Just sharing an interesting factoid that I think sheds light on the Clinton admin.
I just think it sheds light on the times and the methods with which we wage war. You can bet the current Bush has fired more missles than George Washington, but that's irrelevant too.
As for untrustworthy, was Nixon a Democrat? Was Billy the president that reneged on all the deals with the Native American Indians?
I still say it's stupid to try and include any recent president in this discussion, on either side.
Bush, Washington??? Apples and Oranges, man. If you are going make comparisons lets keep it real. What my point is that The Dems have not had an inspiring leader in the Oval Office since LBJ. And that we were distracted from the facts of the Clinton admin because our media decided to make his clowning around the big story of the moment istead of doing some real investigative reporting, but what can you do, sex sells. If we were to dig up all of the dirt behind the Clinton admin the same people appalled by Iran-Conra would be appalled by what we don't know, for good reason on both cases.
If you are going make comparisons lets keep it real.
In the past 20 years, military has changed too much to compare them in the way you were comparing them.
You're also saying that it was the media focusing on the sex 'scandal' that was a problem, not the even itself. That should be telling.
In the long run we'll have a lot of dirt on Bill and a lot of dirt on Reagan, Bush & Bush. In the meantime no one knows enough to decide if they were angels or hellspawn.
What your trying to pawn off on us is known as rhetoric.
Rhetoric??? Naw, just trying to communicate my obversations from the past 28 years of my life in the US. Besides I thought this was supposed to be a discussion on who we thought were the best and worst presidents and our reasons why. Well, I remember the 80s well, and I can read and infer about national pride through historical text. And from what I see between LBJ and Reagan there weren't too many really great American moments (Nixon going to China) the rest was either blah or shitty. So please stop being a cynic, I'm not trying to push Reagan off as being a saint, I'm just stating that the man was very effective in what he did, even when he was caught red handed.
bunge, 20years, you know what I've been a part of the great military tradiion of America for more than that. My father is career military, my biological-father was career, 2 of my grandfathers engineers for the military(public and private). So I feel I know a few things (you know it too) about the military and it's structure, the president is still Commander in Chief, in the 80s we had missles, hell we use many of the same missles still(my grandfather was part of the design team for the rocket systems). And the fact of the matter is that if any one of those missles were to fire and some point in the near future the president is going to know about it, he damn well better know about it, and if that number is substantial he probably gave the order. So, please stop playing ignorant on this so you can make a silly point, Clinton isn't worth defending anyway, now if I were to start talking smack about your favorite hockey player, then I'd understand your stance a bit better.
Also he was a war monger. Just like our current president.
Was he? That's what he was called by liberals like yourself. WWIII didn't begin. The Soviets collapsed on themselves. We used military force in Grenada and Lybia to great success. It is said Lybia has cooperated actively with the WOT and has not been a problem since the 1986 bombing. Reagan knew how to use military power in the national interest, as opposed to using it when no national interest is involved. He strengthened the image of our nation...especially in the eyes of the Soviets. This shifted the balance of power.
As far as "proving it", you have got to be kidding. The whole of political opinion in this country was to appease the Soviets and accept that one day they might just attack us. Reagan openly defied this. He went the other direction, building up the military and using public rhetoric effectively. The Soviet system in its entirety was built on lies and secrecy (and oppression) and Reagan knew it. Meanwhile, the Left kept up with its war monger-idiot label for him. If Reagan had nothing to do witht he Soviet collapse, why didn't it happen during Carter's administration? Answer: The United States was percieved as weak and to have a attitude of appeasment. Reagan's actions unquestionably contributed to the victory in the Cold War.
Even with Reagan, a man who has proven right by history, you cannot admit you were wrong.
In the past 20 years, military has changed too much to compare them in the way you were comparing them.
You're also saying that it was the media focusing on the sex 'scandal' that was a problem, not the even itself. That should be telling.
In the long run we'll have a lot of dirt on Bill and a lot of dirt on Reagan, Bush & Bush. In the meantime no one knows enough to decide if they were angels or hellspawn.
None of them were "angels".
Reagan was a superb President who won the Cold War, turned the economy around and restored pride to a nation. He will be regarded with the likes of FDR, JFK, Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln.
Bush 41 was a mediocre President who commanded a very successful military campaign but broke his promises on taxes and spending. He lost touch with the American people and didn't stand firm on too many domestic positions to name.
