CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › I Regret Not Appreciating Bill Clinton More
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

I Regret Not Appreciating Bill Clinton More

post #1 of 63
10/16/07 at 2:32pm
Thread Starter 
God Damn.

Every time I see him, listen to him, watch him, and think about his time in office (even the dumb sex).

Pisses me off.
Reply
post #2 of 63
10/16/07 at 2:34pm
It's amazing, isn't it? Say what you like about the man's politics, he was most definitely a statesman.
Reply
post #3 of 63
10/16/07 at 2:42pm
Thread Starter 
His politics were fine. But he's a man willing to put it out there and take the repercussions.
Reply
post #4 of 63
10/16/07 at 2:56pm
To an extent. His early years in office were marred by indecision and the weak sauce of centrist politics. It wasn't until he stepped up and live up to moderate democratic principles that he affected any real change.
Reply
post #5 of 63
10/16/07 at 3:14pm
At this point I regret not appreciating Bush Sr. more.
Reply
post #6 of 63
10/16/07 at 3:16pm
Thread Starter 
touche
Reply
post #7 of 63
10/16/07 at 3:19pm
I regret Bush Sr. not appreciating condoms more.
Reply
post #8 of 63
10/16/07 at 3:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob Singer
I regret Bush Sr. not appreciating condoms more.
If only Bar had treated him to blowjob on that fateful day.
Reply
post #9 of 63
10/16/07 at 4:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobClark
At this point I regret not appreciating Bush Sr. more.
Absolutely.

At least he kinda seemed like a President.
When he wasn't puking on Asian Food.
Reply
post #10 of 63
10/16/07 at 4:12pm
Whenever I see Bill Clinton now, he looks like the greatest man the world has ever known. I liked him fine at the time, but Jesus, we didn't know how good we had it.
Reply
post #11 of 63
10/16/07 at 4:22pm
I regret buying into "Al Gore is a block of wood with an annoying wife"
Reply
post #12 of 63
10/16/07 at 4:26pm
I remember being annoyed that Al Gore was the Democratic candidate in 2000.

*sigh*
Reply
post #13 of 63
10/16/07 at 4:36pm
The golden days, man. I think I can listen to Slick Willy speak for hours, he has a great manner about him.

Fucking shit, now I'm depressed.
Reply
post #14 of 63
10/16/07 at 4:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Collins
Absolutely.

At least he kinda seemed like a President.
When he wasn't puking on Asians.
Fixed
Reply
post #15 of 63
10/16/07 at 5:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Gayest
we didn't know how good we had it.
And that's always the way. The Lewinsky scandal seems so amazingly petty and unimportant now.

(The spellchecker knows 'Lewinsky'. How apt.)
Reply
post #16 of 63
10/16/07 at 5:08pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick Nunziata
God Damn.

Every time I see him, listen to him, watch him, and think about his time in office (even the dumb sex).

Pisses me off.
I think about the time he mercilessly rocketed a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan to divert attention away from his chubby chasing.

What pisses me off is how someone can admire such a manipulative career politician.
Reply
post #17 of 63
10/16/07 at 5:13pm
What pisses me off is how someone can not know the definition of "envy".
Reply
post #18 of 63
10/16/07 at 5:15pm
Wasn't that pharmaceutical factory a front for a weapons lab?
Reply
post #19 of 63
10/16/07 at 5:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by donde
Wasn't that pharmaceutical factory a front for a weapons lab?
No.
Reply
post #20 of 63
10/16/07 at 5:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz
What pisses me off is how someone can not know the definition of "envy".
Touché. Completely beside the point, though.
Reply
post #21 of 63
10/16/07 at 6:27pm
Volta, just out of curiosity: Which manipulative career politician do you prefer?
Reply
post #22 of 63
10/16/07 at 6:44pm
I regret that voting for Bush Jr. didn't give people the ring virus.

