Has Bill Clinton as president earned your respect? If so, in what aspects of his service? And should his "personal" actions and choices while president influence that respect he earned? What about the almost parallel choices and reasonings he had regarding terrorism/Iraq?
I'm sorry to say no politician is perfect in my book. However due to some of his more positive actions he's commanded some respect where as Bush through all of his actions has commanded no respect.
In a way I could blame Clinton in part for our current dilemma.
Pretty weak of you to fall back on the Clinton thing again.
One president didn't go to full blown war with Iraq during a time of economic hardship. So this statement just isn't true.
Since you are still not seeming to pay attention, and asking questions that have been asnwered many times, I think it's a waste of time talking to you.
No point in doing it again for someone who dosn't seem to have much reading comprehension.
Jimmac,
You gotta love him.
Yes you are right, I have no reading comprehension. I am sorry I am a little slow.
However, no-one is forcing you to reply to my obviously misinformed and uneducated posts.
Which makes me question why you would do such a silly thing, and then insult me afterwards. Once again, I am a little slow so maybe you could explain why you would waste your time doing that kind of thing. Even a big dummy like me would not waste my time posting and then act as if it someone else's fault you wasted my time.
Yes you are right, I have no reading comprehension. I am sorry I am a little slow.
However, no-one is forcing you to reply to my obviously misinformed and uneducated posts.
Which makes me question why you would do such a silly thing, and then insult me afterwards. Once again, I am a little slow so maybe you could explain why you would waste your time doing that kind of thing. Even a big dummy like me would not waste my time posting and then act as if it someone else's fault you wasted my time.
Sorry, won't work this time bucko. You've been to that well once too often. Since I know that you only want to end the discussion or get the thread locked I'll talk to anyone else. I think we've covered it pretty well already though.
I'm sorry to say no politician is perfect in my book. However due to some of his more positive actions he's commanded some respect where as Bush through all of his actions has commanded no respect.
In a way I could blame Clinton in part for our current dilemma.
Pretty weak of you to fall back on the Clinton thing again.
One president didn't go to full blown war with Iraq during a time of economic hardship. So this statement just isn't true.
Since you are still not seeming to pay attention, and asking questions that have been asnwered many times, I think it's a waste of time talking to you.
Look at this reply then look at the questions, did he answer any of them?
Let me elaborate on the Iraq thing like this.
The Clinton Admin bombed Iraq based on the fact that Intel sources said SH was behind the attempted assassination of Bush Sr. (That is how I am reading it) Clinton said WMD's were a serious threat to the US and the Region.
Lets turn it around:
Pretend oh maybe.... China decides to send a missile over here and it hits a semiconductor facility that provides some chips for use in the military. Lets say 100 die and 120 are injured. Lets also say that china has some vague intel that US/Britain had attempted to assassinate an official over there. Does the US view that as an act of war? You bet.
Now compared to SH and his regime the US is more reasonable. Do you suppose that SH considered that bombing any less than an all out act of war? I think not. So if you ask me (I could be wrong), Clinton with that choice declared war on Iraq, which in turn has led to this war. I am not sure that war was not inevitable with SH in power. Would you be so hard on Al Gore if he had done the same thing as Bush, had he won?
Sorry, won't work this time bucko. You've been to that well once too often. Since I know that you only want to end the discussion or get the thread locked I'll talk to anyone else. I think we've covered it pretty well already though.
Hey I am only trying to point out that you don't have to reply and there is no need for insults. I would be more than happy to discuss any subject with you, as long as you leave the trash talk and insults at home.
As far as covering it, I am not sure what you mean by "it". I asked you very specific and and reasonable questions. My only purpose was to establish a baseline so we could communicate and I could see where you were coming from.
As I have found with you Jim, you like to talk about everything and make snide remarks yet you will not lay bare your core beliefs.
Would you be so hard on Al Gore if he had done the same thing as Bush, had he won?
He wouldn't have. Even if a Gore Admin had gone after Iraq (and it is likely one would have) the difference in how it would have been conducted would have been like night and day. The problems with how the Bush Admin has handled Iraq are very specific and a direct result of particular philosophies held by individual advisors.
