Bill Clinton: Was He Really That Bad? [Pic]

Submitted by: hole_rocks89 6 years ago in

History says, maybe not so much. Let"s just let BJs be BJs.
There are 111 comments:
Male 290
CLINTON WAS A BOSS!!! He`s my presidential hero along side Reagan and Kennedy.
0
Reply
Male 414
ol` Hill dog should of just agreed to that hot threesome.
0
Reply
Male 26
No wars? What about Kosovo
0
Reply
Female 144
@simpletools

um no not really
0
Reply
Male 33
The bubble economy started under Clinton started to collapse just as Bush took office. Then Bush kept Greenspan on and blew and even bigger bubble, which collapsed at the end of Bushes term. Then Benarke following Greenspans example started blowing up a government credit bubble under Obama and ...
0
Reply
Male 50
For the record, aside from the infidelity, I like Clinton. He seems like a great guy to hang out with. But the bottom line is he wasn`t a very good POTUS. Yeah, he created a great economy at the cost of the next generations livelyhood. i.e. Housing and the savings and loan crisis.
Also, 9/11 and the wars that followed happened becuase Clinton ignored Bin Ladin over and over again. A lot of people seem to have conveniently forgotten that Bin Landin tried to blow up the WTC with a truck bomb during Clinton`s term.
I could go on, but there`s no point because when it comes to politics, most people just ignore the facts.
0
Reply
Male 282
Ol Willie paid off the national debt alright. He was the best drug dealer of all time. LOL

Sorry to burst your bubble.
0
Reply
Male 1,243
The poster has a point and let`s remember there is none of us perfect.
0
Reply
Female 105
It wasn`t that Clinton was getting beej`s on the side.

It was the fact that he used government $$ and resources to cover up his affair.

That he had no problem lying to a federal jury - no matter what the situation was.
0
Reply
Male 206
@auburnjunky: "Do you remember how much poo Reagan got from the Democrats?"

Yes. As a matter of fact, I do. And no Democrat ever accused Reagan of rape, or being responsible for the murders of almost 50 colleagues, advisors and citizens who supposedly had dirt on him. No Democrat ever tried to have Reagan impeached.

Now, at best, you would have been 8-16 during Reagan`s tenure. I was only a few years older, but I do know that none of those things ever happened to Reagan. Accusations of senility? Yes. Possible culpability for Iran-Contra? Yes. Were there conspiracy theories about Reagan, just like there are with all presidents? Yes. But nothing Democrats did or said about Reagan came close to the GOP`s hatred of the Clenis, or the media`s scorn of the man of whom the ultimate DC elitist David Broder said, "He came in here and he trashed the place. And it`s not his place."
0
Reply
Male 10,338
"but the hatred he received from the right was unfounded and specious and set the stage for today`s political bitterness."

Do you remember how much poo Reagan got from the Democrats? I mean seriously. Makes today look like everyone loves each other.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]agree to disagree[/quote]

Alright by me.


See you next time!
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]Ok so scrap the navy?[/quote]

You`re putting words into my mouth.
0
Reply
Male 4,099
to be totally honest dude your not convincing me and I`m not convincing you, and I got poo to do today man. agree to disagree?
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]The 18-20 year old kids who were on deck should have turned them to swiss cheeze, even though they were in friendly waters of an allied nation, and despite the Navy specifically had rules against it and as you put it, it would have become an international incident.[/quote]

Not necessarily, I actually meant warning shots, not kill shots. Furthermore, it`s very interesting as to why the Cole was making fuel stop there even though Yemen was listed as a harbor for terrorists by the state department at the time.
0
Reply
Male 4,099
"See what I did there? No new boats needed just different rules. Like I said without changing the rules of engagement you`re simply creating more targets by building boats."

Ok so scrap the navy?
0
Reply
Male 4,099
all in a time of peace, right
0
Reply
Male 4,099
So let me make sure I got this correct this time.

The 18-20 year old kids who were on deck should have turned them to swiss cheeze, even though they were in friendly waters of an allied nation, and despite the Navy specifically had rules against it and as you put it, it would have become an international incident.

