blackdog144 wrote: i hate clinton...though i hate most liberals...well not hate them but i hate there views...just me though...

Which views are those?

TEHGANGSTER wrote: i really dont think now is the time for a politics debate

Mondays don't work for you?

I'm a republican.

I dont have anything against Bill Clinton from what I know of him he's a ok dude.

Savage93fvss wrote: I'm stubborn in my views, you should hear my views on criminal punishment and jail time.

I would like to hear them. I would also like to hear your experience in the criminal justice field.

He was a great politician, I won't argue that.  Perhaps the greatest that office has ever seen.  But I'm curious what those of you who claim he was a great president base your opinions on... specifically?

Ken Majors wrote: I never said that she wasn't a good president. ...She ... Her ... her ... she ...

You insistence on referring to Clinton in the feminine is either childish or sexist - I just can't decide which.  Probably both.

brihard wrote: And yeah, I'm kind of interested in the criminal justice thing too. Let's hear your thoughts so I can destroy them.

It's been a while since a good criminal justice debate flourished.

Kristofer wrote: You arent one of those anti-military people calling us babykillers are you?

I'm pretty sure the usage of "babykiller" in reference to members of the armed forces diminished drastically about 30 years ago.  Wrong war, wrong decade.

Which leads to:

Because you make it sound like that because someone was in the army they arent intelligent.

brihard wrote: Clark, he's talking about how Hillary wore the pants in that one.

Obviously - I just can't figure out if it is childish or sexist to do so in that obviously patriarchal/condescending tone.  I get my various forms of condescension and arrogance confused sometimes.

(You'd think I, of all people, would be able to keep them all straight, but it gets confusing sometimes)

FlimFlam wrote: He was a great politician, I won't argue that.  Perhaps the greatest that office has ever seen.  But I'm curious what those of you who claim he was a great president base your opinions on... specifically?

Excellent question, and a tough one to answer, regardless of the President.  Frankly, most of us don't truly understand what the President does (obviously), and base our opinions primarily on TV appearance and regurgitated pundit opinions.

Nevertheless, I will offer as to Clinton:  I have mixed feelings about him generally, on policy issues.  There were many of his actions and inactions that I disagreed with (some of which have been covered in this thread), but there were some things I did agree with: 

NAFTA, for instance, was a good idea.  Increased enforcement of existing gun tracking laws against crooked dealers was a good idea (the assault gun ban, on the other hand, was idiotic).  While Clinton certainly can't be credited with creating the dot-com boom, he CAN be credited with not getting in the way, and with assisting when he could.  He pushed through larger temporary worker quotas for the dot-commers.  Most importantly, he showed a significant degree of fiscal conservatism (certainly more than our current spendthrift administration).  He kept Greenspan on as Fed chief.  Clinton also approved (over significant objections from his own party) the biggest overhaul of welfare laws in recent history, which has turned out to be a huge success.

The list goes on, in terms of domestic policies, large and small, that were good ideas and/or well executed.

But, frankly, I believe that the greatest value that Clinton added to the country was in foreign relations.  When Clinton was President, the US was the good guy.  Clinton built solid relationships with virtually the entire world.  Citizens and politicians alike from around the world liked the US, respected the US, and generally thought we were the good guy.  The value of this cannot be overstated.  If anything, the value of this is being illustrated very nicely by the current administration, which seems determined to make us the "great satan" in the eyes of the entire world, not just a few extremists.

Was Clinton a good President?  I think so.  Was he a great President?  I think that is a meaningless and arbitrary distinction.  But I absolutely think Clinton was a better President than many others have been.

oldsoldier wrote: And I love when youth comes into the forum stating "facts" that they have been told, as compared to expierienced first hand.

Glass houses, OS.

You notoriously love to bring up events that happened before your birth.  Nary a thread goes by without some WWII reference (usually in the context of "appeasement").  You also quote lots of dead people (often incorrectly or out of context) and make bad analogies to Rome and other dead civilizations.

