Pick-A-Prez

UberLord

Maybe some kinda *CENSORED* that goes by the name of M. Lewinski.
Thats to obvious - lets call her Monica L.

Seriously ByteMe, you need to backup your statements.
I could easily say what kind of *X-RATED* would vote for Bush?

Why should I not vote Clinton? Assuming that I'm an eligable voter in the US.

raid517

What kind of *expletive deleted* person would ask such an *expletive deleted* *epletive deleted* kind of question anyway?

Well peronally I wouldn't pick any of them. Maybe i would pick Clinton if he could be elected again, but he can't. He may have been a pervert (so apparently was Kenedy), but he was still good at his job.

Q

ByteMe

I don't think he was a pervert. Whom would not let some chick suck their dork? Mostly he was a liar with no backbone and little ethics.

What the heck you think he did that was so great?

JavaFox

Clinton could be elected again. Legally, at least. American law only prohibits a president from holding office for more than two consecutive terms. At any rate, Clinton did a shameful job of safeguarding this country against terrorism.

ByteMe

Ok, I'll ask you... what did Clinton do?

UberLord

Of course King George II did an excellent job of stopping terrorist controlled planes crashing willy-nilly into important US buildings such as WTC and Pentagon. And lets not forget than Anthrax in the postal service

Excellent job.

So exactly how was Clinton so "shameful" in safe-guarding the country?
Maybe he should have taken pre-emptive strikes against Al Queda, Saddam Hussien and the IRA?

UberLord

You tell me, you're the US citizen.

ByteMe

He didn't do that much. The House and Senate blocked most of his stuff. Although he did purger himself very well.


*edit*

He aslo cut military spending too much...
Gave China a MAGOR port in the US (seaport).

UberLord

Well, he did sign up to a environmentally friendly internation treaty - which Bush promptly tore up before it was passed. No doubt through his chums in the oil industry.

Aside from playing the sax, I agree that aside from the above he didn't do that much.

But compared to the current prez, what he didn't do is preferable to what the current prez is doing. If that makes any sense

JavaFox

One of his top aides has said that Clinton cared about "virtually everything more than fighting terrorism." Under Mr. Clinton's watch, there were attacks against the World Trade Center, US embassies, the USS Cole, and various other attacks. Yet Clinton refused to treat any of those cases as terrorist attacks -- he instead had them prosecuted as criminal attacks. Clinton deployed our troops into Mogadishu, which led to the horrific battle detailed in the book "Black Hawk Down." In retaliation, Clinton merely pulled American troops out. It is clear that the Somalis received training on how to shoot down helicopters from al Qaeda. It is similarly clear, and the general consensus of many experts, that bin Laden himself was emboldened by that assault. He saw the Americans flee from a relatively small amount of bloodshed. Why, in the face of so many attacks, would an American president refuse to see them as a declaration of war?

Further, under the Clinton administration, US intelligence found itself stripped. Why, went the argument, do we need such a strong intelligence gathering agency after the Cold War? The CIA had its hands tied by things like the Torcelli Principle, by underfunding, and buy a lack of support on the part of Democratic legislators and the President. Democratic concerns were embodied by a political tract by then VP Al Gore, who argued that the biggest threat to the world and the US was global warming. Let's also not forget that the government of Sudan offered Osama bin Laden to Clinton.

The fact of that matter is, the Clinton administration had no cohesive, complete plan on how to deal with terrorism. One of Bush's first priorities was to develop such a plan. Mr. Clinton's lackadaisical attitude towards safeguarding this country is what led to the attacks of 9-11 and some of us will not forget it.

If that isn't shameful, UberLord, then that word has no meaning.

ByteMe

I disagree once again. One of the reasons he didn't do much was he didn't have the balls too. Clinton DID want to go into Iraq but was afraid.