We should have become isolationist and not fight the starvation, bloodshed, or aids in Africa

And each time we used the surge it was effective. And that comment was directed at you comment about numbers.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]or maybe scaring a suspicious boat away with suppressing fire[/quote]

See what I did there? No new boats needed just different rules. Like I said without changing the rules of engagement you`re simply creating more targets by building boats. Whereas change the rules of engagement, and our boats no longer obliged to be sitting ducks to someone who doesn`t need a gun to do a lot of damage.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]refueling ships are a bad strategy[/quote]

..or maybe scaring a suspicious boat away with suppressing fire. Course they had standing orders not to because would`ve been a major international incident.

[quote]is having an embassy a bad strategy[/quote]

..or maybe not being so involved in other nations` affairs.

[quote]Now you misunderstood me, we were the ones doing the surge with 20000 troops in 2007[/quote]

Yes in order to counter the insurgency.
0
Reply
Male 4,099
"There`s a difference between a wave of violence (insurgancy) and coordinated attacks (embassy bombings)."

Now you misunderstood me, we were the ones doing the surge with 20000 troops in 2007
0
Reply
Male 4,099
No see I still understand, is having an embassy a bad strategy, or refueling ships are a bad strategy, or getting attack was a bad strategy, I would agree with that one but it`s not really a strategy.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]So that`s why they called the strategy "the surge" when they put 20,000 soldiers in at once.[/quote]

There`s a difference between a wave of violence (insurgancy) and coordinated attacks (embassy bombings).
0
Reply
Male 4,099
"No it was methods not numbers.
Secondly you make more soldiers/embassies/boats you make more targets."

So that`s why they called the strategy "the surge" when they put 20,000 soldiers in at once.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]exactly how am I misquoting you[/quote]

Actually you misunderstand me it was bad strategy on behalf of the military, which allowed those events to happen.
0
Reply
Male 4,099
Tuesday, October 04, 2011 8:49:48 AM
The embassy`s, the Cole, two years later 9/11

Those were the result of bad strategies not lack of money.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
exactly how am I misquoting you?
0
Reply
Male 10,855
...and you glanced over this phrase.

"but not by much"

As in "insignificant" or "not enough to warrant any praise".
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]Yea, but they have, you get the idea.[/quote]

No it was methods not numbers.
Secondly you make more soldiers/embassies/boats you make more targets.
0
Reply
Male 4,099
And you missed this part

"Is the government smaller than it would have been if Democrats had retained power? The unsatisfying answer is "probably, but not by much."
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]How is embassies, a ship, and getting attacked a strategy? [/quote]

You`re putting words into my mouth. There was no adequate strategy to prevent this, thus it happened.
0
Reply
Male 4,099
"More soldiers ain`t gonna stop a truck bomb"
"More boats ain`t gonna stop a boat bomb"

Yea, but they have, you get the idea.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]That being said your source agrees that government was
smaller during the Republicans term and responsible in part for the nice economy[/quote]

Nope you missed this part:
"Next year the federal government will spend close to $1.7 trillion. If the Democrats had never lost Congress, next year the federal government would also spend close to $1.7 trillion."
0
Reply
Male 4,099
"Those were the result of bad strategies not lack of money."

How is embassies, a ship, and getting attacked a strategy?

"Regardless" a word used to deny facts.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]The embassy`s[/quote]

More soldiers ain`t gonna stop a truck bomb

[quote]the Cole[/quote]

More boats ain`t gonna stop a boat bomb

[quote]9/11[/quote]

You get the idea.
0
Reply
Male 4,099
"...or you`re just can`t stand libertarians."

Have nothing against them, to be totally honest I skimmed it quickly and got caught up on it. So I hereby apologize for mocking your source. That being said your source agrees that government was
smaller during the Republicans term and responsible in part for the nice economy, which was the basis for our argument.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]they wouldn`t know unless they asked plus thats still no excuse for perjury[/quote]

Regardless the case had no merit whatsoever.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]The embassy`s, the Cole, two years later 9/11[/quote]

Those were the result of bad strategies not lack of money.
0
Reply
Male 4,099
@madest they wouldn`t know unless they asked plus thats still no excuse for perjury, if it were anyone else easy 4-7 years in prison, but him, its ok.

