other because old George ain't too shabby at running up that number either.

I prefer Harry Browne's old plan - with tax REPEALS and spending cuts:

http://www.harrybrowne.org/hb2000/stands/natldebt.htm



I'm saying Reagan ran up huge debt on the arms race. That's all I said and that is true. There have almost if not always been deficits. I'm just pointing out that the pubbies love them too.

And I'm pointing out that since both Democrats and Republicans seem to love putting this country further and further into debt, which will eventually cause it great harm, the right thing to do is vote both of them out of Washington.



Believe what you like but all things can be managed well or horribly, top gun.

And the government always manages them more horribly:

http://www.ruwart.com/Healing/chap9.html


I'm not sure what your point is here. You win elections by being able to energize your base while still bringing in the Independent moderates.

My points are that #1 - this election was not about the public wanting the Democrats and more of their tired policies. And #2 that winning elections doesn't necessarily mean the winner will create logical policies. We need more limitations on government, outside of the electoral system, to prevent the misuse of its power.


I look forward to the sweeping Libertarian wins in 08. As I said before, we will see...

I look forward to you actually using a logical argument instead of an appeal to the majority fallacy at some point.

[top gun]

Truth-Bringer;16742][QUOTE=top gun;16717]Since I have been a registered Democrat... hack? :D

Well, you can deny it all you like, but you're a pure partisan.

Kinda the pot calling the kettle black isn't it. I think your position is pretty set in stone itself don't ya think? ;)

Indeed talk is cheap, and what have the actions of the Democrats and Republicans given us? Almost $9 trillion in debt, high taxes, a fiat currency whose value is continuously declining, and massive corruption in government. Yes, talk is cheap. Their actions speak loud and clear.

Like I said if you ever win a election in the United States please implement all the solutions.

Well I think we should certainly be given a chance. Experimentation is the foundation of the scientific method. I submit that anyone who refuses to experiment is unscientific and irrational.

Who's stopping you? Raise the money from all your adamant supporters and run baby run!

As far as having the answers, it is you collectivists that believe you have all the answers. You are the controllers. You are the ones who threaten people with force if they don't do what you want them to do.

OK whatever. I don't even know what a collectivist is but whatever...

No, you're trying to persuade me to accept your fallacious beliefs. I only accept logical truths discerned through deductive reasoning and the scientific method.

Pretty sure I'm not. I am standing up against what I see as unfair attacks on specific individuals and institution by you. But I think you should vote Libertarian if that's what you believe is best.

Indeed. I guess you missed this one:

Appellate Court Upholds Nearly $900,000 Award in Attorney’s Fees and Costs in Clinton Scandal FOIA Lawsuit

So please don't start screaming "vast right wing conspiracy" top gun, I'm sorry, it's not a conspiracy. The Clintons are corrupt and always have been. Some people are just blind to the truth and refuse to believe it.

Come on was President Bill Clinton charged with a crime here. Not his administration President Bill Clinton? No...

No, but I do believe Bill Clinton was the only President to ever be accused of rape. And I do believe Bill Clinton was alleged to have far more affairs than any other President in history. His behavior was reckless, plain and simple.

You're right... no he wasn't ever charged with any crime like this at all. I've said before I don't care if he's Huge Hefner. He did a great job as president.

Oh the Republicans have proven to everyone that they're not frugal spenders, as they gave Bush everything he wanted and more. As I said in the beginning, it really wasn't a matter of principle for them - IT WAS A POLITICAL MOVE to deny Clinton additional spending.

Extremely misguided conclusion...

As for Clinton's spending - he always wanted more than the Republicans. Here's a clip from a CNN article: "But the House-Senate compromise is $2 billion less than what the president wanted for foreign aid." (http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/09/28/congress.spending)
If you claim Clinton was the one holding down spending against the Republicans, then produce and present evidence of that.


Progress by the numbers
Under President Clinton, the economy has added an average of 245,000248,000 jobs ..... Smaller Government, There are 377000 fewer employees in the Federal ...
clinton4.nara.gov/WH/Accomplishments/numbers.html - 44k - Cached - Similar pages

First of all, one does not have to be Libertarian to be a non-interventionist. The policy has worked well for Switzerland for hundreds of years. It was American's original foreign policy and we should return to our roots on the matter.

The US ain't Switzerland my friend. Communism seems to work in Cuba but don't see it working well here. America is a slightly larger canvas..

[palerider]

Maybe people still like because...in hindsight, they realize he wasn't so bad afterall...especially now that the rightwing spin is wearing thin.