You may be one of the oldest guys on the forum, but we are all rookies in historical terms.

Ken Majors wrote: BooksAndLeaves wrote: he was a good president She sure was... the only thing I didn't like about her was how she handled the Somalia issue. Got a few of my friends killed. I will never forgive her for leaving that Marine MEU offshore while the Rangers died. Other than that...she was the perfect Liberal Democratic president....oh except for the fact that she didn't get assassinated like the last perfect democratic president did. /end sarcasm

Lets do the math behind your logic:

Clinton=18 dead, bad

Bush=~2900 dead, okay

Clinton=pulled out days after realizing his blunder, bad!

Bush=never realized his blunder yet, only person on face of earth who thinks war in Iraq is good (except you, O.S. and Kristofer), GOOD!

Makes sense to me!

Kristofer wrote: Correct me if I am wrong but I am pretty sure there is a group out of Kansas that goes to military funerals protesting us saying its good we died and we are in fact babykillers.

Ok, I'll correct you.

The group you are referring to is the Westboro Baptist Church, a right-wing extremist group.  They protest at military funerals because they think god is punishing America for accepting homosexuality, and each dead soldier is the vengeance of god for allowing homosexuals in the military.  They don't care about babykilling, and they certainly aren't hippie lefties.  They just don't like teh homogheys.

Mr. 47 wrote: Wow... I never said he didn't EARN the title I asked what HE DID I never said anything like that at all, I am talking about the soldiers who wait around, and abuse the title that others EARN by FIGHTING for the country...

I'll have to side with the Marines (and other military) on this one.  Additional props may or may not be due to combat vets, but pre-combat military and non-combat military are no less in the service of the country than those on the front line.  Plenty of non-combat troops get killed, and even the folks in no danger whatsoever are still contributing to the strategic goals.  Everybody can't have the cool glorious jobs; that doesn't make them less valuable.  Dismissing or devaluing the contribution of military personnel for their lack of combat experience is incorrect.

oldsoldier wrote: Youth, media, and selective memory. And if you have not worn a uniform, or have not voted you have little room to complain or to judge on world events. Having an opinion is your right, but until you are eligable to actually participate in world events (vote), and possibly have the intestinal fortitude to wear the uniform, we who do and have can only laugh at your perceptions of the world and events.

There is a common theme among right-wingers that cracks me up. It is the notion that soldiers "protect their country." While they obviously are used to protect their country, that is not what they actually swear to do. As I recall the oath I took was to "support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and bear true faith and allegiance to the same....

Which brings me to this point: If it is the president and his neo-conservative religious followers who are trying to restrict the rights to  a speedy trial and counsel (Guantanamo bay), and privacy (NSA wiretaps without court orders), doesnt that make them the enemy of the constitution?

Therefore, since it is the "hippies" like myself who write editorials against the assault on the costitution and protest the government, I guess that makes us the "heros", the president the greatest enemy to our way of life, and soldiers his misguided pawns.

mbro wrote: Liberal Media Logistics Clinton did it too Gun Grabbers Bin Laden +----+ Bush is evil false intelligance Bin Laden -- Anything I forgot to mention?

You forgot Fox News and Conservative talk radio on the bottom, but other than that, looks about right...

oldsoldier wrote: I still want to see a Democratic President, maybe even a Dem majority in congress, just so I can see how according to most,my world will instantly change, and all will be right again, no war, everyone will again love America, no enemies in the world, no global warming, no political problems, medical care for all, descrimination will finally dissappear(Dems been working on that one since 1965), all for the cost of rising taxes.

See, this is where I have trouble. Those on the left are the first to scream about how nasty and evil the current administration is, and how awful what we're doing in Iraq is.....yet I don't hear any solutions being offered. I want the democrats to tell me how we can simultaneously withdraw from conflict in the middle east, and prevent further domestic attacks. If you can come up with that, I'll gladly toss my vote into the pot.