@cajun247 so your saying that defense spending in 1998-1999 was a bad idea? The embassy`s, the Cole, two years later 9/11. Yea we didn`t need it.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote] i suppose thats supposed to be an unbiased report right[/quote]

...or you`re just can`t stand libertarians.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]The questions of his dalliance with her should have never been asked[/quote]

Exactly. Tired of the President vetoing your bills? Probe his sex life. Great judge of ability right there.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
His impeachment was unfounded. The man was hounded by the GOP about Whitewater from the day he was elected. Monica Lewinsky had nothing to do with Whitewater. The questions of his dalliance with her should have never been asked.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]I did note that he glanced over balancing the budget, oh but that did matter.[/quote]

Oh yes trade defense spending for social welfare expansion, yes an excellent way to balance the budget.
Nice try there bub.
0
Reply
Male 4,099
and in the the end he said "Is the government smaller than it would have been if Democrats had retained power? The unsatisfying answer is "probably, but not by much.""

Well damn I`m blown away, probably.
0
Reply
Male 992
Cato Institute....completely unbiased.
0
Reply
Male 4,099
wow cajun247, i suppose thats supposed to be an unbiased report right, really this is your evidence. I did note that he glanced over balancing the budget, oh but that did matter.
0
Reply
Male 4,099
@madest I agree with the first part, the tech boom. Yet perjury is a serious crime and a capital offence. I don`t think he was a decent president, he was impeached, and it wasn`t unfounded, it was recorded and brodcasted across the nation.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote] well that I would say is the BEST way to judge their ability as president[/quote]

You`re right, it`s congress`s business to be probing the sex life of the Commander and Chief.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Lastly as for Newt Gingrich and Co balncing the budget.

My ass they were.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
Clinton had the benefit of being commander & chief during the tech boom. Everybody was making money. The tech boom wasn`t derived from any action of any previous president. It was an invention brought to market that everyone had to have. We all look fondly at this time because unemployment was near 4% and Wall Street hadn`t figured out a way to rip people off. Life was good.
He was a decent president but not a great man. He was flawed like most men but the hatred he received from the right was unfounded and specious and set the stage for today`s political bitterness.
0
Reply
Male 4,099
Your right but committing perjury as president, and then getting caught, well that I would say is the BEST way to judge their ability as president.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
It is also the WORST way to judge their ability as president.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
@richanddead

A president`s sex life is not relevant to the federal government`s fiscal situation.
0
Reply
Male 39,904

If we could get Slick Willy back for another 8 years
I would blow him in the oval office.
0
Reply
Male 4,099
Also Clinton admits to, in his words "failing to kill Osama" He said the reason he didn`t was because it would have taken a few hundred special forces officers flying in by helicopter by night and it was to risky. Hmmmm. Yep that plan would have never worked.
0
Reply
Male 4,099
sorry sorry, I had a life and left for a second.

Firstly to your "No but Bush did sign: ... poorly justified. "

So how does this back up your previous claim in anyway?

Secondly, I care because he was our president and the figure head of our credibility.

and lastly your source
it`s not letting me put it on as a link so just connect the it to the url, you can do that right.

http:// www.youtube.com /watch?v =oe5BFWgGgeY
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]"It irritates me that none of them in the past 20 years have stopped to consider if their foreign policy is pissing the rest of the world off or not."

...and this matters because???[/quote]

If our foreign policy is brewing more enemies than eliminating, it is not good for trade relations in the long term.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]And having the chance to kill Osama Bin Laden but not taking it, that sure paid off.[/quote]

Source or STFU.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]oh oh and cheating on his wife, wow wasn`t she surprised.[/quote]

Why do you give a 5h17?
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]so it was bush push out housing loans eh[/quote]

No but Bush did sign:
Prescription drug entitlement program
DHS and Patriot acts
A farm bill
2 pork filled transportation bills
Auto and financial bailouts
and of course a war which was poorly justified.

I`ve already said it though Clinton takes the housing crisis
0
Reply
Male 4,099
so it was bush push out housing loans eh? And not Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I see go on.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]as opposed to one that`s lasted two administrations[/quote]

Make that two. Do I necessarily agree with those wars? No, but nation building (like Iraq) is expen$$$ive.
0
Reply
Male 4,099
Your absolutely right cajun247 we got blown out of the air before we could even hold any ground.

