2
   

Bill Clinton Takes On Fox News

 
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Sep, 2006 09:48 am
Perhaps that explains why the women that told about being raped by Bill were personally threatened. Maybe a psychopath was involved?
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Sep, 2006 09:49 am
Re: BBB
gungasnake wrote:
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
I never voted for Bill Clinton but you have to admit he was a better president than Bush could ever pretend to be.

BBB



KKKlinton is dead-heat tied for worst president with Jimmy Carter who, along with guys like Chuck Darwin, Thomas Malthus, and Paul Ehrlich, is a legit candidate for stupidest white man ever to walk the earth.


well at least you're in illustrious company..... :wink:
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Sep, 2006 09:53 am
Okie
okie wrote:
Perhaps that explains why the women that told about being raped by Bill were personally threatened. Maybe a psychopath was involved?


I've been wondering how long it would take you to realize your pathetic attacks on Bill Clinton only reflects on how few facts you can muster in defense of your incompetent George Bush. Makes you look like a deluded fool.

BBB
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Sep, 2006 09:54 am
Re: BBB
Cycloptichorn wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
I never voted for Bill Clinton but you have to admit he was a better president than Bush could ever pretend to be.

BBB


Based on what? The fact that you don't like Bush? That we are in a war? What is it exactly that would qualify Clinton as a "better" president?


The economy, international relations and respect, the budget (hat tip to newt as well). I doubt you could find a matrix in which he could be considered to be a worse president than Bush...

Cycloptichorn


The economy is good, international relations are good (aside from those that hate us, which would hate us regardless of who the president was), the budget could be better, but we are at war and that always leads to budgetary problems.

I didn't say he was worse, BBB sais "he (Clinton) was a better president than Bush could ever pretend to be. "

I'd like to see the justifications for that.
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Sep, 2006 09:56 am
okie wrote:
If Clinton had been working like Bush is, instead of playing, maybe we wouldn't have needed to make up for 8 years of do-nothings about terrorists.


Yeah, for those 9 months he was in office before 9-11, he worked real hard. At taking vacations and NOT having even ONE meeting about Bin Laden. It's a tough job, working on your golf swing. Thank God he was in office (or on the eighteenth hole of some private golf course) when Bin Laden struck!
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Sep, 2006 09:58 am
I would like to explain here that I don't see Al Gore or John Kerry as psychopathic as Bill Clinton. Al Gore just is out in left field with his beliefs and policies, but I think he would be a fairly decent guy. John Kerry is more of a narcissist, but I don't think he is a psychopath at all. I don't get near as animated over people I simply disagree with concerning policy, but when someone that is truly screwed up gets elected, it is very worrisome indeed.

Hey Democrats and liberals, vote for your policies, but please don't elect another Clinton. I think you all know deep down how screwed up the guy was and is.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Sep, 2006 10:03 am
Re: BBB
McGentrix wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
I never voted for Bill Clinton but you have to admit he was a better president than Bush could ever pretend to be.

BBB


Based on what? The fact that you don't like Bush? That we are in a war? What is it exactly that would qualify Clinton as a "better" president?


The economy, international relations and respect, the budget (hat tip to newt as well). I doubt you could find a matrix in which he could be considered to be a worse president than Bush...

Cycloptichorn


The economy is good, international relations are good (aside from those that hate us, which would hate us regardless of who the president was), the budget could be better, but we are at war and that always leads to budgetary problems.

I didn't say he was worse, BBB sais "he (Clinton) was a better president than Bush could ever pretend to be. "

I'd like to see the justifications for that.


I'll split it up:

Quote:

The economy is good,


Hardly. The economy is medium at best. Real wages for the average person haven't risen in years, the amount of jobs created under Bush is the lowest ever. You're comparing, at this point in the presidency, 20 million jobs for Clinton v. how many for Bush? 4 million? If that.

Wars also tend to create jobs as well, so it's not really a good excuse to say that we are 'at war.'

The markets have been basically flat, health insurance costs have skyrocketed, our national debt has gone up by several trillion dollars in just the last few years, our national savings rate is negative, etc... there simply is no comparison between the economy of Clinton and Bush, Clinton's economy was miles better, and our current one sucks.

Quote:
international relations are good (aside from those that hate us, which would hate us regardless of who the president was)


No, international relations aren't good. International opinions, including most of our allied countries, are very negative about America right now. It isn't enough for you to just say 'relations are good' when you know they aren't... and not just amongst people who 'hate us regardless,' either.

Quote:
the budget could be better, but we are at war and that always leads to budgetary problems.


True, though non-military spending has also risen under Bush. It's enough to make a Conservative cry, really.

Quote:

I didn't say he was worse, BBB sais "he (Clinton) was a better president than Bush could ever pretend to be. "

I'd like to see the justifications for that.


He was. He got more done during his term, the country was doing better, both financially, diplomatically and culturally, there was less division amongst the people of America, and our international position was at its highest level in years. How can you possibly say that Bush is better? With what matrix could you judge Bush a 'better' president??

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Sep, 2006 10:09 am
Re: BBB
McGentrix wrote:
... international relations are good ...



You've got to be kidding! There was an overwhelming support for the US following 9/11. Countries all around the world were prepared to stand by America's side. Everybody understood the decision to go to Afghanistan, and many many nations send troops.