Clinton, if not for the good economy, would have gone down as one of the worst Presidents in history. He was a disaster on national security and use of the military. He proposed a hugely unpopular and ill-conceied national health care program. He was a womanizer and possible rapist. He had dubious moral character, no conviction, and no resolve. He campaigned on middle class tax cuts, and then raised taxes on the middle class by the largest margin in recent history. His administration had no energy policy, which the current administration is paying the politcal price for. He was impotent with terrorists, arrogant and self-obsessed.
The book is still being written on Bush 43. Though it will drive liberals crazy, this supposedly idiotic southern governor will likely go down in history as the man who stood up to international islamic terrorism, liberated Iraq and Afghanistan, cut taxes more than any other President in history and had the guts to "go it on his own." His administration will be judged on the ultimate state of the economy, which is undecided.
He was a womanizer and possible rapist. He had dubious moral character, no conviction, and no resolve. He campaigned on middle class tax cuts, and then raised taxes on the middle class by the largest margin in recent history. His administration had no energy policy, which the current administration is paying the politcal price for. He was impotent with terrorists, arrogant and self-obsessed.
possible rapist, impotant with terrorists ... Don't you think you exagerate a little ?
It's normal to don't like a president who don't belong to your party, but you are going to far here.
I will never discribe this way, any US presidents, democrat or republicans.
His administration will be judged on the ultimate state of the economy, which is undecided.
This is so sad. No other presidents from any other time are judged by this, but you're attributing greatness or failure to the past three presidents because of this. It's too close to your heart to make a judgement on the issue. Let it go.
Reagan was a superb President who won the Cold War, turned the economy around and restored pride to a nation. He will be regarded with the likes of FDR, JFK, Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln.
Bush 41 was a mediocre President who commanded a very successful military campaign but broke his promises on taxes and spending. He lost touch with the American people and didn't stand firm on too many domestic positions to name.
Clinton, if not for the good economy, would have gone down as one of the worst Presidents in history. He was a disaster on national security and use of the military. He proposed a hugely unpopular and ill-conceied national health care program. He was a womanizer and possible rapist. He had dubious moral character, no conviction, and no resolve. He campaigned on middle class tax cuts, and then raised taxes on the middle class by the largest margin in recent history. His administration had no energy policy, which the current administration is paying the politcal price for. He was impotent with terrorists, arrogant and self-obsessed.
The book is still being written on Bush 43. Though it will drive liberals crazy, this supposedly idiotic southern governor will likely go down in history as the man who stood up to international islamic terrorism, liberated Iraq and Afghanistan, cut taxes more than any other President in history and had the guts to "go it on his own." His administration will be judged on the ultimate state of the economy, which is undecided.
That's what we know, actually.
" He was a womanizer and possible rapist. He had dubious moral character, no conviction, and no resolve. "
Running out of material are we? Look you're really grasping at straws here. How is he a " possible rapist "? If your talking about Lewinski it's well documented that it was mutal consent. It's also on record that she went after him. She's also turned it into a lucrative income but we won't go into that here.
As to his character and resolve he did fine as president until he lied to the american people. But otherwise SDW he did fine. Unlike our current president who's resolve makes him swing blindly and damn the cost.
We may yet uncover some things about his moral character.
PS. Oh, about campaign rhetoric..........Reagan used " Balancing the budget " as a promise. Guess what happened ( and please don't blame it on someone else )? That's getting old.
Was he? That's what he was called by liberals like yourself. WWIII didn't begin. The Soviets collapsed on themselves. We used military force in Grenada and Lybia to great success. It is said Lybia has cooperated actively with the WOT and has not been a problem since the 1986 bombing. Reagan knew how to use military power in the national interest, as opposed to using it when no national interest is involved. He strengthened the image of our nation...especially in the eyes of the Soviets. This shifted the balance of power.
As far as "proving it", you have got to be kidding. The whole of political opinion in this country was to appease the Soviets and accept that one day they might just attack us. Reagan openly defied this. He went the other direction, building up the military and using public rhetoric effectively. The Soviet system in its entirety was built on lies and secrecy (and oppression) and Reagan knew it. Meanwhile, the Left kept up with its war monger-idiot label for him. If Reagan had nothing to do witht he Soviet collapse, why didn't it happen during Carter's administration? Answer: The United States was percieved as weak and to have a attitude of appeasment. Reagan's actions unquestionably contributed to the victory in the Cold War.
Even with Reagan, a man who has proven right by history, you cannot admit you were wrong.