I am sure Bush is a great guy on a personal level. Probably a lot of fun to hang out with in his drinking and drug using days. It is pretty absurd to suggest that I can't make a judgment about his character unless I have met him face to face though. If that was the case I would have no bases for having an opinion about any politician since I haven't ever met one.
The reason I have no respect for the guy as the president of this country is because I see him as someone whose personal convictions are nothing more than what others have told him they should be. The powers behind the throne got the guy elected exactly because of this lack of convictions so they could weld the real power.
Was Clinton all that different? He too did many things just for political reasons that I didn't like, but at least in his case I feel he was the one who made these decisions and I could hold him personally responsible for them.
This Republican assault on peoples patriotism for any criticism of their policies is really one of the most decisive and destructive actions from any political party in a long time.
I would also point out that I think the democrats are being pretty restrained compared to what the republicans said when Clinton was in office. Just look at the attacks against Hillary, they were/are particularly vicious...especially from the like of Rush Limbaugh.
He wouldn't have. Even if a Gore Admin had gone after Iraq (and it is likely one would have) the difference in how it would have been conducted would have been like night and day. The problems with how the Bush Admin has handled Iraq are very specific and a direct result of particular philosophies held by individual advisors.
Hey Giant,
Been a while. Are you here to throw insults my way as in the past or are you in a mood to discuss things more civilly?
What was the reasoning behind the aspirin factory bombing? I truly can't remember right now? I know you know this one, that is why I ask.
I think it is rather indecorous of you to read through pages of posts with detailed critiques of Bush's policies and chide us for misguided collective hate. Perhaps some personally attack this president, but most are up in arms about, among other things:
-- the way the war in Iraq has been prosecuted/justified
-- the contempt for internationalism and its mechanisms
-- the near trillion dollar swing in the nations surplus to deficit
-- the tax cuts that have favored the wealthy
-- the secrecy of the whitehouse coupled with it's chuminess with corporate interests
-- the use of "the war on terror" to tar opposition as less than patriotic
-- John Ashcroft's contempt for civil liberties
-- etc.
This, of course, after a Democratic administration that was attacked for virtually nothing but personal, visceral animosity. Where was the respect for the office of the president then?
NO!
Me?! I don't care about any of that stuff, nor do I care about the immediate RAPE of the environment that Bush started to put in place, and would continue to enact in extremis Nor the oh so obviouse links of his administration to huge oil contracts and to criminal-conduct corporations (halliburton etc) nor their links to "think tanks" who's main overriding goal has been (for years) placing an American Military presense into a prominent Middle-Eastern country . . . nope, none of that stuff matters
Nalples X is right; I hate Bush because he put some words out of place !!
I am sure Bush is a great guy on a personal level. Probably a lot of fun to hang out with in his drinking and drug using days. It is pretty absurd to suggest that I can't make a judgment about his character unless I have met him face to face though. If that was the case I would have no bases for having an opinion about any politician since I haven't ever met one.
The reason I have no respect for the guy as the president of this country is because I see him as someone whose personal convictions are nothing more than what others have told him they should be. The powers behind the throne got the guy elected exactly because of this lack of convictions so they could weld the real power.
Was Clinton all that different? He too did many things just for political reasons that I didn't like, but at least in his case I feel he was the one who made these decisions and I could hold him personally responsible for them.
This Republican assault on peoples patriotism for any criticism of their policies is really one of the most decisive and destructive actions from any political party in a long time.
I would also point out that I think the democrats are being pretty restrained compared to what the republicans said when Clinton was in office. Just look at the attacks against Hillary, they were/are particularly vicious...especially from the like of Rush Limbaugh.
I can go along with some of that, but much of the same can be said of clinton and has been. Is it right? Don't know, nor do you.
I suggest that you read what others around him say that have dealt with him on a personal or business level. And not what disgruntled co-workers or partners or whatever. I am sure there is info out there about him on this matter.
Your line of reasoning that he is just a puppet is funny though. Bush said when he won the election that he would surround himself with people that knew what they were doing, and for the most part he did just that. Now you and many others say it is them that really make the decisions.
Take Clinton, most of his appointments were political favors and the like. Clinton was a smooth talker, and that does not make him smarter or better than any other President, just a better talker.
Bush surrounds himself with great minds to help him run this superpower and you think he is the dummy? Come on.
