Originally posted by Pool-BoyClinton was liberal to the core- he started super-liberal with the whole social health care issue, and only tempered it "publicly" when it started to backfire. He was a terrible president, but he was a tremendous politician.
Jeezum Crow! It's been how long already? I really, really, REALLY think it's past time the righties dropped this line. Clinton WON! Sweet Mother of Pearl! Get over it! Bush LOST. So did Dole. The electoral college said so.
Sometimes I think there is definately such a thing as being 'too witty' but I'm just trying to point this out: There's no sense on a politics board to point at someone's thought's and say, "Hey, you're stupid! You're opinion doesn't count! Stop posting!" Unless you run the damn board. Then you can do whatever the hell you want :)
"You gotta hate somebody before this is over. Them, me, it doesn't matter."
"Hate, who do I hate? You tell me."
"Who do you love?"
-Wintermute to Case in William Gibson's Neuromancer
Good Economy!?!?! Jeehozefat! Clinton rode the wave of George Sr.s economic bounce (yeah, we went into a recession after the war, but that is NORMAL), and as soon as it started to dip, there was a Republican congress to patch things up, and he rode THAT through the end of his terms. The very fact that the economy started to drop BEFORE Clinton left office should be a pretty good indicator that the recession is not in any way W's fault. The only reason we had "Peace" during Clinton's terms is because he and his spineless Sec of State would not stand up to people like Osama then, and only made things worse. Yes, thank GOD someone other than Clinton was in the White House during 9/11- Clinton would have just lobbed a few more missiles into Afghanistan and said "bad!" and left it at that. I did not vote for Dole anyway, (Harry Brown, all the way!), and yup, Bush Sr. lost. One COULD say it was because of Democratic dealing and backstabbing ("IF you do allow us to increase taxes, we will help you here *snicker*) but that is too long ago to be relavant. But you are right- the electoral college is the key issue here. The electoral college is the one who gave Bush the presidency, and not the Supreme Court. If memory serves, the Supreme COurt would not touch the issue. If you are going to get upset about lost votes, answer me this- why should someone too stupid to figure out a basic butterfly ballot, or too stupid to follow the voting instructions (I do not care what party you belong to), be allowed to vote anyway? You should have to pass a decent-level US History test before they let you vote or something-
Craig Reade "Pool Boy" Chris Jericho stole my beard. That is right, I had it first.
I feel very dirty sticking up for one of the slimiest politicians of all time.
Edit: Oh yeah. The President has very little to do with the economy of the country. It tends to move on its own. It may react to certain decisions he makes, but he has very little power over it, so giving credit of a good economy to any president, or blaming a poor one on them, is ridiculous, in most cases.
Edit 2: "If memory serves, the Supreme COurt would not touch the issue. "
I didn't know there was still so much servile genuflection of the Clintonistas....
Bush, on the other hand, ignored Bin Laden for some time: Nice source. I trust nothing that has the word "progressive" in it because "progressive" is usually a synonym for far left/liberal policies that restrict basic individual freedoms. Like banning the consumption of meat(which some folks want)
Clinton wanted to assasinate Bin Laden (which was illegal at the time due to an executive order by Conservative hero Ronald Reagan), but claims to not have had enough information to track him down.
If you had read your source more completely, you would know that Gerald Ford signed the order(no friend of conservatives), was tightend by the Peanut Farmer during his one disastrous turn, and was extended to intelligence agencies under Reagan.
here are a few more examples of what Clinton tried to do. Scroll down to the bottom: Bill Press was, at one point, the "from the left" on Crossfire. Might as well have brought out James Carville. Next...
The Court, in a disgusting display of usurpation of power, stepped in and said that the Florida Supreme Court's decision in the dispute was wrong. That's what happens when lower courts get it wrong. We have this great thing called the Constitution that allows decisions from state supreme courts to be appealed to the Supreme Court. Such judicial reviews have only been happening since 1819.
Honestly, considering that Eviljon almost always posts numerous links to his sources of arguements, and you usually fight back by saying 'that group sounds suspiciously liberal to me, so they can´t be right,' I think I´m going to go with Eviljon on most of this stuff. But then again, I read such subversive communist propoganda as the New York Times.
Expressing myself EVERY day - but especially on July 22, 2002!
Bah. I could post sources, but I don' have the time to run out and find them. Nevertheless, I would expect my sources to be slammed much like I slam them. There are really few things that can be counted as "neutral sources" anyway.
I was pissed when Dubya “won” the election, but when I voted, I voted for the lesser of two evils, anyway. I didn't particularly want either one of them in office, quite frankly-- I was hoping for John McCain or even better, Alan Keyes. I actually voted for Keyes in the Indiana primary, even though by that time he'd been mathematically eliminated. I guess I just did it on general principle.
“I can't believe it! I just got pinned by a freaking 12-year-old!”-- Kurt Angle talking about Rey Mysterio on WWE SmackDown!, 8/9/02
Two-Time, Two-Time Randomly Selected Weiner of the Day, 5/27/02 and 7/3/02
I know that Ford was the first to ban assasiantion attempts, but Reagan strengthened the order. Regardless, Clinton's hands were tied, as he bowed before precedent. And I hope your not about to call Ford a liberal too.
The story about Bush not picking up where Clinton left off (the "progressive" one) was reported a few places. That just happened to be the first one that I found when looking for it again. I will find where else it appeared (BBC or something, I think) later, but I don't have the time right now.
I know Bill Press's piece is an opinion piece, but I hardly think that gives him the right to lie. That's why I said to scroll to the bottom. The top is nothing but name calling.
"That's what happens when lower courts get it wrong. We have this great thing called the Constitution that allows decisions from state supreme courts to be appealed to the Supreme Court. Such judicial reviews have only been happening since 1819."
Not exactly. Firstly, the Supreme Court gave itself the powers that it holds today. Reversing laws and whatnot. Secondly, issues brought before the Court must meet certain criteria before the Court will here them, which this case did not. It was a local issue, through and through.
You know, Clinton(as well as both Bush's) could have just as easily rescinded that executive order too. He could have signed an EO saying "Executive Order #OU812 is hereby rescinded". Considerng Clinton breached the constitution(like most Presidents of the 20th century) by creating laws within the executive branch. This is the administration that did have Paul Begala as an official adviser running around saying "Stroke of the pen, law of the land: pretty cool huh?"
Thank god that bunch of clowns left. Let's hope that the HMS Hillary doesn't get any ideas.
You need to seperate the two, as they are COMPLETELY FUCKING DIFFERENT SITUATIONS! Were you being facetious in the first part, or what? Do you seriously think this situation and the Iraq war are at all comparable?