The only platform that alot of you seem to have is the "I hate Bush" platform.

Okay, so you give me what you percieve to be reasons why Bush is the 'worst president ever' but I want less complaints and more solutions.

I certainly don't think Bush is the worst president ever, but I will agree that many people have a general "I hate Bush" view.

There are some specific things that I dislike about the presidency, however.  Not surprisingly, these largely mirror the things I liked about Clinton (and the reverse is also true, of course).

 - Bush has alienated us to the world.  Without a doubt, this is the biggest problem with the presidency, and it is a whopper.  A significant function of the president is to be the face of America to the world, and Bush has failed miserably at this.  Even our closest allies hate us.

 - Fiscal irresponsibility.  Bush is the spendiest president in history, and under his permissive rule Congress has become the spendiest Congress in history.  Arguments can be made both ways on the tax cuts (but mostly against), but the spending is completely out of control.

 - Bad trade policies.  Bush pretends to be a free-marketeer, but only when it suits him or his voters.  The steel tariffs from several years ago were the most visible example of horrific trade policy, but certainly not the only one.

 - Social policies and programs restricted by religion.  Many social welfare groups around the world have had their funding cut or reduced because they distribute condoms, or talk about abortion, or talk about homosexuality, or distribute morning-after pills, or whatever.  This has had a devastating effect on several AIDS programs and other important efforts.  In general, US policies have greatly harmed the international AIDS effort.

 - Lack of scientific understanding.  Bush's statement implying that Intelligent Design ought to be taught in schools alongside evolution demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of science, and is completely unforgivable.  His "facts-optional" view of global warming and other environmental issues falls in the same category.  You don't get to simply declare science not true.

 - More religous/social issues.  The whole ghey marriage thing really makes me mad.  Holy cow.  Morning after pills.  Pick your conservative social issue - I pretty much disagree with all of them, and Bush panders shamelessly to the religious right.  Stem cell research, for chrissake.

I could go on - there are numerous very specific things I disagree with about Bush.  I would support candidates that go the other way on those issues.  There are other things I like about Bush - but those perhaps for a different post.

Lets say a house is on fire. Is it a major issue? Of course. Now lets say theres a man standing on the sidewalk outside of the house screaming "The house is on fire, it's the kid's fault for playing with matches, something needs to be done!" And by the time he gets his message and his arguments across and finally gets around to doing something other than pointing fingers, the house is nothing but a memory.

This is exactly what I see happening. "Here are the problems, they're Bush's fault!" Wheather they are or not, Leftists are so wrapped up in pointing their fingers at someone, trying to make sure that their hands are clean on any of these issues that Clark mentioned, that they aren't taking the time to say just exactly what they plan on doing to fix the issues.

Without a solid plan of action, how do I know that I wouldn't vote in someone who would enslave the American people?

....Oversimplification? Probably. Point is still made though.  

Maybe I wasn't clear, but each of the points I mentioned has a fairly obvious counter-action.

 - Don't make our allies mad.  This is mostly a matter of style and personality.  We need a president that has a personality and style that won't make foreigners hate him.

 - Fiscal conservatism.  That means no reckless tax cuts, and reigning in discretionary spending.  No bridges to nowhere.  Balance the budget.  Veto some spending bills.

 - Don't put in place isolationist trade policies.

 - Honestly try to stop AIDS, instead of just pretending.  Don't cut off funding to groups just because they give away condoms.

 - Listen to scientists.  Don't let your flunkies edit scientific documents.  Let the FDA make decisions based on science instead of policy.  Don't mix science and religion.

 - Keep religion out of policy.  Ghey marriage is not the end of the world.  Neither is embryonic stem cell research.

That's fairly specific, I think.