Great minds usually like to to have their beliefs challenged and questioned. If only to personally reinforce the strength of said beliefs.
Jim, you and others seem to be too willing to belittle those who disagree with you. it seems you would prefer to have people tickle your ears. I could and have found some points to agree with you on, and I have tried to point them out, when I do.
I may be wrong but it appears to me that you feel your purpose here is to insult and marginalize those you don't agree with. Yet it seems that the only one that looks foolish is you. Except to maybe your friendly ear ticklers.
I am just wondering if you could actually grow up and discuss any given subject like you want to contribute something of meaning. Or do you just want to argue just to argue? Do you get off making these stupid snide remarks? Does it make you giggle? I don't get that.
ONe more obnoxious post and I lock this thread too.
What do you think he's trying to get you to do? I'm not responding to him directly anymore because that's his game.
After all he's done it before. That's how he inspires people to make obnoxious posts so the thread gets locked and the negative discussion of Bush's questionable actions as president stops. However I apologize for the obnoxious post.
Comments
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Minister of Sarcasm.
So you are the guy.....
Originally posted by NaplesX
just a few questions to your reply.
Has Bill Clinton as president earned your respect? If so, in what aspects of his service? And should his "personal" actions and choices while president influence that respect he earned? What about the almost parallel choices and reasonings he had regarding terrorism/Iraq?
I'm sorry to say no politician is perfect in my book. However due to some of his more positive actions he's commanded some respect where as Bush through all of his actions has commanded no respect.
In a way I could blame Clinton in part for our current dilemma.
Pretty weak of you to fall back on the Clinton thing again.
But once again you're just dancing with words.
-----------------------------------------------------------
" What about the almost parallel choices and reasonings he had regarding terrorism/Iraq? "
-----------------------------------------------------------
One president didn't go to full blown war with Iraq during a time of economic hardship. So this statement just isn't true.
Since you are still not seeming to pay attention, and asking questions that have been asnwered many times, I think it's a waste of time talking to you.
Originally posted by jimmac
-----------------------------------------------------------
" And they should be discussed. "
-----------------------------------------------------------
They already have been! Add infinitum!
No point in doing it again for someone who dosn't seem to have much reading comprehension.
Jimmac,
You gotta love him.
Yes you are right, I have no reading comprehension. I am sorry I am a little slow.
However, no-one is forcing you to reply to my obviously misinformed and uneducated posts.
Which makes me question why you would do such a silly thing, and then insult me afterwards. Once again, I am a little slow so maybe you could explain why you would waste your time doing that kind of thing. Even a big dummy like me would not waste my time posting and then act as if it someone else's fault you wasted my time.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Jimmac,
You gotta love him.
Yes you are right, I have no reading comprehension. I am sorry I am a little slow.
However, no-one is forcing you to reply to my obviously misinformed and uneducated posts.
Which makes me question why you would do such a silly thing, and then insult me afterwards. Once again, I am a little slow so maybe you could explain why you would waste your time doing that kind of thing. Even a big dummy like me would not waste my time posting and then act as if it someone else's fault you wasted my time.
Sorry, won't work this time bucko. You've been to that well once too often. Since I know that you only want to end the discussion or get the thread locked I'll talk to anyone else. I think we've covered it pretty well already though.
Originally posted by jimmac
I'm sorry to say no politician is perfect in my book. However due to some of his more positive actions he's commanded some respect where as Bush through all of his actions has commanded no respect.
In a way I could blame Clinton in part for our current dilemma.
Pretty weak of you to fall back on the Clinton thing again.
But once again you're just dancing with words.
-----------------------------------------------------------
" What about the almost parallel choices and reasonings he had regarding terrorism/Iraq? "
-----------------------------------------------------------
One president didn't go to full blown war with Iraq during a time of economic hardship. So this statement just isn't true.
Since you are still not seeming to pay attention, and asking questions that have been asnwered many times, I think it's a waste of time talking to you.
Look at this reply then look at the questions, did he answer any of them?
Let me elaborate on the Iraq thing like this.
The Clinton Admin bombed Iraq based on the fact that Intel sources said SH was behind the attempted assassination of Bush Sr. (That is how I am reading it) Clinton said WMD's were a serious threat to the US and the Region.
