Well, here's two examples:

# Under President Clinton's leadership, almost 6 million new jobs were created in the first two years of his Administration -- an average of 250,000 new jobs every month.

# In 1994, the economy had the lowest combination of unemployment and inflation in 25 years.

These are Clinton's biggest claims to having a successful presidency. I love how he takes credit for the economy growing wildly in the first two years of his presidency. Wow, Bill, what did you do to do that? Nothing....

And I love how Democrats conveniently neglect to mention that the stock market and economy fell apart at the beginning of 2001, just as the administrations were changing hands.

The fact is, the economy is very difficult to control. For Clinton to take credit for a good economy is as asinine as it is to blame him for the economy going to pot at the very beginning of 2001.

And about the low unemployment rate, that has actually stayed about the same since the mid 90s. Does that make Bush a great economist too, since he has kept unemployment about the same level as Clinton? I doubt Democrats would agree with that.

Clinton's other accomplishments are fairly trivial and are easily forgotten because they aren't very important. FMLA, Brady law, taking credit for signing NAFTA (which was negotiated by G. Bush Sr.), being the Commander in Chief for the UN vs Kosovo crisis are among the biggest highlights of his 8 years in the Oval Office.

Bill, of course, will most be remembered for the scandals. The 90s were a quiet time world wide, and the economy was prosperous, but the amount of damage that Clinton did to the trust and character of the presidency will never be forgotten. Between Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky, I think that almost all Americans will remember Bill Clinton as being one of the biggest liars of all time.

Never was I more ashamed to be a citizen of the US. Thanks, Bill, for showing kids everywhere that "technically" you "never lied." Thanks for teaching us that it's okay to be something if you "don't tell." Thanks for your honesty when you told us that you "did not inhale" when you tried marijuana. Thank you for showing us that it takes a man of "great character" to be the President of the US. Thanks for tarnishing the already bad image of politics in general, and making it probably impossible to ever believe a politician who looks dead straight into the camera and tells all of America to believe him. And finally, thanks Bill, for embarrassing the hell out of America. I am pretty damn sure that every country on Earth got a laugh out of us having you for the head of our state.

GREAT POST!!!!!!!!!!!

Poor Bill can't you just leave him alone :(, after all he is married to Hillary what other torture does he diserve? :D

ya, he puts his d*** in there and he would get frostbite

Any and all of it, mad dog. The 2008 elections are what the klinton bitch is aiming for...do you really want the klintons to have another shot at disgracing the office? The American public needs to be repeatedly reminded of how bad that klinton white trash was during his administration. Imagine how much embarassment bubba k can cause as the "First Man' (First Spouse? First Significant Other?). All the attention would be right on bubba again, and the POTUS would expend huge amounts of time cleaning up after him, and nothing will be acomplished.
No, don't leave that bunch alone. Keep the memory of their disgraceful behavior out there so when the time comes, voters choose "anyone else" on the ticket.

Well, I'm not a huge Clinton fan myself, but the fact is that the country thrived while he was president. I can't say whether it was his doing or not, but the results are undeniable. There's also the coincidences that his backround was in economics and our economy thrived. I think there's certainly some indication that he was doing SOMEthing right. You can call it luck, I suppose, but I've never been a big believer in luck.

It wasn't luck. Clinton was just a better president than that sorry dictator we have running the country now. At least Clinton never started a senseless war and killed hundreds of American troops. The reason Clinton could never get anything done was because those ignorant Republicans in the senate never listened to him; they were too busy prying into his personal life.

I don't understand why you can't just admit that you hate Clinton because he was an overall better president than George W.

Clinton could never get anything done

I agree, and if you can't get anything done, you suck. Thanks for agreeing! :) You're right, Clinton never could get any of his major platforms to fly. There was a good reason for that. It was because they were terrible ideas, and few wanted to see them implemented. Their health care reform ideas terrified the entire working class, I think.

Had klinton gotten off his lazy butt when asked to he could have prevented our being in camel jockey land today, and the WTC would still be standing.

Originally posted by Leper
Well, I'm not a huge Clinton fan myself, but the fact is that the country thrived while he was president. I can't say whether it was his doing or not, but the results are undeniable. There's also the coincidences that his backround was in economics and our economy thrived. I think there's certainly some indication that he was doing SOMEthing right. You can call it luck, I suppose, but I've never been a big believer in luck.

So when clintons background is in economics, its cool, but when bush's is, he is in it for the money for him and his buddies. ya.

Originally posted by Travh20
So when clintons background is in economics, its cool, but when bush's is, he is in it for the money for him and his buddies. ya.

And when did I say Bush was in it for the money?

I can answer that for ya. This is where you say "I don't know" because I know I've never taken any such position.

ya, the left has never accused bush or cheney of being in it for the money (rolls eyes)

And I never claimed to be a representative for 'the left." I'm still waiting for a specific instance when *I* said that.

if it walks like a duck, talk s like a duck, and looks like a duck, it is a duck. You dont have to say it, but since you are a clinton liberal I guess if its isnt set in stone or officially documents then it isnt true.

Originally posted by Travh20
if it walks like a duck, talk s like a duck, and looks like a duck, it is a duck. You dont have to say it, but since you are a clinton liberal I guess if its isnt set in stone or officially documents then it isnt true.

That's right. I didn't say anything of the sort, because I don't believe it. You can't back up what you say at all. Admit it.

STOP TALKING OUT OF YOUR ASS AND BACK YOUR BULLSHIT UP!

lol, now thats the pot calling the kettle black!!

es347fan, I don't think Hillary will stand a chance in 2008. Alot of the jerks that voted her into office up here, are now running around saying "What did I do". If she does get to be pres. who do you think will suck her d*** :D Maybe Gore :D

It would be really something if the one doing the sucking was another White House intern, and female to boot.

