First Hilliary now Chelsea

[Mark Gambo]

First Hilliary Clinton does not speak to the press now Chelsea Clinton does the same:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20071231/D8TS58V00.html

[penagate]

Yawn.

[Mark Gambo]

Yawn.

Maybe, but what are they trying to hide?

[Lord Orwell]

the fact that they have nothign to say?

[Mark Gambo]

the fact that they have nothign to say?

Well I would hope and pray that an individual who wants to be the President of the USA would ask questions posed to him/her.

[zaza]

Well I would hope and pray that an individual who wants to be the President of the USA would ask questions posed to him/her.

I would hope that the individual would answer them.




Typical squirming politicians.




In Chelsea's case, it sounds like her response was fair enough. Otherwise every political reporter would be prepping 9-year olds with questions. The rule is, she doesn't speak to the press. Sorry, no conspiracy.

[penagate]

Well I would hope and pray that an individual who wants to be the President of the USA would ask questions posed to him/her.

I wasn't aware Chelsea Clinton was running for President.

[zaza]

Give it another 10 years...

[kleinma]

Maybe, but what are they trying to hide?

likely the fact that ANYTHING you say will be taken by the media masses and twisted into some alternate reality of what you actually said, and paint you to look like an evil crack smoking monster. Even scholastic kids news, they are the worst for this sort of stuff

[Mark Gambo]

I wasn't aware Chelsea Clinton was running for President.

As of right now, you are correct she isn't running for president but I was speaking about her mother's failure to address the press who will ask her hard questions which she is either afraid or is incapable of answering your choice.


As for Chelsea Clinton, I can definitely see her mother's handlers telling her not to speak to anyone from the press for the same reasons stated above.

[visualAd]

What's that strange retarded thing they are doing with their hands?

[Mark Gambo]

What's that strange retarded thing they are doing with their hands?

I think she is waiting to catch a softball question from some partisan reporter, that she maybe able to answer :-)

[kleinma]

What's that strange retarded thing they are doing with their hands?

looks like clapping to me

[Mark Gambo]

looks like clapping to me

Sometimes Sarcasm is lost on some people

[kleinma]

Sometimes Sarcasm is lost on some people

No I got the sarcasm. It just reinforces the point that people take photos/statements/etc, and its easy to look at them totally out of context.

I'm no Hillary supporter, I'm not republican or democrat. I am just voicing my hatred of the media

It is just like this picture of Bush



Perhaps that picture was snapped, just as he puts the binoculars up to his eyes, only to realize the lens caps are on. However a picture of it, caught in time, just makes him look like an idiot.

Now don't get me wrong, I think bush is an idiot, but not for his use of binoculars.

[visualAd]

The next photo was of Bush using them the other way around

[Mark Gambo]

The next photo was of Bush using them the other way around

No, the next photo of him shows him with black circles under his eyes because someone put ink on the eye pieces before he put them up to his eyes :-)

[Lord Orwell]

it's obviously this scenario:
Aide: "Mr President, we want the US citizens to think you care about the war. Here, here's some military binoculars for a candid shot"
Bush: "Which end is which? I never actually reported to national guard duty and have no idea what binoculars are"
Aide: "Just hold them in front of your eyes and we'll take the picture"
(bush doesn't realize that the caps are on because he never gets them close to his eyes)
Bush "How's this?"
Aide (sighs) "just scrub the whole idea. Cameraman, destroy the film. He's already a laughing-stock and we can't let even more proof of the fact he can barely tie his shoes, let alone operate binoculars, get out. It's a good thing he never went hunting with Cheney".
Cameraman "uh i never took a picture. Yeah, that's it. I never took one. No film in the camera. I'm not selling anything to the enquirer for $10,000. Gotta have film for that. Nothing to worry about sir."

[Mark Gambo]

Funny:

[Shaggy Hiker]

I'd say that any politician on the national stage who refuses to answer questions that are not softballs is just getting practice. If you look at the last (roughly 3) decades, the white house press corps, and the Washington press, are both getting lamer year by year, and this is no accident. Bush salted the crowd with planted reporters, and restricted access to only those who were "easy on him", but that's nothing all that new.

Back in Nixon's time, the press was more combatative, now it is more supportive. I would guess that the reason is that being a Washington "insider" is a prestige position that is highly attractive to a whole variety of people including reporters and publishers (as well as interns). If you make enemies of the people hosting the parties, you don't get invited back to any of them, so there is a subtle (or not so subtle) pressure on the Washington press not to press too hard lest they be kicked out of the club house.