Reply
post #23 of 63
10/16/07 at 6:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volta
I think about the time he mercilessly rocketed a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan to divert attention away from his chubby chasing.
The timing's convenient fo sho, but that's a bunch of nonsense. Any maneuver that Clinton would make was considered "a diversion" by the Republicans and the press because he was always under a manufactured scandal. You're making a specious correlation at best.
Reply
post #24 of 63
10/16/07 at 7:24pm
I once heard Rush Limbaugh say that even though he despised Bill, in person you can't help but like the man because he's so damn charismatic and personable.
Reply
post #25 of 63
10/16/07 at 7:30pm
A lot of Clinton nostalgia comes from the fact that it was a pretty good time in America. The Cold War had ended and the economy was starting to really move again after the early 90s recession. It was the perfect time for a president so focussed on the economy and other domestic issues. Historically, though, Clinton will be considered a pretty insignificant president, in comparison to say, Reagan and Bush II. But life wasn't too bad under Clinton. I wouldn't mind a return to those times.
Reply
post #26 of 63
10/16/07 at 9:57pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Van Jones
And that's always the way. The Lewinsky scandal seems so amazingly petty and unimportant now.
Now?
Reply
post #27 of 63
10/16/07 at 10:21pm
The Lewinsky scandal was amazingly petty then. He got inpeached for it...yet Bush II can't get inpeached for his much, much, much worse shit.

Clinton wasn't a great President by any means, but he wasn't stupid or insane.
Reply
post #28 of 63
10/16/07 at 10:23pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by lordelsey
The Lewinsky scandal was amazingly petty then. He got inpeached for it...yet Bush II can't get inpeached for his much, much, much worse shit.
That's because Republicans go for the jugular while Democrats go for a firm-but-polite hand-written note.
Reply
post #29 of 63
10/16/07 at 10:25pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonvoight's car
Historically, though, Clinton will be considered a pretty insignificant president, in comparison to say, Reagan and Bush II.
The only way Reagan and Bush II are historically significant is in how much they fucked things up and how corrupt they were.If that's what you mean by significant,then you are right.
Reply
post #30 of 63
10/16/07 at 10:25pm
Yes, now. At the time it was an enormous scandal, a denigration against the office of the presidency itself, and I think responsible for most people wanting a more 'conservative' president in the next election.
Reply
post #31 of 63
10/17/07 at 8:30am
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbrother
The only way Reagan and Bush II are historically significant is in how much they fucked things up and how corrupt they were.If that's what you mean by significant,then you are right.
In regards to Regan, you apparently don't know much about American History. The good times Bill Clinton presided over are more or less a direct result of Regan's presidency. And I'll take an Iran/Contra scandal in exchange for ending 4 decades worth of cold war any day of the week.


As for Clinton, he coasted the majority of his stay, but was notable for implementing a pretty large bureaucratic restructuring of government that saved and continues to save billions of dollars a year. Nothing fancy that ever made the press, but it remains one of the better economic things a president has done during his tenure.
Reply
post #32 of 63
10/17/07 at 9:03am
I just miss having a president that could spontaneously put more than two sentences together.
Reply
post #33 of 63
10/17/07 at 11:21am
The Lewinsky thing was insignificant at most. I'm sure our European friends had a good laugh over it. Any time that's the biggest scandal an administration faces it's doing a top notch job.
Reply
post #34 of 63
10/17/07 at 12:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson
I just miss having a president that could spontaneously put more than two sentences together.
Aim higher, please.
Reply
post #35 of 63
10/17/07 at 12:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pop Zeus
Aim higher, please.
I was being serious. I miss presidents who were eloquent speakers, who knew how to hold an audience, and who said great things in great ways. Say what you want about Reagan's policies, but the man could give a speech, and the same goes for Clinton. I'm not asking for award-winning oratory, but if you're going to be the face of our nation, at least know how to speak to a group without sounding like you learned the language six months ago.
Reply
post #36 of 63
10/17/07 at 12:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Death Surge
And I'll take an Iran/Contra scandal in exchange for ending 4 decades worth of cold war any day of the week.
Right. Ronald Reagan single-handedly ended the Cold War. With his haircut.
Reply
post #37 of 63
10/17/07 at 12:57pm
Wrong - with David Hasselhoff's haircut.
Reply
post #38 of 63
10/17/07 at 12:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson
I was being serious.
Me too. My point was that most of the candidates (on the Dem side at least) are intelligent enough to string a few sentences together. I'd like to think that we've sobered up as a country after 2 terms of Bush Jr, and that maybe mediocrity is something to avoid, because accepting "good enough" is sort of what got us here in the first place.