This has got to be double speak at it's finest! He openly defied the idea of the Soviets attacking by trying to create Star Wars? A plan the experts told him wouldn't work but he went ahead anyway ( think of the wasted money here but that's another issue ).
Look they collasped because of their economy. Too much military spending. Way too much. It didn't have anything to do with us. Other than their reaction to us. If you're going to try to tell us that was his master plan I'm going to bust a gut laughing.
[Reagan] was a great president because he instilled pride into a vast number of Americans, working class, military, families, business men, doctors, lawyers, etc...
What does that have to do with leadership? Hitler (and no, I'm not comparing Reagan to Hitler) instilled pride into a vast number of Germans in the 1930's, but turned out to not have been such a great leader. By your criteria, Mary Lou Retton should have run for office.
possible rapist ... Don't you think you exagerate a little ?
You never heard of Juanita Broaddrick, did you? Not surprised. Lisa Myers did an interview with her for the NBC Newsmagazine, Dateline. NBC sat on the story for weeks until Ms. Broaddrick gave another interview to Dorothy Rabinowitz of the WSJ. The Washington Post then picked up the story but that's about all the media traction it got.
You never heard of Juanita Broaddrick, did you? Not surprised. Lisa Myers did an interview with her for the NBC Newsmagazine, Dateline. NBC sat on the story for weeks until Ms. Broaddrick gave another interview to Dorothy Rabinowitz of the WSJ. The Washington Post then picked up the story but that's about all the media traction it got.
Well it remind a story happening in France , a bitch said that a french politician and former journalist raped her : yes you read it : he rapped a bicth. Unfortunately for her, the agendas of the politician, his wife and his secretary said that the day he supposed to raped her, he was not in Toulouse but in Paris.
Well it remind a story happening in France, a bitch said that a french politician and former journalist raped her... Unfortunately for her, the agendas of the politician, his wife and his secretary said that the day he supposed to raped her, he was not in Toulouse but in Paris.
Ms. Broaddrick's story is not so easily dismissed.
Comments
Originally posted by LiquidR
Just sharing an interesting factoid that I think sheds light on the Clinton admin.
I just think it sheds light on the times and the methods with which we wage war. You can bet the current Bush has fired more missles than George Washington, but that's irrelevant too.
As for untrustworthy, was Nixon a Democrat? Was Billy the president that reneged on all the deals with the Native American Indians?
I still say it's stupid to try and include any recent president in this discussion, on either side.
Originally posted by LiquidR
If you are going make comparisons lets keep it real.
In the past 20 years, military has changed too much to compare them in the way you were comparing them.
You're also saying that it was the media focusing on the sex 'scandal' that was a problem, not the even itself. That should be telling.
In the long run we'll have a lot of dirt on Bill and a lot of dirt on Reagan, Bush & Bush. In the meantime no one knows enough to decide if they were angels or hellspawn.
What your trying to pawn off on us is known as rhetoric.
Originally posted by jimmac
LiquidR,
What your trying to pawn off on us is known as rhetoric.
Rhetoric??? Naw, just trying to communicate my obversations from the past 28 years of my life in the US. Besides I thought this was supposed to be a discussion on who we thought were the best and worst presidents and our reasons why. Well, I remember the 80s well, and I can read and infer about national pride through historical text. And from what I see between LBJ and Reagan there weren't too many really great American moments (Nixon going to China) the rest was either blah or shitty. So please stop being a cynic, I'm not trying to push Reagan off as being a saint, I'm just stating that the man was very effective in what he did, even when he was caught red handed.
bunge, 20years, you know what I've been a part of the great military tradiion of America for more than that. My father is career military, my biological-father was career, 2 of my grandfathers engineers for the military(public and private). So I feel I know a few things (you know it too) about the military and it's structure, the president is still Commander in Chief, in the 80s we had missles, hell we use many of the same missles still(my grandfather was part of the design team for the rocket systems). And the fact of the matter is that if any one of those missles were to fire and some point in the near future the president is going to know about it, he damn well better know about it, and if that number is substantial he probably gave the order. So, please stop playing ignorant on this so you can make a silly point, Clinton isn't worth defending anyway, now if I were to start talking smack about your favorite hockey player, then I'd understand your stance a bit better.
Originally posted by jimmac
Also he was a war monger. Just like our current president.
Was he? That's what he was called by liberals like yourself. WWIII didn't begin. The Soviets collapsed on themselves. We used military force in Grenada and Lybia to great success. It is said Lybia has cooperated actively with the WOT and has not been a problem since the 1986 bombing. Reagan knew how to use military power in the national interest, as opposed to using it when no national interest is involved. He strengthened the image of our nation...especially in the eyes of the Soviets. This shifted the balance of power.
