So, I just read a right-wingers attack on why the Clinton years were actually worse than the Bush years...?

Question

And the only 3 examples he gave to justify it, were Waco, Ruby Ridge and Elian Gonzales.

Is the right-wing so dumb that they don't realize the things they are upset about don't actually have any effect on their day-to-day lives? For example....someone getting a *******. Or, whether or not the 2 guys who live 6 doors down from you are gay, or married, or just buddies. Get over it....

However....spiraling deficits....spiraling national debt...spiraling gas prices...spiraling energy prices....protracted wars costing hundreds of billions, but producing no results...government survellience of our bank records, e-mails and phone calls....

Those things effect all of us.

Is there any chance the right-wing will get a clue?

Oh, sorry, Matt S, I didn't realize that Ruby Ridge had an impact on my day-to-day life. Sorry, dude, you know every word I wrote is 100% on the money, which is why your answer is so devoid of a counter-argument.

Answer 1

Very scary, isn't it ?

Answer 2

Okay, the person who attacked Clinton for those reasons wasn't very smart. How about some things that Clinton did that DO affect Americans? For example, the bill that he signed into effect which raised health care costs for elderly citizens about 10%, as if it wasn't high enough already. There's also selling technology to our enemies, not taking Osama into custody when he was offered, doing nothing about the terrorist attacks which had been escalating since 1979, not to mention those who lost their jobs as a direct result of his policies. Also consider that he was insincere. The proof? I saw a tape of him at a funeral, where he was laughing and chatting with people like it was nothing, and then when he noticed the camera was on him, he became really somber and wiped away a tear.
As for all of those things you named:
War costs money.
War costs money.
The president does not control prices of products.
Energy prices are related to the skyrocketing cost of petroleum.
Wars cost money, and what do you mean "no results"?! I guess millions turning out to vote though it may have meant death isn't a result?
The government is not surveilling everyone's bank records, emails, or phone calls. They did get our phone records, yes, but that's the same kind of thing one could get from a garbage can. The only people whose lines are tapped, or are having their bank records and emails surveilled are those who are in contact with known terrorists. Matter of fact, it's due to the FBI surveilling chat rooms/emails that the terrorist plot involving the New York subway systems was prevented. Not to mention all the other terrorist plots that have been foiled, like the attack on the Sears Tower, and the Space Needle.
So who needs to get a clue again, other than the guy who had no good reason to bash Clinton's time in office?

Answer 3

Spin, spin, spin! I like how I read on these post how some right wingers blame Clinton for the mess we are in now instead of criticizing President Bush. It's always someone else's fault. Every President makes mistakes and that will never change. In 2008 if America elects a Democrat as President, the right wing will blame everything that Bush has screwed up on the new President somehow. I feel sorry for the next President, having to inherit all these problems. Republican or Democrat, they will have there hands full. Bush will have been in office for 8 years and the right wing will still be blaming Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Carter and unfortunately the new President for the problems we are facing today. For once I would like to see the right wing show some accountability and just admit the mistakes their party is making on a daily basis and try to fix them instead of blaming others. You can see potential republican presidential nominees already trying to distance themselves from the President. Hum! Politics at it's best.

Answer 4

Clinton might have looked non violent, yet what he ignored caught as much as us. 'ninety 3 worldwide commerce center bombing became carried out by capacity of an analogous terrorists who helped out with 9/11. the united statesCole became attacked by capacity of Al-Qaeda. What does invoice Clinton do? Blow up some warehouse? best. to no longer point out the very incontrovertible fact that the only reason the economic gadget became nicely in shape at that component became as a results of internet improve, had it no longer occurred, he does not have had it so good. The economic gadget falls and rises, it extremely is basically the way it extremely is. Rises and falls, basically the character of it. will no longer be able to truly blame it on a President, he does not have adequate potential to try this.

Answer 5

well for wire taps and emails the Clinton adminstration he passed 2 major bills. the first in 1994 and 2000.
http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/200001_us_fed_wiretap_laws.html

second every year Pres. Clinton was in office his adminstration shrunk the national debt yet only ran surplus 2 years. how was this done? also the attacks of 911 changed the spending habits of the government. how many billions of dollars have been spent on national security that never had to be spent before? also spent on national diesters?

also after 5 attacks by al quidia during the Pres. Clinton years never went after their leadership. allowed them to grow . Mrs. Miller from the NY times was going to write a column about 2 terrorist talking about hitting Americia again and this time they will have to do something. even when Bin Landen was going to be handed to us refused to do anything.

the war we are fighting now is the war President Clinton refused to fight. do you remember the Columbus Ohio debate? there are many quotes of President Clinton stating that Saddam has many wmds.
http://www.iraqwatch.org/perspectives/winep-miss-wmd-3-23-98.htm

let alone left office in a recession.let alone free trade with Chinia, Vietnam and NATFA.
so not everything was rosey under President Clinton.

and it was perjury was the scandal where other people have gone to jail for . so it is okay for the president to be above the law?

Answer 6

well, to begin with, ruby ridge happened before Clinton was in office, so it's a moot point. They just covered it up.