You mention Reagan and Clinton in the same sentence, which makes me think that you're thinking about those guys' charisma, not eloquence.
Reply
post #39 of 63
10/17/07 at 1:06pm
Gotcha.

And they did have charm, but you never heard either one of them sound nearly as awkward as W does.
Reply
post #40 of 63
10/17/07 at 1:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob Singer
Right. Ronald Reagan single-handedly ended the Cold War. With his haircut.
No, by creating a sellers market on war materials. Communisms largest failing is that it's socialist economics are a complete disaster, so the Reagan escalated arms race bankrupted the soviet union. There's certainly a case to be made that it wasn't by design, but the results were undeniable. Additionally, his shift to diplomacy with Gorbachev became the real nail in the cold war coffin.

And Reagan just getting elected ended the Iran hostage situation. No country felt safe with that cowboy in charge. We have the same thing now, only other countries are scared our president will destroy them through inept management accidentally, as opposed to deliberately for pissing him off.

Edit: Thanks Chavez - I was spelling Reagan like he was in the Exorcist.
Reply
post #41 of 63
10/17/07 at 1:30pm
Ron ReAgan was 2-term president and conservative Icon. Don Regan was RR's secretary of the treasury.You may want to add an "A" in there, Surge.
Reply
post #42 of 63
10/17/07 at 1:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson
Gotcha.

And they did have charm, but you never heard either one of them sound nearly as awkward as W does.
Oh, I don't know. My primary impression of Reagan comes from Spitting Image.
Reply
post #43 of 63
10/17/07 at 1:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Death Surge
And Reagan just getting elected ended the Iran hostage situation.
Anyone not named Jimmy Carter getting elected would have ended the Iran hostage situation.
Reply
post #44 of 63
10/17/07 at 1:50pm
Think about Reagan's speech about the Challenger astronauts. Now imagine W. giving that same speech. He could get every word right, and it would still sound like some good ol' boy reading from Reader's Digest.

And I'm talking about First Term Reagan, not Second Term Losing His Mind Reagan.
Reply
post #45 of 63
10/17/07 at 1:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson
Anyone not named Jimmy Carter getting elected would have ended the Iran hostage situation.

Not really. Reagan had already made his intents clear during politcal campaigning regarding the Iran hostage situation. It's part of what got him elected.
Reply
post #46 of 63
10/17/07 at 2:01pm
I think the Iraqi army rolling into Iran had a lot more to do with Iran being receptive to releasing the hostages than Ronnie getting elected. But the whole incident seemed designed to humiliate Carter, who had a major role in the Camp David peace talks. I think that cost Carter the election more than Reagan winning it.
Reply
post #47 of 63
10/17/07 at 2:26pm
Also, I'm not a huge fan of Bush I. He gave tacit permission for Saddam to invade Kuwait. Kuwait was slant drilling into Iraqi oil fields. Then when Saddam invades, Bush turns around and gives it to 'em.
Reply
post #48 of 63
10/17/07 at 2:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Death Surge
No, by creating a sellers market on war materials. Communisms largest failing is that it's socialist economics are a complete disaster, so the Reagan escalated arms race bankrupted the soviet union. There's certainly a case to be made that it wasn't by design, but the results were undeniable. Additionally, his shift to diplomacy with Gorbachev became the real nail in the cold war coffin.
Reagan's economics sped up the fall of the USSR. It also put the US in debt it had never seen before and built up the current middle-east issues we're having now (selling arms to every side, training future terrorists, pushing wars, supporting dictators, etc). Was it worth the 10-15 years the USSR had left in it to set up the current state of affairs?

Not to mention, you completely discount Gorbechev in this whole scenario, who had more than a little to do with the fall (certainly more than Reagan).
Reply
post #49 of 63
10/17/07 at 2:44pm
Not to mention people like Lech Walensa, Solidarnosc, and the anti-communism social movement.
Reply
post #50 of 63
10/17/07 at 2:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pop Zeus
Also, I'm not a huge fan of Bush I. He gave tacit permission for Saddam to invade Kuwait. Kuwait was slant drilling into Iraqi oil fields. Then when Saddam invades, Bush turns around and gives it to 'em.
Still preferable to the sequel.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › I Regret Not Appreciating Bill Clinton More