Forum
  Classifieds
  News
  Localband
  Shows
  Show Pics
  Polls

  OT Threads
  Other News
  Movies
  VideoGames
  Videos
  TV
  Sports
  Gear
  /r/
  Food

  New Thread
  New Poll

E-mail

New site? Maybe some day.

Username:

SPAM Filter: re-type this

(values are 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,B,C,D,E, or F)

Message:

UBB enabled. HTML disabled Spam Filtering enabledIcons: (click image to insert) Show All - pop

b i u add: url image video(?)

:	post by ShadowSD at 2006-09-25 19:54:21

hungtableed said:

Secondly, people can piss and moan about bush's lack of action before 9/11 - but, how does his 8 months of holding office and not acting even remotely compare to clinton's 8 years of non action?

Well that should be easily answered with one of you guys' own favorite talking points when trying to defend Bush: "We haven't been attacked on American soil since 9/11." Well, remember the first WTC attack, which happened WEEKS into Clinton's Presidency (keeping in mind presidents don't set up their administration until the first 100 days; Bush had about 250 days in office by 9/11). Anyway, after the first WTC attack in 1993 under Clinton, we weren't attacked on American soil for over EIGHT years, and for the duration of Clinton's presidency.

Neo-conservatives don't want to admit that, yet they brag about every single day that we're not attacked on American soil under Bush. I dare anyone to explain this total contradiction in logic to me.

hungtableed said:

I love how everyone gets their panties all in a fucking knot when you knock on their beloved clinton - because they, like he, convinces themselves that the lies constructed to protect his legacy are in fact true.

Clinton's legacy is not just about political debate, it is how the eight years in office affected the population he governed in comparison to other presidents.

Instead of us engaging in unending hypothetical arguments that can never be proven one way or the other, like would we have been attacked on 9/11 if someone else was President, we can instead look at objective factors like the economic record, how much time our country spent at war, how many soldiers we lost, how many people in other countries we killed, and his approval ratings over time. I hated Clinton when he ran in 1992, he was my least favorite of all three candidates at the time (and this is against Bush's father and Ross Perot). It was immediate, I just had a bad vibe about Clinton from the start, thought he was a smooth talking sleazeball, and I always have. But looking at the record objectively considering the factors I listed above, one can certainly argue that Clinton is our greatest modern President, and perhaps one of our greatest ever.

(And really, who knows how many of our great presidents were sleazeballs in their personal lives before the age of mass media? If true, it wouldn't make them lesser presidents, even though it might make them lesser men. There is a difference.)

[default homepage]

[print][

11:45:42am Jun 03,2024
load time 0.02289 secs/10 queries]

[search]

[refresh page]