I don't know Coyote. In hindsight, and almost a decade later, the only two things that I see that clinton did that had any lasting effect was selling out our ballistic technology to the chinese and giving north korea nuclear reactors. Most of the rest, as with most presidents, was just politics but before loral, they (china) couldn't hit themselves in the ass with a missile with both hands and a flashlight. After, however, they can hit any place on earth as accurately as us. They advanced nearly 20 years overnight. And we are presently living with his decision to give a madman nuclear reactors.

[top gun]

I don't know Coyote. In hindsight, and almost a decade later, the only two things that I see that clinton did that had any lasting effect was selling out our ballistic technology to the chinese and giving north korea nuclear reactors. Most of the rest, as with most presidents, was just politics but before loral, they (china) couldn't hit themselves in the ass with a missile with both hands and a flashlight. After, however, they can hit any place on earth as accurately as us. They advanced nearly 20 years overnight. And we are presently living with his decision to give a madman nuclear reactors.

Well then what you're doing is calling the American people idiots I guess because people seemed to have really loved it at the time. You just can't deflect all the tremendous Republican failures in diplomacy and the lies and deceptions sucking us into quagmires anymore. The it's all Clinton's fault is now seen as only weak and an attempt at political slight of hand...................... Look over here.............


while were down here doing the damage.

Doesn't fly now. Won't fly in 08!

USA TODAY
01/17/2001 - Updated 08:03 PM ET

Clinton: Retired, but hardly retiring
By Mimi Hall, USA TODAY

Going out on a high

Despite his legal difficulties, Clinton leaves office with a 65% approval rating in a recent USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll, the highest for a departing president in the half-century of modern polling. And, barring an accident or illness - on Tuesday doctors said a lesion removed from Clinton's back was a common and treatable skin cancer, Clinton could remain active in public life for another 20 or 30 years.

[USMC the Almighty]

Well then what you're doing is calling the American people idiots I guess because people seemed to have really loved it at the time.


First of all, polls are simply glimpses of history captured by an exceedingly small majority. Polls don't mean anything. It's how unbiased history 20, 50, 100 years down the road judges a given presidency that determines its level of success.

Secondly, most Americans don't really pay much attention to politics until a few weeks before an election so just because he has an above 50% approval rating doesn't mean that he did a good job.

Like I've said before, his image as a "good" president stems from his luck of being placed right into the middle of the PC/internet boom, the fact that America didn't go to war (and Clinton largely ignored the abundance of terroristic activites at the time), and Clinton's major misstep of Somalia had slipped the American public's mind.

One last thing, you said that he was good because he didn't "crash the ship" or something along those lines. Well the fact is neither did John Quincy Adams, or Martin van Buren, or Zacahry Taylor, or James Garfield, or William Taft. Do you hold these individuals to the same status that you do Clinton?

[palerider]

Well then what you're doing is calling the American people idiots I guess because people seemed to have really loved it at the time. You just can't deflect all the tremendous Republican failures in diplomacy and the lies and deceptions sucking us into quagmires anymore. The it's all Clinton's fault is now seen as only weak and an attempt at political slight of hand...................... Look over here.............


I am not trying to deflect anything. It is you who is attempting to deflect the very real, and lasting realities of things that clinton did while in office by regurgitating his approval numbers as if they make it OK that he advanced china's ability to hit any target on earth with an ICBM or gave the mad dog in korea nuclear reactors.

Further, it has been shown over and over that if you do the opposite of the majority, you will be better off over 90% of the time.

[Coyote]

I don't know Coyote. In hindsight, and almost a decade later, the only two things that I see that clinton did that had any lasting effect was selling out our ballistic technology to the chinese and giving north korea nuclear reactors. Most of the rest, as with most presidents, was just politics but before loral, they (china) couldn't hit themselves in the ass with a missile with both hands and a flashlight. After, however, they can hit any place on earth as accurately as us. They advanced nearly 20 years overnight. And we are presently living with his decision to give a madman nuclear reactors.


In general, I liked Clinton. In terms of North Korea, I read an interesting article - I shall have to dig to find it, but the diplomacy involved with North Korea was one of choosing the best of a bunch of very bad choices and there really wasn't a better one. I don't see China as being a major military threat to us - a world power yes, but their threat is going to be in the world economy and that is where they are putting the majority of their efforts.

[top gun]

USMC the Almighty;16803]First of all, polls are simply glimpses of history captured by an exceedingly small majority. Polls don't mean anything. It's how unbiased history 20, 50, 100 years down the road judges a given presidency that determines its level of success.