As far as "proving it", you have got to be kidding. The whole of political opinion in this country was to appease the Soviets and accept that one day they might just attack us. Reagan openly defied this. He went the other direction, building up the military and using public rhetoric effectively. The Soviet system in its entirety was built on lies and secrecy (and oppression) and Reagan knew it. Meanwhile, the Left kept up with its war monger-idiot label for him. If Reagan had nothing to do witht he Soviet collapse, why didn't it happen during Carter's administration? Answer: The United States was percieved as weak and to have a attitude of appeasment. Reagan's actions unquestionably contributed to the victory in the Cold War.
Even with Reagan, a man who has proven right by history, you cannot admit you were wrong.
Originally posted by bunge
In the past 20 years, military has changed too much to compare them in the way you were comparing them.
You're also saying that it was the media focusing on the sex 'scandal' that was a problem, not the even itself. That should be telling.
In the long run we'll have a lot of dirt on Bill and a lot of dirt on Reagan, Bush & Bush. In the meantime no one knows enough to decide if they were angels or hellspawn.
None of them were "angels".
Reagan was a superb President who won the Cold War, turned the economy around and restored pride to a nation. He will be regarded with the likes of FDR, JFK, Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln.
Bush 41 was a mediocre President who commanded a very successful military campaign but broke his promises on taxes and spending. He lost touch with the American people and didn't stand firm on too many domestic positions to name.
Clinton, if not for the good economy, would have gone down as one of the worst Presidents in history. He was a disaster on national security and use of the military. He proposed a hugely unpopular and ill-conceied national health care program. He was a womanizer and possible rapist. He had dubious moral character, no conviction, and no resolve. He campaigned on middle class tax cuts, and then raised taxes on the middle class by the largest margin in recent history. His administration had no energy policy, which the current administration is paying the politcal price for. He was impotent with terrorists, arrogant and self-obsessed.
The book is still being written on Bush 43. Though it will drive liberals crazy, this supposedly idiotic southern governor will likely go down in history as the man who stood up to international islamic terrorism, liberated Iraq and Afghanistan, cut taxes more than any other President in history and had the guts to "go it on his own." His administration will be judged on the ultimate state of the economy, which is undecided.
That's what we know, actually.
Originally posted by SDW2001
He was a womanizer and possible rapist. He had dubious moral character, no conviction, and no resolve. He campaigned on middle class tax cuts, and then raised taxes on the middle class by the largest margin in recent history. His administration had no energy policy, which the current administration is paying the politcal price for. He was impotent with terrorists, arrogant and self-obsessed.
possible rapist, impotant with terrorists ... Don't you think you exagerate a little ?
It's normal to don't like a president who don't belong to your party, but you are going to far here.
I will never discribe this way, any US presidents, democrat or republicans.
Some moderation will be welcome.
Originally posted by SDW2001
His administration will be judged on the ultimate state of the economy, which is undecided.
This is so sad. No other presidents from any other time are judged by this, but you're attributing greatness or failure to the past three presidents because of this. It's too close to your heart to make a judgement on the issue. Let it go.
Originally posted by SDW2001
None of them were "angels".
Reagan was a superb President who won the Cold War, turned the economy around and restored pride to a nation. He will be regarded with the likes of FDR, JFK, Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln.
Bush 41 was a mediocre President who commanded a very successful military campaign but broke his promises on taxes and spending. He lost touch with the American people and didn't stand firm on too many domestic positions to name.
Clinton, if not for the good economy, would have gone down as one of the worst Presidents in history. He was a disaster on national security and use of the military. He proposed a hugely unpopular and ill-conceied national health care program. He was a womanizer and possible rapist. He had dubious moral character, no conviction, and no resolve. He campaigned on middle class tax cuts, and then raised taxes on the middle class by the largest margin in recent history. His administration had no energy policy, which the current administration is paying the politcal price for. He was impotent with terrorists, arrogant and self-obsessed.
The book is still being written on Bush 43. Though it will drive liberals crazy, this supposedly idiotic southern governor will likely go down in history as the man who stood up to international islamic terrorism, liberated Iraq and Afghanistan, cut taxes more than any other President in history and had the guts to "go it on his own." His administration will be judged on the ultimate state of the economy, which is undecided.
That's what we know, actually.