Lets turn it around:
Pretend oh maybe.... China decides to send a missile over here and it hits a semiconductor facility that provides some chips for use in the military. Lets say 100 die and 120 are injured. Lets also say that china has some vague intel that US/Britain had attempted to assassinate an official over there. Does the US view that as an act of war? You bet.
Now compared to SH and his regime the US is more reasonable. Do you suppose that SH considered that bombing any less than an all out act of war? I think not. So if you ask me (I could be wrong), Clinton with that choice declared war on Iraq, which in turn has led to this war. I am not sure that war was not inevitable with SH in power. Would you be so hard on Al Gore if he had done the same thing as Bush, had he won?
Originally posted by jimmac
Sorry, won't work this time bucko. You've been to that well once too often. Since I know that you only want to end the discussion or get the thread locked I'll talk to anyone else. I think we've covered it pretty well already though.
Hey I am only trying to point out that you don't have to reply and there is no need for insults. I would be more than happy to discuss any subject with you, as long as you leave the trash talk and insults at home.
As far as covering it, I am not sure what you mean by "it". I asked you very specific and and reasonable questions. My only purpose was to establish a baseline so we could communicate and I could see where you were coming from.
As I have found with you Jim, you like to talk about everything and make snide remarks yet you will not lay bare your core beliefs.
Originally posted by NaplesX
That is how I am reading it
And you read it terribly, terribly wrong.
Would you be so hard on Al Gore if he had done the same thing as Bush, had he won?
He wouldn't have. Even if a Gore Admin had gone after Iraq (and it is likely one would have) the difference in how it would have been conducted would have been like night and day. The problems with how the Bush Admin has handled Iraq are very specific and a direct result of particular philosophies held by individual advisors.
The reason I have no respect for the guy as the president of this country is because I see him as someone whose personal convictions are nothing more than what others have told him they should be. The powers behind the throne got the guy elected exactly because of this lack of convictions so they could weld the real power.
Was Clinton all that different? He too did many things just for political reasons that I didn't like, but at least in his case I feel he was the one who made these decisions and I could hold him personally responsible for them.
This Republican assault on peoples patriotism for any criticism of their policies is really one of the most decisive and destructive actions from any political party in a long time.
I would also point out that I think the democrats are being pretty restrained compared to what the republicans said when Clinton was in office. Just look at the attacks against Hillary, they were/are particularly vicious...especially from the like of Rush Limbaugh.
Originally posted by giant
And you read it terribly, terribly wrong.
He wouldn't have. Even if a Gore Admin had gone after Iraq (and it is likely one would have) the difference in how it would have been conducted would have been like night and day. The problems with how the Bush Admin has handled Iraq are very specific and a direct result of particular philosophies held by individual advisors.
Hey Giant,
Been a while. Are you here to throw insults my way as in the past or are you in a mood to discuss things more civilly?
What was the reasoning behind the aspirin factory bombing? I truly can't remember right now? I know you know this one, that is why I ask.
Originally posted by addabox
I think it is rather indecorous of you to read through pages of posts with detailed critiques of Bush's policies and chide us for misguided collective hate. Perhaps some personally attack this president, but most are up in arms about, among other things:
-- the way the war in Iraq has been prosecuted/justified
-- the contempt for internationalism and its mechanisms
-- the near trillion dollar swing in the nations surplus to deficit
-- the tax cuts that have favored the wealthy
-- the secrecy of the whitehouse coupled with it's chuminess with corporate interests
-- the use of "the war on terror" to tar opposition as less than patriotic
-- John Ashcroft's contempt for civil liberties
-- etc.
This, of course, after a Democratic administration that was attacked for virtually nothing but personal, visceral animosity. Where was the respect for the office of the president then?
NO!
Me?! I don't care about any of that stuff, nor do I care about the immediate RAPE of the environment that Bush started to put in place, and would continue to enact in extremis Nor the oh so obviouse links of his administration to huge oil contracts and to criminal-conduct corporations (halliburton etc) nor their links to "think tanks" who's main overriding goal has been (for years) placing an American Military presense into a prominent Middle-Eastern country . . . nope, none of that stuff matters
Nalples X is right; I hate Bush because he put some words out of place !!