And balancing the budget was just so unproductive for the economy
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]Your absolutely right cajun247 we got blown out of the air before we could even hold any ground.[/quote]

Yes THAT was a screw-up, but he didn`t wreck the economy like Bush did (although he is rightfully responsible for the housing crisis). What about those wars? None those interventions lasted years as opposed to one that`s lasted two administrations.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]Oh and Newt Gingrich and the republican led congress didn`t have an effect on the economy at all, that was all him. Power of the purse, riiight.[/quote]



Oh yeah and the Republican-led congress wasn`t trying to pass a 5h17load of spending bills.
0
Reply
Male 1,678
It doesn`t matter who the President is, whether or not they`re a success is usually decided by things that are out of their own hands. If Clinton was in power when Bush was and vice versa, then history would be looking very differently on each of them.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
@davymid

Nope they`ll be much more ruthless but you`re too bitter to see that.
0
Reply
Male 4,099
Right... and Aspirin factories didn`t blow up they just got beamed up by aliens.

Oh and Newt Gingrich and the republican led congress didn`t have an effect on the economy at all, that was all him. Power of the purse, riiight.

Oh and being the second impeaced president was just so funny, ah ah ah

oh oh and cheating on his wife, wow wasn`t she surprised.

And having the chance to kill Osama Bin Laden but not taking it, that sure paid off.

Good times, Good times.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
@"No Wars"

At least he wasn`t busy occupying them for FIVE YEARS!!!
0
Reply
Male 14,331
NAFTA, Somalia(Black Hawk down incident), Yugoslavia, BJs, what the definition of is is, Whitewater scam and ignoring Bin Ladens attacks. He gets a pass though cause he got to ride the tech boom and in the process thought it would be good to sell off our jobs to China don`t make someone into something they`re not.
0
Reply
Male 1,866
No wars???
Somalia, Bosnia,Liberia,Iraq,Afganistan,Sudan and Serbis obviously don`t count. Yes, Afghanistan people; we were bombing terrorists before Bush. If slick willy would have done his job instead of getting head from interns, we may have been able to avoid 9/11.


No, I don`t miss him.
0
Reply
Male 116
I thought he was a cool dude. But no wars? R U kidding me? Short memories, or maybe you just didnt even realize. Its hard to notice if the bombs arent dropping on your head.
0
Reply
Male 126
you`re right neagle. he is sorely missed
0
Reply
Male 1,010
..what, you still into that "president" thing? Give them a break, they`re puppets.

Companies run USA. Investment banks, FED, Lloyd Blankfein etc. protestors accupy Wall Street, not The White House.
0
Reply
Male 1,404
This is the man who decided to appoint Al Gore as his VP.
0
Reply
Male 3,745
the guy was awesome...`nuff said...i for one DO miss him...
0
Reply
Male 4,902
LOL being a little sensational there davy.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
AJ, you cheeky monkey. I can`t tell when you`re being serious business. Dammit.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
LOL How`s that bait taste Davy.

I actually feel you guys (non Americans).

I can do without the whole "YOU GUYS SUCK! Give us money please." stuff though.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
[quote]"It irritates me that none of them in the past 20 years have stopped to consider if their foreign policy is pissing the rest of the world off or not."

...and this matters because???[/quote]
How wonderfully parochial of you AJ. And as a non-American, I can see your point. There was a time when the Greeks ruled the known world. Then the Romans. Fast forward through the dark ages, it was a tussle between the British, the French, the Dutch and the Spanish. Now it`s America`s time. Or rather, it was. When you`re in charge, it`s easy to be a dick. Who gives a f*ck what the others think, right?

Yep, all those empires failed eventually. Why? Cause they all got roostery.

Good luck with your new Asian overlords, America. I just hope they don`t act as much like the assh*les you guys did in your hour of Zenith.
0
Reply
Male 663
He smoked cigars, played the saxophone and got a BJ from an intern... and we thought he was bad! Ha! He was great, and a great personality too!
0
Reply
Male 10,338
"It irritates me that none of them in the past 20 years have stopped to consider if their foreign policy is pissing the rest of the world off or not."