JavaFox

Kyoto would have caused serious harm to the American economy (remember, our own government sources testified that compliance would have costed the U.S. economy $400 billion per year). Further, the United States of America has never supported the Kyoto Protocol. You may recall that our Senate unanimously rejected the protocol. UNANIMOUSLY. And it is indeed the Legislature, not the President, who is charged with making such decisions.

raid517

He also resided over the greatest revival in the American economy since the early 60's. I know the crap old logic that he was only any good because the republicans before him did all the hard work. But its pretty hard to keep up that level of success for 10 years without doing something right. It doesn't take much working out to me. Economic recession all through the 80's; republicans in power. economic boom through the 90's democrats in power with massive surplus, now no doubt we will have another republican government for the next decade. Net result so far, economic recession and massive deficit. This is what come of giving all the tax payers money way to your super rich friends. Pretty soon you find out there's no money left for anything else when you need it. I think America is going to end up finding this out much sooner than she thinks..

Q

JavaFox

Yup. ByteMe is absolutely correct -- both Clinton and his lackey Gore have rhetorically supported regime change for a very long time. Of course, when Gore found that Democrats were rallying against the President, and that public opinion was pretty divided, it served him --the demagogue he is-- to go against what he had said even in the 2000 election.

Again, Clinton saw the risk in Iraq --one of his first actions was to pound that country with a few missiles-- but did not want to do anything substantive or serious about it.

ByteMe

Sure, I'll give him credit for not completely fokking up the economy. But the republicans STOPPED all his bills that would of screwed it up. (her health care bill being one of them)

raid517

Well that's not strictly true Clinton didn't go in to Iraq as it was believed that the policy of containment could still work. Was he right? Well we will never know about that now...

Q

ByteMe

Hey java, what is your take on Clinton saying only military would remove Saddam. And then he said that war was not the way to get rid of him? Do you think it was pure politicial BS?

ByteMe

He didn't go in because his aids told him that the support would be hard to get (complete support).

UberLord

The Kyoto agreement would have caused harm to every countries economy.
But then, the USA is the most oil dependant country in the world.

So I guess $$$ means more than keeping the planet alive eh?

Falstaff

but we get our most of our oil from Canada and Mexico, roughly 52% and have an incredible oil reserve, and manage to pay the least at the pump per capita than most other countries.

JavaFox

UberLord, the Oil Trust, which is a British think-tank, has said that we could burn EVERY DROP OF OIL ON THE PLANET and meet any carbon emmision regulation in existence. Oil is relatively clean as far as emmisions are concerned -- coal is the primary problem.

I support legislation that would bring emmisions down in an intelligent way; Kyoto is too much.

Falstaff

The more expensive coal burns contributes less to harmful emissions, less acid rain....

raid517

Mmm, I missed that one... No dude I'm not talking about corruption. Under US law Bush can perfectly legally give all your money to his rich friends if he wants. And that is exactly what he is doing. The Conservatives in this country once tried it too, it was basically an exercise in 'asset stripping', and in the end it nearly bankrupted our country. Only when a more liberal government (though not in the American sense) came to power has the economy really recovered. That is why the UK economy has stayed strong, while every other European economy is in decline.

Q

Falstaff

with all due respect, the British economy is perhaps stronger than say 12 years ago, but still vulnerable to economic changes that effect the rest of the world. As for our economy, regardless of past arguments and past presidents, if you will, we have grown stronger economically, and we could become more self reliant, Bush has lots and lots of rich friends, oh yes, but then so do the democrats, and they all buy gas at the same pump, regardless of who is in power...ha ha..."wait" that's not funny..hmmmmm. I know this maybe a little off track, but what do you think Bush's legacy will be, say two presidents from now?

raid517

Well I don't know what Bush's legacy will be. As has been shown here, that will probably be in the eye of the beholder. We still have a fair bit to go still so hopefully his legacy won't be a nuclear first strike against N. Korea. As for what Bush does with your money, if I were in your position - and if like most people I wasn't stinking rich, I would rather see my money spent on schools and hospitals and services I can use. They way I figure it