Your stunning ignorance is appalling. And, quite honestly, who are you to say what matters in another person's life? Nobody cared that Clinton got a blow. They cared he lied under oath and perjured himself in a federal civil rights case. The dissolution of the American family, thinly guised as gay marriage, is a serious threat to our social structure - but you're not smart enough to figure that out. Yeah, stick to the argument that it was all about an intern and a President in a back office... It's easier that way when stupid people like you stay ignorant, otherwise you start thinking and trying to act like you know what you're doing. . .

If you don't want your email and phone records monitored, don't call people associated with al queda... simple, really...

Answer 7

You forget about the attempt to ban guns, nationalize healthcare
failed foreign policy that brings us to the wars of today
failure in North Korean Diplomacy
Failure in Middle East diplomacy land for peace.
Failure in Somilia
Failure in Iraq
Will the left get a clue ? Billy kicked the can down the road
Biribes from the Chineese along with tech transfers
The left has a very short memory

Answer 8

I have to agree. It takes some pretty big blinders to see only the mistakes of the Clinton administration and not see the blunders of the Bush administration.

I also agree wholeheartedly with Raw Dog. The Republicans have already started telling us that if we elect any Democrats our taxes will go up. They're trying to unfairly pin the blame for the consequences of their out-of-control spending on someone else while they're still in office! I'm not even sure what to call that...pre-emptive spin control?

Answer 9

Day to day, things were better in the Clinton years. The economy was better, and short-term fiscal policy did have something to do with that regardless of what Republicans say. Anything bad GW has had to contend with has been Clinton's fault, and anything good that happened under Clinton was because of Reagan and Bush Sr. That's just too convenient (and too worn out) of an excuse.

There are things about Clinton I didn't like. Pulling the Democrats to the right in order to take the wind out of Republicans' sails--although it was fun to watch because it infuriated them--is one. The Clinton white house was also not the greatest at securing our individual rights and they allowed us to be too chummy with China for my taste, both about technology transfer (although greatly exaggerated by the right) and trade. However his abuses on the individual rights front and abuses of the constitution are nothing compared to Bush's.

The economy was better and no one can dispute that spending was more disciplined and the government kept on a tighter leash under Clinton. Even without the war the current administration is spendthrift by anyone's standard. Bush has literally never met a budget bill he didn't like and the republican controlled congress have no one to call them on riders and pork so no one does.

"If you don't want your email and phone records monitored, don't call people associated with al queda... simple, really..."

Is it that simple? How does the government get to know you're calling someone associated with Al-Qaeda? I'm not talking about calls to other countries either, although the same is true for them. Do they find out through some other method than monitoring your calls in the first place? Oh, they only determined that from phone records and not actual monitoring, huh? How do you know that? Oh yeah--because the administration says so. They can't have any oversight or review from anyone outside the executive for national security. That's just great. Blindly trusting one's leaders in government--is that a new Republican value? That doesn't sound too conservative to me.

"gay marriage, is a serious threat to our social structure - but you're not smart enough to figure that out"

What does it challenge? The nuclear family? Hate to break it to you but that institution was in pretty bad shape with or without "Adam and Steve." 50% divorce rate ring a bell? Is that because of gays somehow? Or is that the liberals fault? I think the only thing it threatens is your sense of normalcy. I imagine that doesn't take much. Seriously, when I was a kid in the 70's I remember that lots of kids I knew were children of divorce. It's not new or because of gays--neither is the high number of single mothers. Those situations--divorce and/or abandoned mothers and kids--are all the result of individual's choices and a society that's changed. It has almost nothing to do with gays.

The bit about Clinton not taking bin Ladin into custody is also a crock. The story is that he got an offer from the Sudanese to take Bin Laden into custody back in 1993 and passed on it or otherwise dropped it--I assume that's what your referring to. Could the Sudanese deliver? They were only offering to pick him up--they didn't actually have him in their custody. We didn't like the Sudan too much at the time either. Did the U.S. have enough on Bin Laden at that time to convict him of something? Remember, we were still in a time when we weren't invading middle eastern countries or publicly take prisoners with no proof or no intention of trying them before convicting them. That's seven years before the bombing of the USS Cole and eight years before 9/11.Clinton gave the CIA carte blanche to take him out by 1996. The cruise missile attack in 98 and several black ops/mercentary attempts all failed. That's not Clinton's fault. He didn't ask them to miss or to hide Bin Laden in a culture we couldn't spy in very well.

Bush on the other hand dismissed Bin Laden--and Richard Clarke, his own counter-terrorism advisor--because he didn't want to hear it. He already wanted Iraq, not some stateless terrorist. Bush took action on Bin Laden only after 911.

Clinton was a decent president whose performance was overshadowed by scandal--scandal that reverberated with social conservatives because it was salacious. He was an idiot to lie under oath and yes, it is indicative of a serious character flaw. But it's still just the bj that's got you upset, isn't it? You can admit it.

Bush has been a poor president and history will note his gaffes in foreign policy--the worst being preemptive war on a country that presented no material threat--and his lackluster performance fufilling his oath to protect the constitution while using a national tragedy to justify it all. He will end up being another Nixon for the Republican party.

Answer 10

you are absolutly right. i agree with every word youve said. however, WHY ARE YOU READING A RIGHT WING ARTICLE?

Answer 11

you sound just as close minded about as the people you are complaining about