...and this matters because???
0
Reply
Male 39,904
0
Reply
Male 1,803
They`re all as xenophobic as each other. The rest of the world really hoped things would change for the better with Obama. Instead he clearly had too many favors to return to be able to do anything at all. It irritates me that none of them in the past 20 years have stopped to consider if their foreign policy is pissing the rest of the world off or not.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
Here I`ll give it a try.

0
Reply
Male 85
Lets see: he effed up our trade system with NAFTA and that his meddling in foreign affairs in the late 90`s, was most the reason for 9/11 during his predecessor, Bush.... He did ok!
In case you haven`t picked up on it, I`m being completely sarcastic. Although I do think he may of been the greatest president we`ve had sense JFK, he really screwed up free trade and practically caused 9/11 and the death of 3000 people. So I don`t know is there is any coming back from that. Ron Paul 2012 or bust!
0
Reply
Male 234
@all The current recession was caused by simultaneous wars and a tax cut, not Clinton. And are you really comparing the 3-5 month military engagements to the Iraq Afghanistan mess? Also while you may say that `technically it wasn`t a surplus`, it was a hell of a lot better than where we are now. f-king repub
0
Reply
Male 10,338
Reagan economy, and Yugoslavia. Hmmmmmm.
0
Reply
Male 525
Tried to introduce socialized medicine and laid the foundations for the current recession.

Also, I still think the Bosnian War should count as a war.
0
Reply
Male 219
Yeah...NAFTA...you bet, miss ya tons.../sarcasm]
0
Reply
Male 2,855
even if clinton became president again he is NOT going to magically fix the economy...
0
Reply
Male 1,595
Shady man, don`t miss him one bit.
0
Reply
Male 33
NAFTA! Anything else? I like the guy, but no, I don`t miss him as president.
0
Reply
Female 1,743
I really do miss Clinton. I watched a recent interview and felt like he was right on the money when they asked him about current issues. *sigh*
0
Reply
Male 1,449
Well it does fit the definition of police action, certainly was not a war by any means. Kinda like saying if you step across this line I`ll punch you being a fight.

I thought the poster was funny.
0
Reply
Male 525
No wars?

Oh yeah. I guess he would call that little business in Yugoslavia a "police action".
0
Reply
Female 322
Nice to see Clinton getting the credit he deserves.
0
Reply
Male 58
I`m tired of these smellmocrats drating up the system. Not even the repoopyheads will do anything anymore. We need the liberterrainians.
0
Reply
Male 313
Made by typical blind Liberals. They probably believe in the "surplus" which didn`t exist.
0
Reply
Male 688
"C`mon now, this is just silly. No wars? Bombing Serbia for 3 months, and no war? Losing special force elite team in Somalia an no war? Who the fkcu made this? 5 year old?"

Compared to 2 ten year wars.... yea NO WAR!
0
Reply
Male 1,293
The man that set up the sub-prime crisis. No, he was not that bad. He was far, far worse.
0
Reply
Male 1,293
Considering he set up the US for the sub-prime crisis, so effectively made inevitable an economic collapse that drew in the world, I would say yes, he really was that bad.
0
Reply
Male 5,626
No wars?
So, you must not know what happened to the Yugo factory, eh?
But then, they DID make Yugos so maybe...
0
Reply
Male 249
C`mon now, this is just silly. No wars? Bombing Serbia for 3 months, and no war? Losing special force elite team in Somalia an no war? Who the fkcu made this? 5 year old?
0
Reply
Male 7,378
[quote]lol i think any president that served eight years can be made to look good by summarizing two terms in one sentence.[/quote]
---------------
Really? Ok Bush. Go.
0
Reply
Male 500
Bwahahahahahhahahahaha
0
Reply
Male 25,416
meh...
0
Reply
Male 2,376
lol he reads from the saem playbook as the rest of em.. sorry to say.. were drated
0
Reply
Male 1,051
I saw this on a shirt around 3 years ago.
0
Reply
Male 1,008
Pimp.
0
Reply
Male 633
lol i think any president that served eight years can be made to look good by summarizing two terms in one sentence.
0
Reply
Female 353
Link: Bill Clinton: Was He Really That Bad? [Pic] [Rate Link] - History says, maybe not so much. Let`s just let BJs be BJs.
0
Reply