Originally posted by craiger77
I am sure Bush is a great guy on a personal level. Probably a lot of fun to hang out with in his drinking and drug using days. It is pretty absurd to suggest that I can't make a judgment about his character unless I have met him face to face though. If that was the case I would have no bases for having an opinion about any politician since I haven't ever met one.
The reason I have no respect for the guy as the president of this country is because I see him as someone whose personal convictions are nothing more than what others have told him they should be. The powers behind the throne got the guy elected exactly because of this lack of convictions so they could weld the real power.
Was Clinton all that different? He too did many things just for political reasons that I didn't like, but at least in his case I feel he was the one who made these decisions and I could hold him personally responsible for them.
This Republican assault on peoples patriotism for any criticism of their policies is really one of the most decisive and destructive actions from any political party in a long time.
I would also point out that I think the democrats are being pretty restrained compared to what the republicans said when Clinton was in office. Just look at the attacks against Hillary, they were/are particularly vicious...especially from the like of Rush Limbaugh.
I can go along with some of that, but much of the same can be said of clinton and has been. Is it right? Don't know, nor do you.
I suggest that you read what others around him say that have dealt with him on a personal or business level. And not what disgruntled co-workers or partners or whatever. I am sure there is info out there about him on this matter.
Your line of reasoning that he is just a puppet is funny though. Bush said when he won the election that he would surround himself with people that knew what they were doing, and for the most part he did just that. Now you and many others say it is them that really make the decisions.
Take Clinton, most of his appointments were political favors and the like. Clinton was a smooth talker, and that does not make him smarter or better than any other President, just a better talker.
Bush surrounds himself with great minds to help him run this superpower and you think he is the dummy? Come on.
Originally posted by jimmac
Hee, haw! Hee, haw!
You know what is funny?
Great minds usually like to to have their beliefs challenged and questioned. If only to personally reinforce the strength of said beliefs.
Jim, you and others seem to be too willing to belittle those who disagree with you. it seems you would prefer to have people tickle your ears. I could and have found some points to agree with you on, and I have tried to point them out, when I do.
I may be wrong but it appears to me that you feel your purpose here is to insult and marginalize those you don't agree with. Yet it seems that the only one that looks foolish is you. Except to maybe your friendly ear ticklers.
I am just wondering if you could actually grow up and discuss any given subject like you want to contribute something of meaning. Or do you just want to argue just to argue? Do you get off making these stupid snide remarks? Does it make you giggle? I don't get that.
The ball is in your court.
- Dennis Miller
Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar who was invited to study at Oxford due to scholastic achievement.
(ie: smart enough to be awarded not only entry, but tuition money)
GWBush was a C student whose admission to Yale was solely due to "family legacy".
(ie: not smart enough to be awarded entry, except riding Bush coat tails and prior donations)
one achieved on their own, one only got in because of rich relatives.
still want to compare academic qualifications?
Originally posted by curiousuburb
"GWBush surrounds himself with clever advisors in much the same way a hole surrounds itself with a donut."
- Dennis Miller
Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar who was invited to study at Oxford due to scholastic achievement.
(ie: smart enough to be awarded not only entry, but tuition money)
GWBush was a C student whose admission to Yale was solely due to "family legacy".
(ie: not smart enough to be awarded entry, except riding Bush Sr. coat tails and donations)
one achieved on their own, one only got in because of rich relatives.
still want to compare academic qualifications?
Maybe I missed it, but noone was comparing academic qualifications.
Look at donald trump, who could have known?
I think you missed the point.
Originally posted by BuonRotto
ONe more obnoxious post and I lock this thread too.
What do you think he's trying to get you to do? I'm not responding to him directly anymore because that's his game.
After all he's done it before. That's how he inspires people to make obnoxious posts so the thread gets locked and the negative discussion of Bush's questionable actions as president stops. However I apologize for the obnoxious post.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Great minds usually like to to have their beliefs challenged and questioned. If only to personally reinforce the strength of said beliefs.
Read The Price of Loyalty by Ron Suskind. Dubya ain't no "great mind".
Originally posted by shetline
Read The Price of Loyalty by Ron Suskind. Dubya ain't no "great mind".
I never said he was or wasn't. I was trying to inspire jimmac to bring it up a notch. Please read context before posting.