Well at least we're getting somewhere. Now polls don't mean anything. :D That's better than when you said I was wrong and Clinton left office at 30% approval and I had to post the 65% USA TODAY/ CNN/ Gallup Poll numbers the highest for a departing president in the half-century of modern polling.
It's a start. :)

Secondly, most Americans don't really pay much attention to politics until a few weeks before an election so just because he has an above 50% approval rating doesn't mean that he did a good job.

Day is night... night is day... over 50% is still bad...I get it. WOW Bush at 27% must really suck!

I'm sticking with my original statement. Me and 65% of not one but three major scientific polls liked the job President Bill Clinton did. I'll live with that. Let's see where Bush ends up...

[top gun]

I am not trying to deflect anything. It is you who is attempting to deflect the very real, and lasting realities of things that clinton did while in office by regurgitating his approval numbers as if they make it OK that he advanced china's ability to hit any target on earth with an ICBM or gave the mad dog in korea nuclear reactors.


I'm just saying the neo-con line is ALL about anything bad... It's Clinton's fault. Look at the Libby thing. What was the first word out from that side? Well... well... Clinton pardoned all kinds of people.

OoooooooooK... and you guys gave him all kinds of hell for it and screamed and yelled how you opposed it and it was so wrong. Now Bush does it (even worse seriously because it actually covers up the administrations own deeds) but regardless I thought that kind of stuff was soooooo wrong. What's the rationale here because it certainly isn't principle.

It's like saying that that guy shot an innocent man... so now we can too! It's all so obvious it actually is just silly and people see it now.
Further, it has been shown over and over that if you do the opposite of the majority, you will be better off over 90% of the time.

That's of course false but even if it wasn't you'd be missing kind of a somewhat important thing about America... HELLO DEMOCRACY! :)

[palerider]

[COLOR="DarkRed"]I'm just saying the neo-con line is ALL about anything bad... It's Clinton's fault. Look at the Libby thing. What was the first word out from that side? Well... well... Clinton pardoned all kinds of people.

I am not a neo-con. If any label describes me, it would be either classical liberal or paleo con as they are both the same thing. And like I said, aside from the two things that I mentioned, the rest was at best, just politics. Advancing china's ICBM technology and giving north korea nuclear reactors, on the other hand, are actions that will carry very real, and possibly terrible consequences for a very long time to come.

[top gun]

I am not a neo-con. If any label describes me, it would be either classical liberal or paleo con as they are both the same thing. And like I said, aside from the two things that I mentioned, the rest was at best, just politics. Advancing china's ICBM technology and giving north korea nuclear reactors, on the other hand, are actions that will carry very real, and possibly terrible consequences for a very long time to come.

Well I'm not trying to describe you... I'm just following your line.

At some point you might want to consider that the US cannot stop technology. We can work our best deals at the time and try to strategically stay one step ahead... but that's about it.

We can't deny other countries the use of peaceful nuclear power and believe me there are plenty of ways China can improve their ICBM technolog without the United States.

I don't see the United States attacking other countries because they develop nuclear power. Nuclear weapons maybe but not just power.

Technology is out there. You can't put the "Genie" back in the bottle. Everyday new and amazing things will be developed and if you're scared now you may need to reevaluate.

Because killing everybody else off so we're the only ones that have what we want and need probably isn't they way things will turn out.

All Americans Left or Right want their family & friends to be safe. That's just human nature. Fear mongering and pointing the "my side cares more about our children's safety than yours" finger is counter productive and I'd hope both sides could find the strength to restrain themselves from it. :)

[palerider]

At some point you might want to consider that the US cannot stop technology. We can work our best deals at the time and try to strategically stay one step ahead... but that's about it.

Prior to the loral deal, china was 20 years behind us and would have remained at least 10 because even our closest allies are getting technology that is 10 years old.

And china could have given north korea reactors at any time but they didn't. Ever wonder why?

We can't deny other countries the use of peaceful nuclear power and believe me there are plenty of ways China can improve their ICBM technolog [B]without the United States.

You are familiar with north korea aren't you? How many eggs short of a dozen do you believe you would have to be to take his word that a nuclear reactor given to him would be "peaceful" nuclear power?

And I restate. They were 20 years behind us with little hope of narrowing that gap. The russians are their best source of technology and they are nearly 20 years behind as well. I should say the russians "were" nearly 20 years behind because now that russia and china are best buddies, china has shared some of our technology with them.