[MartinLiss]

First Hilliary Clinton does not speak to the press now Chelsea Clinton does the same:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20071231/D8TS58V00.html

I don't see anything wrong with Chelsea not speaking to the press, even if the "press" is a child. After all Hillary is running, not her daughter. And speaking of Hillary, what are you referring to when you say "First Hilliary Clinton does not speak to the press..."?

[System_Error]

Tall and attractive, Chelsea...

What? She's just as ugly as her mother.

[visualAd]

So who is the 9 year old?

[Lord Orwell]

whadda ya talking about? She's quite a bit uglier. Has Bill's Nose.

[Xanith]

I don't see anything wrong with Chelsea not speaking to the press, even if the "press" is a child. After all Hillary is running, not her daughter. And speaking of Hillary, what are you referring to when you say "First Hilliary Clinton does not speak to the press..."?

I think he is probably referring to Hillary and her staff planting questions all over the place on the campaign trail. Typical Clintoniumism, everything is polled, focused grouped, and packaged. The main stream press throws her softballs and doesn’t ask any hard questions, then when she actually had the opportunity to take a stance on a tough question from Tim Russert in a debate she couldn’t answer; it took her a week and several different positions on one issue before giving her final answer.

As far as Chelsea not answering a 9 year old’s question. Again I think this is typical of the Clintons, they fear any mis-quote or mis-step by their daughter so they tell her not to say a word to anyone. Personally I feel if you are going to use someone as a prop on your campaign for political gain that person should be open to the press for questions. If you don’t want to answer any questions don’t go campaigning with any political candidate.

X

[MartinLiss]

I look at Hillary as the best chance to get Bill back in the White House.

[Xanith]

I look at Hillary as the best chance to get Bill back in the White House.

Not sure why anyone would want either of them to be in power again. I think we are overdue for a change, I for one am tired of the whole Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton thing. Time for someone new to take over that isn't related to either family.

X

[MartinLiss]

Other than the fact that he couldn't keep his ...... in his pants, I think all but the most die-hard Republicans would agree with me that Bill was the best president we've had in modern times.

[Xanith]

Other than the fact that he couldn't keep his ...... in his pants, I think all but the most die-hard Republicans would agree with me that Bill was the best president we've had in modern times.

You can’t really ignore selling missile technology to the Chinese, giving nuclear power to the North Koreans, and ignoring the Islamic terrorist threat. Clinton by far almost single-handedly handed us our biggest problems we are facing today by doing nothing about them. Much like the stock market bubble his president was purely show, history for me will completely show this, his presidency was completely focus group driven; it was all feel good with no substance behind it. Personally he was one of the worst presidents in my lifetime, only Jimmy Carter was worse.

X

[System_Error]

I think all but the most die-hard Republicans would agree with me that Bill was the best president we've had in modern times.

Is that a joke?

[Shaggy Hiker]

I always knew about the folks who fell into the category of die-hard Republicans, and X leads the list, so his views are not very surprising. Let's see, he listed.....the only two democrats in that window. No surprise there.

Clinton did what I wanted him to do, as did the elder Bush to some extent: Address the deficit in a meaningful way. Reagan and Bush Jr addressed the deficit in a meaningful way, as well, but in the wrong direction, since both implemented policies to cause it to baloon to record sizes.

Both Reagan and Bush Jr went after the environment with as much vigor as they felt they could get away with, which nobody would be surprised to hear a biologist object to.

Reagan also went after technology, though, which is something often overlooked. Because of him, the 80's were a remarkable drought in basic engineering. By the early nineties, it was common for every breakthrough to be accompanied by the phrase "we were actually there by 1980, but then the funding went away." Reagan did cut something, he cut the future. This society dares not stagnate.

Clinton was not particularly environmental, nor excessively pro-technology, but compared to the one before and after him (ignoring the blip of Bush Sr), he shone like the sun on both those and fiscal responsibility, as well as being considerably more effective in foreign policy. Reagan was fairly effective in foreign policy as well, as was Bush Sr., but W has been a total loss. He will be able to point to every major area of foreign policy at the end of his term and say without a shadow of a doubt that the current situation is worse than when he took over.

[System_Error]

Funny how democrats think they aren't biased.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Everybody who has an opinion has a bias. I favor those who benefit the causes I care about. There have never been any politicians with which I fully agreed, not even my mother (though she explained her positions well enough that I was generally persuaded).