I think it's interesting that she even has one...

Of course. Why else do you think Clinton had to turn to Monica for a little action?

Look up the description of 'dog' and you'll find klinton's face. He'd screw a snake if you held it still. Hilary cut him off long ago, probably just after she got knocked up with Chelsea. With him being a dog, Hilary had an instant "in" with the women, because they all know the 'look' of the put-upon female. That's how hilary won NY -- she & those women supporting her achieved nirvana together. She's running through NY almost as grotesquely as he ran AR. Neither one of them is dumb, no, quite the contrary. They're real intelligent, conniving, amoral, despicable people. We don't need thier kind at the helm of this country. klinton happened to be at the helm when the economy took off, had sense enough to not get in the way and now he's credited with it. That snake had his own S&L crisis happening way down south. We don't need someone in office who is perceived as being a despicable reprobate.

Originally posted by Travh20
lol, now thats the pot calling the kettle black!!

Still can't back it up can you?

Back what up? I never specifically said that I Hated sadaam hussein either, but every other post I have said alluded to this, dont you understand people can see through your lies and crap? Then you turn around and ask them to prove something you said, when you make damn sure never to say anything outright, so no one can prove you wrong, while every word you say proves it on its own, classic liberal tactic.

his backround was in economics

No it's not. Where did you get this from? Are you saying that because he was governor of Arkansas, he had a background in economics?

Take this statement back, please. Unless you also want to say that Bush has a background in economics also for being an ex-governor.

Clinton went to law school.

Originally posted by Karankawa
No it's not. Where did you get this from? Are you saying that because he was governor of Arkansas, he had a background in economics?

Take this statement back, please. Unless you also want to say that Bush has a background in economics also for being an ex-governor.

My bad. I was thinking his undergrad degree was economics.....it's foreign relations. Oops.

I take it back:)

Of course, I still think it's a unfair to call the success of our country under his presidency a mere coincidence.

Originally posted by Travh20
Back what up? I never specifically said that I Hated sadaam hussein either, but every other post I have said alluded to this, dont you understand people can see through your lies and crap? Then you turn around and ask them to prove something you said, when you make damn sure never to say anything outright, so no one can prove you wrong, while every word you say proves it on its own, classic liberal tactic.

And I'm specifically saying, CONTRARY TO YOUR CLAIM, that I don't think Bush is "in it for the money for him and his buddies." You're saying I don't believe this. Back it up. I'm STILL waiting....

If you can't back it up, here's some acceptable answers, a combination of any of the below will do:

"I was wrong"
"I'm sorry."
"I'm an idiot."
"I was born this way."
"There's something wrong with me."
"I speak before I think"
"I never know what I'm talking about"
"My parents are related....."
"I hate myself."
"The guards don't give me enough access to the internet to explain"
"I only have 45 chromasomes...."
or
"My kid thinks I'm stupid too."

Interesting that Clinton's degree was in foreign relations....you sure can't tell. Anyways, Leper, you still dare to try to maintain that Clinton was a decent president? Okay, np, but let's go over your defense of him:

Of course, I still think it's a unfair to call the success of our country under his presidency a mere coincidence.

WOW!!!! So by your definition, anyone that had good things happen while he was in office was a good president. I guess this make Ike Eisenhower the greatest president ever? And I guess Reagan falls in this category too. Hmmmmmmmmmm!!!!

What about the converse. If bad things happen during a presidency, does that make him a bad president? Okay, Leper, what if a catastrophy were to happen, say, the country couldn't work out difference in Congress over slavery and the country fell into Civil War. I'd say that's pertty bad, wouldn't you? Poor Abe! I guess we need to take his image off the 5 dollar bill then, since it turns out that he is actually one of the worst presidents of all time, by your definition! Or how about if the country fell into such a deep economic abyss, the only thing that could carry it out was a world war? Good-bye FDR, you suck according to Leper.

Still think that way?

Originally posted by Karankawa
Interesting that Clinton's degree was in foreign relations....you sure can't tell. Anyways, Leper, you still dare to try to maintain that Clinton was a decent president? Okay, np, but let's go over your defense of him:



WOW!!!! So by your definition, anyone that had good things happen while he was in office was a good president. I guess this make Ike Eisenhower the greatest president ever? And I guess Reagan falls in this category too. Hmmmmmmmmmm!!!!

What about the converse. If bad things happen during a presidency, does that make him a bad president? Okay, Leper, what if a catastrophy were to happen, say, the country couldn't work out difference in Congress over slavery and the country fell into Civil War. I'd say that's pertty bad, wouldn't you? Poor Abe! I guess we need to take his image off the 5 dollar bill then, since it turns out that he is actually one of the worst presidents of all time, by your definition! Or how about if the country fell into such a deep economic abyss, the only thing that could carry it out was a world war? Good-bye FDR, you suck according to Leper.

Still think that way?

Yes, I do. It's hard is hell to tell whether what a president is doing is really helping or hurting. One thing you can see for certian though are results. No, I'm not saying this method of evaluation is full-proof and have little doubt you'll be able to cite numerous exceptions, but it has merit. At the very least, you can say Clinton did not hamper economic growth during his presidency.

Let's put it this way: if you are interviewing managers for your business, wouldn't you ask them how the businesses performed under their leadership? And if one responded, "My last business grew by 80% over the eight years I managed there," wouldn't you regard that as a major plus factor in your decision of whether or not to hire that person?

And Harry Truman won WWII by those rules. Never mind that FDR had been in office for over a decade, right?

You're discounting that the economy actually started to go sour at the very end of Clinton's last term.

Gonna bump this thread, for Jungle Girl's benefit. I'd like to hear you comment on this!