I don't see the United States attacking other countries because they develop nuclear power. Nuclear weapons maybe but not just power.

Then I suggest that you are short sighted and are substituting what you believe, or what you wish for what you don't actually see.

Technology is out there. You can't put the "Genie" back in the bottle. Everyday new and amazing things will be developed and if you're scared now you may need to reevaluate.

The technology has always been out there but china still remained 20 years behind despite their best efforts to keep up. Overnight that gap closed and one man is responsible for the ramifications. Apologizing for him will not change a thing, it will only tarnish your credibility.

All Americans Left or Right want their family & friends to be safe. That's just human nature. Fear mongering and pointing the "my side cares more about our children's safety than yours" finger is counter productive and I'd hope both sides could find the strength to restrain themselves from it. :)

Outline the logic by which you believe making it possible for china to accurately target any point on the globe with an ICBM makes us safer.

[top gun]

... Outline the logic by which you believe making it possible for china to accurately target any point on the globe with an ICBM makes us safer.

I don't want to go over the same turf time and again. I'm really not trying to be argumentative.

Hind sight is 20/20. Things have been done in various agreements by both Parties that have not always turned out completely to our advantage decades later. My only point is the sword cuts both ways (both Parties) and technology is not something that can be withheld forever. At some point like it or not technology will be so available that any country will be able to easily construct WMD's.

As far as being safer because China is increasing their ICBM capability... I never said that.


I said a country with their resources would be able get the technology with or without us. And as a side note I'd say this. As we invade and occupy sovereign countries under false pretense, hang their leaders and turn their country into a Civil War killing field... if I were a world leader of any other country right now I'd be doing anything and everything I could to get my hands on or to develop nuclear weapons as the ONLY possible deterrent (barring just strict obeyment) to a possible US invasion. The Bush administration is giving some moral high ground to the ones we both distrust... and that is certainly a shame.

Military might without diplomacy is like getting a great deal on an oriental carpet beater but not owning an oriental rug. In the long run it really does you no good.

[Truth-Bringer]

Kinda the pot calling the kettle black isn't it. I think your position is pretty set in stone itself don't ya think?

There are two major differences between your side and mine:

1. You are willing to initiate force against individuals engaged in peaceful, honest, voluntary activities, and

2. I am open to experimentation with new political philosophies. Your side is not. Your side uses force to prevent experimenting with new political ideas.



Like I said if you ever win a election in the United States please implement all the solutions.

And like I said, that's Appeal to the majority fallacy. It's also ultimately an Appeal to authority and an Appeal to tradition. Both fallacies, in case you were wondering.


Who's stopping you? Raise the money from all your adamant supporters and run baby run!

Who's stopping us? Well it's your side that's stopping us. You've limited the money we can raise and caused us to spend the largest percentage of that money just trying to get ballot access. All the details of your fraud are here:

http://houseofpolitics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=897



OK whatever. I don't even know what a collectivist is

Look in the mirror.


Pretty sure I'm not.

And you'd be wrong about that...


Come on was President Bill Clinton charged with a crime here. Not his administration President Bill Clinton? No...

Who is ultimately in charge of a President's administration? Gee, is it the President? Is he responsible for knowing what's going on - for hiring the people who work there - for overseeing the operations - for making sure no crimes are committed?


You're right... no he wasn't ever charged with any crime

You may not have noticed, but it's rather hard to charge the President with a crime - since they're basically the most powerful person in the country. It's pointless to try them through the normal criminal justice system, because there's no restriction against them pardoning themselves. The only way they can be convicted and removed is by a vote of the Senate after the House has voted for impeachment.


Extremely misguided conclusion...

You do indeed have some extremely misguided conclusions.




Progress by the numbers
Under President Clinton, the economy has

Again, what did the national debt do under Clinton? It went up...



The US ain't Switzerland my friend..

No, but neutrality would work, since we have a strong military to deter attacks. No nation state wants a war with us, since we have enough nukes to blow them off the face of the earth.

[top gun]

Truth-Bringer;16919]There are two major differences between your side and mine...

I liked President Clinton and his administration a lot and I often respond to Clinton attack posts. That's all that's happened here.

I respect your opinion and although I disagree with you on the big picture I'm sure there are aspects of your philosophy that have merit. :)

[USMC the Almighty]

I liked President Clinton and his administration a lot and I often respond to Clinton attack posts. That's all that's happened here.