However, my major objection to the conservatives is that they tend to follow people who are opposed to their own values, which strikes me as just stupid. Small government? Clinton and Bush Sr. were the best since Nixon. Strong on defense? Clinton and Reagan (W uses the troops, but doesn't support them with dollars). Social issues? None of the above. The democrats weren't pushing conservative social issues, and neither were the republicans beyond whatever minimal window dressing they could get away with. Supporting the poor and middle class? Well, that has never been a conservative position, despite a large segment of the party being in that category. Homeland security? Ok, that has only been an issue for part of one presidents term in office, but he has a pretty much failing grade as far as port security (quietly cut), police support (cut), security aid to cities (bizarrly calculated), FEMA (strong and respectable for decades, a disaster in its own right under W).

What other issues are there?

[nemaroller]

1) Preserving the freedom of the capitalist market.

2) Adopting policies which help Americans to save and not spend.
(15% savings tax vs 5-7% consumption tax)

[Xanith]

I always knew about the folks who fell into the category of die-hard Republicans, and X leads the list, so his views are not very surprising. Let's see, he listed.....the only two democrats in that window. No surprise there.

I’m not a die-hard Republican and will not support anyone who doesn’t share my beliefs in Conservative principals. Much of the current Republicans in congress do not follow those principals and therefore I do not support them. I also do not support George Bush and will not carry his banner around either. Die-Hard Republicans as you put it don’t care about anything as long as there is an (R) after their names, that is not who I am. If a Republican is wrong I will say they are wrong, if they are right I will say that as well.

Clinton did what I wanted him to do, as did the elder Bush to some extent: Address the deficit in a meaningful way. Reagan and Bush Jr addressed the deficit in a meaningful way, as well, but in the wrong direction, since both implemented policies to cause it to baloon to record sizes.

The problem with Clinton is he did what everyone wanted him to do. I liken him to the “Cool Dad” everyone thought they wanted. He would let you drink beer and smoke weed and party all you wanted at his house. On the surface everything was great but when you finally looked at everything you would see the son of the “Cool Dad” was an alcoholic loser who would die in a drunken driving accident a few years later, and the daughter of the “Cool Dad” would wind up pregnant with several kids on welfare in a trailer park somewhere. Everything looked great on the surface under Clinton but when you looked behind the scenes it told a different story.

Both Reagan and Bush Jr went after the environment with as much vigor as they felt they could get away with, which nobody would be surprised to hear a biologist object to.

?

Reagan also went after technology, though, which is something often overlooked. Because of him, the 80's were a remarkable drought in basic engineering. By the early nineties, it was common for every breakthrough to be accompanied by the phrase "we were actually there by 1980, but then the funding went away." Reagan did cut something, he cut the future. This society dares not stagnate.

I think the early 80’s were a remarkable drought for everything; after all it took some time to reverse the disastrous policies of Jimmy Carter. But I will have to disagree with you about the 80’s because from what I remember the personal computer, cell phones, and other high tech items were introduced in the 80’s. Reagan’s free market policies and the cutting of the top rate of income taxes all spurred investment and innovation during the 1980’s. If you believed in the free market the 80’s were a breath of fresh air after the stagnation of the 70’s.

Clinton was not particularly environmental, nor excessively pro-technology, but compared to the one before and after him (ignoring the blip of Bush Sr), he shone like the sun on both those and fiscal responsibility, as well as being considerably more effective in foreign policy. Reagan was fairly effective in foreign policy as well, as was Bush Sr., but W has been a total loss. He will be able to point to every major area of foreign policy at the end of his term and say without a shadow of a doubt that the current situation is worse than when he took over.

Clinton’s time in office saw no major challenges so it’s no surprise that he was able to show fiscal restraint. Having a Republican congress with something to prove (for the first time in 40 years) for six years of his term didn’t hurt either. Bush Sr had to deal with Iraq and Bush Jr. had to deal with 9/11, Iraq, and Afghanistan at the same time.

Everyone says how disastrous Bush’s foreign policy is yet Clintons approach to foreign policy seemed to be if we ignore it, placate it with gifts the problems of the world would go away. Giving nuclear technology to the North Koreans and saying well you be sure to only use that only for power Ok? Didn’t seem to go too well did it? When Clinton took office the Chinese couldn’t even get a rocket to launch without it crashing into the ocean so Clinton’s brilliant idea to sell them missile technology so their ICBM’s can now accurately strike all over the US.