Clark Kent wrote: Maybe I wasn't clear, but each of the points I mentioned has a fairly obvious counter-action.  - Don't make our allies mad.  This is mostly a matter of style and personality.  We need a president that has a personality and style that won't make foreigners hate him. Like John Kerry? he had all the people skills of a morning constitutional.   - Fiscal conservatism.  That means no reckless tax cuts, and reigning in discretionary spending.  No bridges to nowhere.  Balance the budget.  Veto some spending bills. Budget balancing isn't as simple as it seems, but I see what you're driving at.    - Don't put in place isolationist trade policies. Granted.  - Honestly try to stop AIDS, instead of just pretending.  Don't cut off funding to groups just because they give away condoms. Agreed.  - Listen to scientists.  Don't let your flunkies edit scientific documents.  Let the FDA make decisions based on science instead of policy.  Don't mix science and religion. This too I'll go with.  - Keep religion out of policy.  Ghey marriage is not the end of the world.  Neither is embryonic stem cell research. So tick off half of the country to appease the other half. Thats not a solution, that's merely the opposite of the situation now. Nobody will ever make everyone happy. That's fairly specific, I think.

Now tell me about what will be the deciding factor in the next set of elections. The war on terror. As imposing as all of the above issues are, they won't hold a candle to this one when it comes time to hit the polls. This is the one the people want to know about.

If you ask 99 out of 100 people who say they hate President Bush 'why' they hate him, and what he's done wrong, paramount on their lists will be this conflict. Most other issues are taking a back seat to this one, so how do you fix it? How do you 'accomplish' your objectives and end the war at the same time?

and if you don't seek to 'accomplish' anything, does that help the image of the US at all? To go in, lay waste to a country or two seeking to root out enemies of the free world, then halfway through say 'adios amigo' and yank the rug out from under the people who DO support US actions in the middle east?

I'm not arguing with you Clark, I just want more answers, and less blame game. 

Reb Cpl + Clark Kent wrote:    - Don't make our allies mad.  This is mostly a matter of style and personality.  We need a president that has a personality and style that won't make foreigners hate him. Like John Kerry? he had all the people skills of a morning constitutional.

John Kerry certainly was no prize.  I'd take John McCain, for instance, in this category.  Many of his foreign policies are similar Bush, yet he manages to not make everybody mad.

- Fiscal conservatism.  That means no reckless tax cuts, and reigning in discretionary spending.  No bridges to nowhere.  Balance the budget.  Veto some spending bills. Budget balancing isn't as simple as it seems, but I see what you're driving at.

And I certainly acknowledge the complexity and difficulty of this task.  Bush, however, has broken every record for reckless spending.

- Keep religion out of policy.  Ghey marriage is not the end of the world.  Neither is embryonic stem cell research. So tick off half of the country to appease the other half. Thats not a solution, that's merely the opposite of the situation now. Nobody will ever make everyone happy.

True - but the question was what I didn't like about Bush, I believe.  :)

Reb wrote: Now tell me about what will be the deciding factor in the next set of elections. The war on terror. As imposing as all of the above issues are, they won't hold a candle to this one when it comes time to hit the polls. This is the one the people want to know about.

I agree - but ironically, it is not on my top ten list.  I supported the invasion of Afghanistan, I supported the invasion of Iraq.  From what I can tell both were bungled in terms of post-invasion planning, but I have no gripe with the decisions to go in.  I do believe it is time for new management of these wars, but we'll get that no matter who the next president is.

The one terror-related issue that I DO care about, and that I somehow left off my list, is civil liberties.  I am frightened by the Bush administration's apparent willingness to sacrifice the liberties of individuals in the furtherance of national security.  I would support a candidate that would take a much more balanced approach.  This also interfaces with my first concern listed above - referring to the Geneva Conventions as "quaint" will not win any friends abroad.

But I agree with your larger point - much criticism of Bush is non-specific "war is bad" rhetoric, with no real alternative.  Absolutely.

^^And my large point was really the only one I was trying to make.

Jousting with you in some of your personal beliefs was a sideline.

High Voltage wrote: and i agree with reb.....

I must say, here are a few words I never expected to hear.