That's fine to like a President personally and even agree with their political philosophy (such as myself with Calvin Coolidge), but to be considered a "great" and "phenomenal" president, they need to do something of substance that benefits this country and its people.

Clinton was an adequate custodial president. Nothing worthy of the accolades you bestow on him.

[top gun]

That's fine to like a President personally and even agree with their political philosophy (such as myself with Calvin Coolidge), but to be considered a "great" and "phenomenal" president, they need to do something of substance that benefits this country and its people.

Clinton was an adequate custodial president. Nothing worthy of the accolades you bestow on him.

Dude... stop it! You have absolutely no "zero" right to tell ME how I should feel or what I should deem as worthy. You have every right to call him as custodial as you want.

But then again you got caught up in that partisan mis-statement "Clinton at 30% approval" in response to my statement when he left office. Of course it really was a GREAT 65% job approval... but you morphed that over to during the hearings. Then polls didn't even matter anyway. I guess only the 30% ones huh?

I look at all the damage Bush has done and I think... MAN now this SH*% is terrible!

Let it go my friend... we just don't agree on what's good.

[USMC the Almighty]

Dude... stop it! You have absolutely no "zero" right to tell ME how I should feel or what I should deem as worthy. You have every right to call him as custodial as you want.

Of course I shouldn't tell you how to feel. But I'm asking you to explain why you believe he is something more than a custodial president, much like Zachary Taylor or James Garfield. What makes him better than these mediocre presidents? Citing some random poll numbers just isn't very convincing.



But then again you got caught up in that partisan mis-statement "Clinton at 30% approval" in response to my statement when he left office. Of course it really was a GREAT 65% job approval... but you morphed that over to during the hearings. Then polls didn't even matter anyway. I guess only the 30% ones huh?

Polls don't matter, but if you're going to use them to make your argument, I'm going to use them to refute your argument.

I look at all the damage Bush has done and I think... MAN now this SH*% is terrible!

What does Bush have to do anything. I have asked you to explain why you believe Clinton stands out as a great president. What another President has done has nothing to do with this.

I never said Clinton was "terrible". I just don't think he was "phenomenal" as you do.

Let it go my friend... we just don't agree on what's good.

You have yet to define what a good president does.

[top gun]

Of course I shouldn't tell you how to feel. But I'm asking you to explain why you believe he is something more than a custodial president, much like Zachary Taylor or James Garfield. What makes him better than these mediocre presidents? Citing some random poll numbers just isn't very convincing.
Polls don't matter, but if you're going to use them to make your argument, I'm going to use them to refute your argument.
What does Bush have to do anything. I have asked you to explain why you believe Clinton stands out as a great president. What another President has done has nothing to do with this.
I never said Clinton was "terrible". I just don't think he was "phenomenal" as you do.
You have yet to define what a good president does.

I don't know how many ways to say it, STOP! I've already went over this. I'm not doing the scorched earth policy with you.

Go get an artist and have them paint a portrait of President Clinton... then look at it... GOOD 65% overall job approval rating PRESIDENT.

Then do the same with his sucsessor... :eek: ... BAD 26% job approval rating PRESIDENT.

By Marcus Mabry
Newsweek
Updated: 8:25 a.m. ET May 8, 2007
May 5, 2007 - It’s hard to say which is worse news for Republicans: that George W. Bush now has the worst approval rating of an American president in a generation, or that he seems to be dragging every ’08 Republican presidential candidate down with him. But According to the new NEWSWEEK Poll, the public’s approval of Bush has sunk to 28 percent, an all-time low for this president in our poll, and a point lower than Gallup recorded for his father at Bush Sr.’s nadir. The last president to be this unpopular was Jimmy Carter who also scored a 28 percent approval in 1979. This remarkably low rating seems to be casting a dark shadow over the GOP’s chances for victory in ’08. The NEWSWEEK Poll finds each of the leading Democratic contenders beating the Republican frontrunners in head-to-head matchups.

BUT WAIT IT GOT WORSE...

By Marcus Mabry
Newsweek
Updated: 11:49 a.m. ET June 21, 2007
June 21, 2007 - In 19 months, George W. Bush will leave the White House for the last time. The latest NEWSWEEK Poll suggests that he faces a steep climb if he hopes to coax the country back to his side before he goes. In the new poll, conducted Monday and Tuesday nights, President Bush’s approval rating has reached a record low. Only 26 percent of Americans, just over one in four, approve of the job the 43rd president is doing; while, a record 65 percent disapprove, including nearly a third of Republicans.


However you care to work this out in your own mind is fine...