A mere two years later, the Bush admin had managed to piss off about 90 percent of America's former allies. The motto was "you're either with us, or with the terrorits!" If a country didn't agree with the US assessment of the situation, it was characterized as a "problem". The "Coalition of the Willing" was a joke.

Yes, international relations are good with countries like Syria (the CIA transfers prisoners there), Uzbekistan (they allowed US troops to be stationed there) and Saudi Arabia (uhm, they must have oil...). They're a mess with almost all of America's former allies.

Good job there.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Sep, 2006 10:17 am
international relations are good.... man, I picked the wrong day to stop wearing Depends....
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Sep, 2006 10:18 am
Again, I thought I had the best medical grade marijuana but I need to cop some of what these delusional righties are smoking. It must be truly hallucinogenic!
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Sep, 2006 10:22 am
okie wrote:
I would like to explain here that I don't see Al Gore or John Kerry as psychopathic as Bill Clinton. Al Gore just is out in left field with his beliefs and policies, but I think he would be a fairly decent guy. John Kerry is more of a narcissist, but I don't think he is a psychopath at all. I don't get near as animated over people I simply disagree with concerning policy, but when someone that is truly screwed up gets elected, it is very worrisome indeed.

Hey Democrats and liberals, vote for your policies, but please don't elect another Clinton. I think you all know deep down how screwed up the guy was and is.


I bolded the section that, had I not seen where you typed Clinton, I would have sworn that you were referring to George (what day is it and where am I) Bush.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Sep, 2006 10:39 am
Re: BBB
Cycloptichorn wrote:
No, international relations aren't good. International opinions, including most of our allied countries, are very negative about America right now. It isn't enough for you to just say 'relations are good' when you know they aren't... and not just amongst people who 'hate us regardless,' either.

Cycloptichorn


There are international leftists as there are in the U.S. It depends on whether you ask the international press, the politicians, or the people. The people give us much better grades than the press or the politicians.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Sep, 2006 10:40 am
okie wrote:
The people give us much better grades than the press or the politicians.


No, they don't.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Sep, 2006 10:42 am
Maybe it depends on who you talk to? Are you in Germany, I forgot?
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Sep, 2006 10:44 am
Re: BBB
okie wrote:
The people give us much better grades than the press or the politicians.


Quote:
America's global image has again slipped and support for the war on terrorism has declined even among close U.S. allies like Japan. The war in Iraq is a continuing drag on opinions of the United States, not only in predominantly Muslim countries but in Europe and Asia as well. And despite growing concern over Iran's nuclear ambitions, the U.S. presence in Iraq is cited at least as often as Iran - and in many countries much more often - as a danger to world peace.

A year ago, anti-Americanism had shown some signs of abating, in part because of the positive feelings generated by U.S. aid for tsunami victims in Indonesia and elsewhere. But favorable opinions of the United States have fallen in most of the 15 countries surveyed. Only about a quarter of the Spanish public (23%) expresses positive views of the U.S., down from 41% last year; America's image also has declined significantly in India (from 71% to 56%) and Indonesia (from 38% to 30%).



http://pewglobal.org/reports/images/252-1.gif

(source: )The Pew Global Attitudes Project)
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Sep, 2006 10:46 am
Is it because of Afghanistan or Iraq or both, or is it something else? Why is Bush catching criticism in Europe for trying to enforce the U.N. resolutions, the same ones that many of the countries voted for?

By the way, favorable opinions have risen in a few countries, although they aren't Spain, France, Germany, and the UK.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Sep, 2006 10:49 am
okie wrote:
Is it because of Afghanistan or Iraq or both, or is it something else? Why is Bush catching criticism in Europe for trying to enforce the U.N. resolutions, the same ones that many of the countries voted for?



From the same source:

Quote:
The survey shows that the Iraq war continues to exact a toll on America's overall image and on support for the struggle against terrorism. Majorities in 10 of 14 foreign countries surveyed say that the war in Iraq has made the world a more dangerous place. In Great Britain, America's most important ally in Iraq, 60% say the war has made the world more dangerous, while just half that number (30%) feel it has made the world safer.



Okie, what UN resolution did Bush try to enforce by invading Iraq?
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Sep, 2006 10:50 am
Okie
It just occured to me that the reason you can't see George Bush for what he is. You forgot to take off your rose colored glasses following Bush's first term inaguration after the Supreme Court majority gave him the election.

BBB
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Sep, 2006 10:55 am
Re: okie
okie wrote:
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
okie wrote:
What a bunch of hogwash! Nobody is supposed to question his highness, Bill Clinton, but reporters can treat Bush like dirt. The fact that Clinton still has one supporter surprises me. As a child, I always wondered how the Hitler thing could have happened, how could he have been elected? Now I know how psychopaths can be elected, Clinton was, I still don't understand it, but now I see it can happen.


Your problem is that you don't have enough smarts to recognized Clinton's talent and leadership. That's your problem, not his.

BBB


Thank goodness! Hitler had talent and leadership too. I'm looking for a bit more character than you may care about. Like somebody I would at least trust far enough to buy a used car from, let alone vote for.


Oh like the sociopathic liar/war criminal George W Bush?
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Sep, 2006 10:56 am
Re: Okie
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
It just occured to me that the reason you can't see George Bush for what he is. You forgot to take off your rose colored glasses following Bush's first term inaguration after the Supreme Court majority gave him the election.

BBB


Either that or his inability to put down the crack pipe.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 02/05/2025 at 10:35:50