Thanks to Clinton’s foreign policy we have North Korean nukes which they are selling to Iran and every other dictator across the globe, and the ability of the Chinese to accurately target cities on the East Coast of the US with ICBM’s. Not to mention ignoring the Islamic extremist terrorist threat, which grew exponentially under his watch. Like I said every major foreign policy item we are dealing with today can be linked back to Clinton and his foreign policy (or lack thereof). Now who’s foreign policy was/is disastrous?

X

[SurfDemon]

At last, a decent dust up in the forum

I have to say as an outsider looking in, I am not a Republican or Democrat (as I have mentioned before - I actually find the concept of being able to pigeonhole someones views into one of two brackets, laughable). I can honestly say that I can see good things and bad things about most of the ex US presidents in my lifetime.... with the notable exception of George W. Bush. About the only positive things I can say about him are:
1) He does give us all a good laugh when he talks
2) By crashing the US dollar he has made it really cheap for us to buy things from the states

Unfortunately, neither of these are any consolation when you look at the mess he has left of the US foreign policy. I doubt if it will be possible to recover much trust in the next 2 to 3 terms of office, regardless of who is in power. The best the US can hope to do is stick it's head down, apologise repeatedly, and promise not to elect another warmonger.

But alas, even that will not appease the likes of Russia. I suspect they have been rudely awakened to the fact, that there can never be peacefull co-existence with the US, as long as there is the threat of another George W. type individual being elected.

[Shaggy Hiker]

I’m not a die-hard Republican and will not support anyone who doesn’t share my beliefs in Conservative principals. Much of the current Republicans in congress do not follow those principals and therefore I do not support them. I also do not support George Bush and will not carry his banner around either. Die-Hard Republicans as you put it don’t care about anything as long as there is an (R) after their names, that is not who I am. If a Republican is wrong I will say they are wrong, if they are right I will say that as well.

Point taken. It was lazy writing on my part, as I certainly know better than to equate Republican with conservative. They are not the same set, they just overlap in large areas.

The problem with Clinton is he did what everyone wanted him to do. I liken him to the “Cool Dad” everyone thought they wanted. He would let you drink beer and smoke weed and party all you wanted at his house. On the surface everything was great but when you finally looked at everything you would see the son of the “Cool Dad” was an alcoholic loser who would die in a drunken driving accident a few years later, and the daughter of the “Cool Dad” would wind up pregnant with several kids on welfare in a trailer park somewhere. Everything looked great on the surface under Clinton but when you looked behind the scenes it told a different story.

I've heard this view many times, and I don't fully disagree with it, but I'm actually a product of your concept of a "cool Dad", yet I don't drink, have never smoked, have never been in trouble with the law, have a graduate degree, perfect credit, etc. Those who believe that kids need iron discipline to turn out well have a hard time explaining me. There are plenty of other people out there like me. An authoritarian leader is only desirable if they are enforcing your particular belief system. Clinton was no authoritarian, but that was ok with me, since he wasn't actually enforcing my belief system all that well, either.

I think the early 80’s were a remarkable drought for everything; after all it took some time to reverse the disastrous policies of Jimmy Carter. But I will have to disagree with you about the 80’s because from what I remember the personal computer, cell phones, and other high tech items were introduced in the 80’s.

I wasn't talking about applied research. Carter enacted support for basic research into lots of fundamental technology that could be built into other things, but was not directly marketable on its own. Reagan cut all that. The innovations came from the handful of companies that funded their own R&D departments. Many of those companies have since scaled back, cut off R&D, or even gone under. There have been a few notable replacements, though, and we keep on progressing.

Reagan’s free market policies and the cutting of the top rate of income taxes all spurred investment and innovation during the 1980’s. If you believed in the free market the 80’s were a breath of fresh air after the stagnation of the 70’s.

Just depends on what economists you talk to. The 80's were great, the 80's were mediocre, or the 80's were bad. Are there two economists anywhere who actually agree? When it comes to the economy, you can use it to support your position whatever your position happens to be. For myself, I remember the 80's as having super high interest rates (do you remember the 5.25% intrest on basic savings accounts? It's been 0% for the last decade), one of the worst stock market crashes since the 20s, waves of unemployment, and unimpressive economic growth leading to the downturn that pretty well knocked Bush Sr. out of office (remember "it's the economy stupid"). Some people certainly did well, I just didn't know any of them.

Clinton’s time in office saw no major challenges so it’s no surprise that he was able to show fiscal restraint.

That's a very valid point. Some people have tried to attribute the 90's to Reaganomics, which ignores some fundamental mathematical principles, but the actual boost during this time can more reasonably be attributed to Bill Gates, not Bill Clinton. All that can be said about Clinton is that when he got a surplus, he didn't squander it.