[USMC the Almighty]

I don't know how many ways to say it, STOP! I've already went over this. I'm not doing the scorched earth policy with you.

Stop what? I'm respectfully requesting that you answer the question posed in my opening post which you continue to dodge. In case you forget, the question is why do you think Clinton stands out as a "phenomenal" president (as you have called him)?

Go get an artist and have them paint a portrait of President Clinton... then look at it... GOOD 65% overall job approval rating PRESIDENT.

Then do the same with his sucsessor... :eek: ... BAD 26% job approval rating PRESIDENT.

Is this your answer? I asked you why Clinton was a good president and you respond with "he left office with a 65% approval rating"?

And to boot, you took Clinton's rating as he left office and juxtapose that with Bush's lowest numbers? At one point, Bush's approval rating was close to 90% which is much higher than Clinton's highest. Bush's lowest is within a couple points of Clinton's lowest. You're not painting a fair picture here by cherry picking arbitrary poll numbers.



By Marcus Mabry
Newsweek
Updated: 8:25 a.m. ET May 8, 2007
May 5, 2007 - It’s hard to say which is worse news for Republicans: that George W. Bush now has the worst approval rating of an American president in a generation, or that he seems to be dragging every ’08 Republican presidential candidate down with him. But According to the new NEWSWEEK Poll, the public’s approval of Bush has sunk to 28 percent, an all-time low for this president in our poll, and a point lower than Gallup recorded for his father at Bush Sr.’s nadir. The last president to be this unpopular was Jimmy Carter who also scored a 28 percent approval in 1979. This remarkably low rating seems to be casting a dark shadow over the GOP’s chances for victory in ’08. The NEWSWEEK Poll finds each of the leading Democratic contenders beating the Republican frontrunners in head-to-head matchups.

A Newsweek Poll? Come on, you can't be serious with this. First of all, it's well over a year before the general election, so these polls are pretty much worthless. Anything can happen between now and then.

Secondly, Gallup poll has Guliani leading Hillary by 2 points. CNN and Rasmussen have Guliani leading Obama by 2 and 3 points respectively,



BUT WAIT IT GOT WORSE...

By Marcus Mabry
Newsweek
Updated: 11:49 a.m. ET June 21, 2007
June 21, 2007 - In 19 months, George W. Bush will leave the White House for the last time. The latest NEWSWEEK Poll suggests that he faces a steep climb if he hopes to coax the country back to his side before he goes. In the new poll, conducted Monday and Tuesday nights, President Bush’s approval rating has reached a record low. Only 26 percent of Americans, just over one in four, approve of the job the 43rd president is doing; while, a record 65 percent disapprove, including nearly a third of Republicans.

However you care to work this out in your own mind is fine... [/COLOR]

Who cares? If they had polls in during the 1860s, Lincoln would have had tremendously low poll numbers. Same for Truman in 1945. They were despised during their time but history has granted them quite a legacy.

Only history will judge the success of the Bush presidency. Not some arbitrary poll.

[top gun]

USMC the Almighty;17050]Stop what? I'm respectfully requesting that you answer the question posed in my opening post which you continue to dodge. In case you forget, the question is why do you think Clinton stands out as a "phenomenal" president (as you have called him)?

I'm the NO BULL guy... I don't dodge. I've clearly stated that I don't believe you have to win a World War or something to be a great president. I've given you several positions that Clinton took on bringing the Democrats to the center and positions on reducing (actually eliminating and providing a surplus) on the budget deficit and other social economic policies that I feel showed proper leadership on his part. The fact you discount them doesn't mean I didn't post them. Clinton kept us out of major quagmire prolonged conflicts I liked that too. Clinton was great for consumer confidence and as I said I do look at the OVERALL JOB APPROVAL RATING... it's important. It gives a good overview of how the American people feel about their leader. And like I said several times now sometimes the most competent leaders just calmly keep us on course. May seem like a small thing but when you compare it to things like Bush running us full throttle into the rocks... I want the other competent skipper!

One can quibble over job approval ratings during a presidents term. Things might change. He might be wrong. He might be right. But at the end after 8 straight years to come out of office even after an IMPEACHMENT at a 65% OVERALL JOB APPROVAL RATING! WOW!!!!!!!! The guy did his job well!

Is this your answer? I asked you why Clinton was a good president and you respond with "he left office with a 65% approval rating"?

For about the 14th time now... see above...