" He was a womanizer and possible rapist. He had dubious moral character, no conviction, and no resolve. "
Running out of material are we? Look you're really grasping at straws here. How is he a " possible rapist "? If your talking about Lewinski it's well documented that it was mutal consent. It's also on record that she went after him. She's also turned it into a lucrative income but we won't go into that here.
As to his character and resolve he did fine as president until he lied to the american people. But otherwise SDW he did fine. Unlike our current president who's resolve makes him swing blindly and damn the cost.
We may yet uncover some things about his moral character.
PS. Oh, about campaign rhetoric..........Reagan used " Balancing the budget " as a promise. Guess what happened ( and please don't blame it on someone else )? That's getting old.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Was he? That's what he was called by liberals like yourself. WWIII didn't begin. The Soviets collapsed on themselves. We used military force in Grenada and Lybia to great success. It is said Lybia has cooperated actively with the WOT and has not been a problem since the 1986 bombing. Reagan knew how to use military power in the national interest, as opposed to using it when no national interest is involved. He strengthened the image of our nation...especially in the eyes of the Soviets. This shifted the balance of power.
As far as "proving it", you have got to be kidding. The whole of political opinion in this country was to appease the Soviets and accept that one day they might just attack us. Reagan openly defied this. He went the other direction, building up the military and using public rhetoric effectively. The Soviet system in its entirety was built on lies and secrecy (and oppression) and Reagan knew it. Meanwhile, the Left kept up with its war monger-idiot label for him. If Reagan had nothing to do witht he Soviet collapse, why didn't it happen during Carter's administration? Answer: The United States was percieved as weak and to have a attitude of appeasment. Reagan's actions unquestionably contributed to the victory in the Cold War.
Even with Reagan, a man who has proven right by history, you cannot admit you were wrong.
This has got to be double speak at it's finest! He openly defied the idea of the Soviets attacking by trying to create Star Wars? A plan the experts told him wouldn't work but he went ahead anyway ( think of the wasted money here but that's another issue ).
Look they collasped because of their economy. Too much military spending. Way too much. It didn't have anything to do with us. Other than their reaction to us. If you're going to try to tell us that was his master plan I'm going to bust a gut laughing.
LiquidR:
[Reagan] was a great president because he instilled pride into a vast number of Americans, working class, military, families, business men, doctors, lawyers, etc...
What does that have to do with leadership? Hitler (and no, I'm not comparing Reagan to Hitler) instilled pride into a vast number of Germans in the 1930's, but turned out to not have been such a great leader. By your criteria, Mary Lou Retton should have run for office.
SDW:
[Clinton] was a disaster on national security
You keep saying this, but have yet to back it up.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
possible rapist ... Don't you think you exagerate a little ?
You never heard of Juanita Broaddrick, did you? Not surprised. Lisa Myers did an interview with her for the NBC Newsmagazine, Dateline. NBC sat on the story for weeks until Ms. Broaddrick gave another interview to Dorothy Rabinowitz of the WSJ. The Washington Post then picked up the story but that's about all the media traction it got.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
You never heard of Juanita Broaddrick, did you? Not surprised. Lisa Myers did an interview with her for the NBC Newsmagazine, Dateline. NBC sat on the story for weeks until Ms. Broaddrick gave another interview to Dorothy Rabinowitz of the WSJ. The Washington Post then picked up the story but that's about all the media traction it got.
Well it remind a story happening in France , a bitch said that a french politician and former journalist raped her : yes you read it : he rapped a bicth. Unfortunately for her, the agendas of the politician, his wife and his secretary said that the day he supposed to raped her, he was not in Toulouse but in Paris.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Well it remind a story happening in France, a bitch said that a french politician and former journalist raped her... Unfortunately for her, the agendas of the politician, his wife and his secretary said that the day he supposed to raped her, he was not in Toulouse but in Paris.
Ms. Broaddrick's story is not so easily dismissed.
Originally posted by SDW2001
... and possible rapist.
You mean like bush: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...sexual+assault
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
Ms. Broaddrick's story is not so easily dismissed.
Oh please!
Originally posted by jimmac
Oh please!
Go ahead. Poke holes in her story. Shouldn't be too hard. There's no physical evidence anymore.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
Go ahead. Poke holes in her story. Shouldn't be too hard. There's no physical evidence anymore.
Grasping at straws. Not even worth my time. At times like these people like her come out of the woodwork.
Originally posted by jimmac
Grasping at straws. Not even worth my time...
In other words, you can't.