Everyone says how disastrous Bush’s foreign policy is yet Clintons approach to foreign policy seemed to be if we ignore it, placate it with gifts the problems of the world would go away.

Bush's policy, both foreign and domestic, has been that of a golfer with a whole bag of clubs who evaluates every situation and chooses the same one. He starts off by taking a stick to the problem, and if it works he celebrates. Of course, it often doesn't work, and his follow-up is generally confused and dogmatic. Of course, he has also done his placating, by cozying up to dictators who were situationally necessary (Pakistan, Uzbekistan, for two). And Clinton didn't cozy up to everyone (Serbia, most notably).

Giving nuclear technology to the North Koreans and saying well you be sure to only use that only for power Ok? Didn’t seem to go too well did it?

They had their reactor mothballed until W took a stick to them, at which point they started it back up and even detonated the most feeble nuke in history. W's response: Sell out, but bring in a few other parties to add window dressing while we try to get back to the same deal that existed before. Was that better? Make them go nuclear just because you want talking points?

When Clinton took office the Chinese couldn’t even get a rocket to launch without it crashing into the ocean so Clinton’s brilliant idea to sell them missile technology so their ICBM’s can now accurately strike all over the US.

Frankly, I don't know whether it is true that the Chinese couldn't create a missle that could reach the US, nor do I care. The chinese are not going to attack the US, but they might very well end up in war with Russia....again. Considering the economic might that China is beginning to demonstrate, and considering that a war between the US and China would be unwinable by either side, is it so bad to try not to create enemies? Wasn't it Churchill who said something like "Where dollars don't cross borders, armies will."

Thanks to Clinton’s foreign policy we have North Korean nukes which they are selling to Iran and every other dictator across the globe

Actually, there is no evidence that they have sold any, and the technology probably came from Pakistan anyways. The nuke plant was shuttered under Clinton and reactivated due to the actions of the Bush administration. That was pretty well publicized, since they did it publicly.

Not to mention ignoring the Islamic extremist terrorist threat, which grew exponentially under his watch.

Actually, it predated him, as the threat was built up from American involvement with the resistance to the soviets in Afghanistan. All the major players today formed during that time period. Nor did anybody really have much to say about it. W flatly ignored it until 9/11, and then he used it as an excuse to go after the wrong target, which had nothing to do with the attack, and wasn't harboring any of the organization...until W let them in.

Like I said every major foreign policy item we are dealing with today can be linked back to Clinton and his foreign policy (or lack thereof). Now who’s foreign policy was/is disastrous?

I'd say that all of the links you have made are at odds with history.

[Lord Orwell]

Giving nuclear technology to the North Koreans

yet for some reason they are focusing on IRAN! Iran's had nuclear technology almost as long as we have and suddenly we're all about "STOP ENRICHING URANIUM!" which just happens to be a natural side effect of using it in a nuclear reactor. How exactly would they be enriching uranium when they don't actually have any reactors?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_by_country

There's also other things i could say:
when a car cost $3,000 brand new in 1972 and $6,000 in 1975 and suddenly the country is in debt. But anyway here's a nice graphic that shows what happened as soon as bush took office. It's pretty self-explanitory

Clinton left us in great shape as a country for the first time in a long time.
http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_m...ionalDebt.html explains it pretty well. you're at war, you go into debt. Bush screwed us pretty good. We're still in afghanistan and yugoslavia (what's left of it) and have been there for decades. we're doomed.

[Xanith]

I've heard this view many times, and I don't fully disagree with it, but I'm actually a product of your concept of a "cool Dad", yet I don't drink, have never smoked, have never been in trouble with the law, have a graduate degree, perfect credit, etc. Those who believe that kids need iron discipline to turn out well have a hard time explaining me. There are plenty of other people out there like me. An authoritarian leader is only desirable if they are enforcing your particular belief system. Clinton was no authoritarian, but that was ok with me, since he wasn't actually enforcing my belief system all that well, either.

I was only trying to show why people thought Clinton was so good for the country not make a statement about what type of parenting is best.

I wasn't talking about applied research. Carter enacted support for basic research into lots of fundamental technology that could be built into other things, but was not directly marketable on its own. Reagan cut all that. The innovations came from the handful of companies that funded their own R&D departments. Many of those companies have since scaled back, cut off R&D, or even gone under. There have been a few notable replacements, though, and we keep on progressing.