And to boot, you took Clinton's rating as he left office and juxtapose that with Bush's lowest numbers? At one point, Bush's approval rating was close to 90% which is much higher than Clinton's highest. Bush's lowest is within a couple points of Clinton's lowest. You're not painting a fair picture here by cherry picking arbitrary poll numbers.

I'm amazed. You think there's any comparison to be made between Bush's numbers and Clinton's. You're trying to say Bush's numbers are in anyway good... 26%... worst presidential numbers of all times, good. WOW! You think he's on the rebounded to 65% don't you? I give up you'll say anything.

A Newsweek Poll? Come on, you can't be serious with this. First of all, it's well over a year before the general election, so these polls are pretty much worthless. Anything can happen between now and then.

Again... you'll say anything I guess. What else can you do at 26%.

Secondly, Gallup poll has Guliani leading Hillary by 2 points. CNN and Rasmussen have Guliani leading Obama by 2 and 3 points respectively,

Whatever... you saw the posts I presented. I'm just glad things are close. We'll know soon if the country wants to continue on this downward Republican spiral. I'm guessing no... but that's just me!

Who cares? If they had polls in during the 1860s, Lincoln would have had tremendously low poll numbers. Same for Truman in 1945. They were despised during their time but history has granted them quite a legacy.

I've seen George Bush. I've listened to George Bush. I've watched how poorly George Bush's policies work. George Bush is no Lincoln or Truman.

Only history will judge the success of the Bush presidency. Not some arbitrary poll.

Well my friend there's an old saying that goes... You can put wings on a pig... but that don't make him an eagle! And I'm sure it applies well here.

[USMC the Almighty]

I'm the NO BULL guy... I don't dodge. I've clearly stated that I don't believe you have to win a World War or something to be a great president. I've given you several positions that Clinton took on bringing the Democrats to the center and positions on reducing (actually eliminating and providing a surplus) on the budget deficit and other social economic policies that I feel showed proper leadership on his part. The fact you discount them doesn't mean I didn't post them. Clinton kept us out of major quagmire prolonged conflicts I liked that too. Clinton was great for consumer confidence and as I said I do look at the OVERALL JOB APPROVAL RATING... it's important. It gives a good overview of how the American people feel about their leader. And like I said several times now sometimes the most competent leaders just calmly keep us on course. May seem like a small thing but when you compare it to things like Bush running us full throttle into the rocks... I want the other competent skipper!

So when I sift through all the BS, here's what I get. You think that Clinton was a phenomenal president because he:

(1) Brought Democrats to the "center"
(2) Provided a surplus
(3) Didn't get into a "prolonged quagmire conflicts"
(4) Had a good approval rating at one point in time
(5) Kept us "calmly on the course"

Have I left anything out?

As for #1, I don't exactly see how Clinton brought the Dems to the center. Sure he was forced to work with a Republican Congress that pushed through budget cuts and welfare reform, but it seems as though the Democratic Party has been taken over by the radical "progressive" wing, not the moderate wing since Clinton.

As for the surplus. yes, that is commendable and I applaud him for it. But this alone doesn't make him as great as you seem to think he is. Personally, I would support a Constitutional Amendment that mandates a balanced budget during times of peace.

Didn't get into any prolonged conflicts. Well, yes, because he largely ignored the terrorist threat while simultaneously slashing our military. Secondly, most of our Presidents kept us out of conflict. This doesn't support your assertion that Clinton stands out as a president.

Approval rating -- I told you. Meaningless to me.

"Kept us calmly on the course" (i.e. "worked hard at crafting a legacy"). So has virtually every other President in our history.

I'm amazed. You think there's any comparison to be made between Bush's numbers and Clinton's. You're trying to say Bush's numbers are in anyway good... 26%... worst presidential numbers of all times, good. WOW! You think he's on the rebounded to 65% don't you? I give up you'll say anything.

I'm certainly not saying Bush's numbers are good, but I'm pointing out the irrationality of looking at poll numbers as a determinant of a President's success.

I've seen George Bush. I've listened to George Bush. I've watched how poorly George Bush's policies work. George Bush is no Lincoln or Truman.

History will judge.

[top gun]

USMC the Almighty;17164]So when I sift through all the BS, here's what I get. You think that Clinton was a phenomenal president because he:

(1) Brought Democrats to the "center"
(2) Provided a surplus
(3) Didn't get into a "prolonged quagmire conflicts"
(4) Had a good approval rating at one point in time
(5) Kept us "calmly on the course"

Have I left anything out?

As for #1, I don't exactly see how Clinton brought the Dems to the center. Sure he was forced to work with a Republican Congress that pushed through budget cuts and welfare reform, but it seems as though the Democratic Party has been taken over by the radical "progressive" wing, not the moderate wing since Clinton.

As for the surplus. yes, that is commendable and I applaud him for it. But this alone doesn't make him as great as you seem to think he is. Personally, I would support a Constitutional Amendment that mandates a balanced budget during times of peace.

Didn't get into any prolonged conflicts. Well, yes, because he largely ignored the terrorist threat while simultaneously slashing our military. Secondly, most of our Presidents kept us out of conflict. This doesn't support your assertion that Clinton stands out as a president.

Look my friend there are many things President Clinton did that were extremely important at the time. You have to remember that Bush #1 was voted out due to the economy (sidebar: Not really his fault Reagan's deficit arms race spending coming due). Please don't argue the point I already know you don't agree.

I'm just not going to chapter and verse everything good President Clinton did but there was much. Some of which you cite but disagree with. What I see as GREAT is as in what was needed at the time and in comparison to others of that general time. Not necessarily of all times, but none the less very important.

It's not a partisan thing for me. Two of the best people... "human beings" we ever had as president one of each Party were Carter and Ford. You want someone to watch your kids or grandkids... either would have been great! However as world leaders, and the let's call it... CEO type running of a country... not good at all.

President Clinton had a direct effect on consumer confidence at a time when it was desperately needed. And I'll once again go to OVERALL JOB APPROVAL RATING not just during the honeymoon period at the beginning but at the time of leaving office after 2 full terms... 8 years... 65%! That means something brother. The American people were happy with the job that was done. If President Clinton was the president or CEO of any company in the private sector with those kinds of approval numbers stockholders would surly have given him a huge raise. That's what overall approval ratings mean to me... and what I would hope a president to achieve.

Some want the president to be more of a religious figure or a father figure or possibly a military figure. I myself give great consideration to the CEO type that deals with the hand they are dealt and at the end are still liked by the American people.

Approval rating -- I told you. Meaningless to me.

Well of course it "wasn't bogus" when you thought you could bash President Clinton with 30%. But in all fairness I would probably say the same thing in your shoes. You really have no place else to go on the value of overall approval rating. Your guy has won the dubious distinction, over Jimmy Carter no less, as the worst president ever since polling started. I understand you really can't say you agree with polling now.

Like I said President Clinton left office at 65%... great numbers anyway you want to cut it. Americans were very happy with his job performance regardless of his personal flaws.

I think there's little doubt that history will look back at Bush/Cheney and as those on the right try to spin them out of being the worst... the historians will say... Sorry, that dog won't hunt. Let's just wait and see, OK...

[USMC the Almighty]

So let me get this straight -- you want a President to get high approval ratings as he leaves office and nothing else? No matter what he accomplishes or screws up over his 8 years, if he leaves on a high note, then he was a "phenomenal" president?

Most people don't pay attention to politics until the couple of weeks before a big election but if things look relatively good and they're fairly happy then they'll approve of a President. They don't know about the intricacies and complexities that determine whether a President was successful or not.

[top gun]

USMC the Almighty;17275]So let me get this straight -- you want a President to get high approval ratings as he leaves office and nothing else? No matter what he accomplishes or screws up over his 8 years, if he leaves on a high note, then he was a "phenomenal" president?

At this point you should see trying to put words in my mouth isn't getting you anywhere my friend.

I gave you many, many reasons and explanations of those reasons including my expectations in overview of what a good president does that in my opinion qualifies as a "phenomenal" job for his time in office.

I never said that the only thing that matters is high approval ratings when leaving... and you're perfectly aware of that. I said high approval ratings at the time of leaving office demonstrates that after all is said and done... the entirety of the job is judged... and President Clinton fared well.

Most people don't pay attention to politics until the couple of weeks before a big election but if things look relatively good and they're fairly happy then they'll approve of a President. They don't know about the intricacies and complexities that determine whether a President was successful or not.

Well that's just gobbledygook my friend and again... you're a smart guy and you know that. With the media crush that goes on today most "voters" have no choice but to pay attention.

Since you can't fall back on overall job approval ratings ever again I guess your only fall back plan is the one you just used here... Well!!! Well!!! Then the public is just to stupid to know what's good or bad! If that's your stand I say good luck to you at the after party.

I on the other hand am still sticking with the 74% of all other Americans that say when it comes to George Bush and his administration... You can put lipstick on a pig... but that don't make him the prom queen! :)