That’s where all of our major achievements have come from, the private sector, and that is where they should stay. Government funded research and development is usually money not well spent, like all government programs and funding a lot usually goes to waste. Cutting these government programs and letting the free market work is a good thing not a bad thing. Technology hardly stood still during the 80’s, it boomed.

Just depends on what economists you talk to. The 80's were great, the 80's were mediocre, or the 80's were bad. Are there two economists anywhere who actually agree? When it comes to the economy, you can use it to support your position whatever your position happens to be. For myself, I remember the 80's as having super high interest rates (do you remember the 5.25% intrest on basic savings accounts? It's been 0% for the last decade), one of the worst stock market crashes since the 20s, waves of unemployment, and unimpressive economic growth leading to the downturn that pretty well knocked Bush Sr. out of office (remember "it's the economy stupid"). Some people certainly did well, I just didn't know any of them.

When economies face high inflation it is typical for interest rates on saving accounts to be high. When Reagan took office we had double-digit inflation, hence the high yields on savings accounts and CD’s. The early 80’s I remember still not being that great, it took several years of Reagan being in office before the interest rates went down and employment got better. By the time Reagan was running for his 2nd term unemployment was dipping considerably from its highs, the economy has generally stabilized which is probably why Reagan won in a landslide victory in 1984. So you can say the 80’s were all things, bad in the beginning, mediocre in the middle, and great at the end.

That's a very valid point. Some people have tried to attribute the 90's to Reaganomics, which ignores some fundamental mathematical principles, but the actual boost during this time can more reasonably be attributed to Bill Gates, not Bill Clinton. All that can be said about Clinton is that when he got a surplus, he didn't squander it.

Do you mean economic principles (not math)? The thing Reagan did was allow the free market to work that’s it. Presidents have little to do with how the economy does you are right it is up to individuals and the free market to rise or fall on its own, the only thing presidents can do is make it easier for people to succeed by getting out of the way of free enterprise.
Clinton’s surplus can be attributed to the Republicans taking control of both houses of Congress in 1994. Remember the president cannot spend anything; it is the Congress that controls the purse strings. The Republicans and the Contract with America under Newt Gingrich is largely responsible for the surpluses enjoyed under Clinton, the Republicans had something to prove with their newfound power. My only regret is they soon forgot their fiscal restraint once they had a Republican in the White House.

Bush's policy, both foreign and domestic, has been that of a golfer with a whole bag of clubs who evaluates every situation and chooses the same one. He starts off by taking a stick to the problem, and if it works he celebrates. Of course, it often doesn't work, and his follow-up is generally confused and dogmatic. Of course, he has also done his placating, by cozying up to dictators who were situationally necessary (Pakistan, Uzbekistan, for two). And Clinton didn't cozy up to everyone (Serbia, most notably).

I guess the Serbians didn’t contribute enough to his campaign like the Chinese did To be honest I don’t really mind the way Bush has handled some of his foreign policy. Of course there are failures along the way but if you notice no one is even talking about Iraq anymore (his supposed biggest failure). I don’t hear anything in the news; you generally have to dig around to find anything. This largely has to do with the newfound successes there.
I do like the pro-active approach to things, mostly due to what I have learned from history (things get far worse if you ignore, placate, or appease). Clinton was the exact opposite to pro-active, easily likeable by people at the time because there are no ugly wars or entanglements, but looked down in history’s eyes because these are the kind of people that usually set up far worse things down the road due to lack of action (in Clintons case we have North Korea, Iraq, Radical Islamic Terrorism, etc..).

They had their reactor mothballed until W took a stick to them, at which point they started it back up and even detonated the most feeble nuke in history. W's response: Sell out, but bring in a few other parties to add window dressing while we try to get back to the same deal that existed before. Was that better? Make them go nuclear just because you want talking points?

Last I heard they were shutting down their program with talks to continue. Also if you think they restarted their program just because Bush yelled at them I think you are being a little naive. Everything points to North Korea working on their nuclear program after the deal with the Clinton administration, they didn’t suddenly start it up again because the big bad US was picking on them. They were working on it all along.

Frankly, I don't know whether it is true that the Chinese couldn't create a missle that could reach the US, nor do I care. The chinese are not going to attack the US, but they might very well end up in war with Russia....again. Considering the economic might that China is beginning to demonstrate, and considering that a war between the US and China would be unwinable by either side, is it so bad to try not to create enemies? Wasn't it Churchill who said something like "Where dollars don't cross borders, armies will."

The Chinese pre-Clinton couldn’t get a rocket off the launch pad. Post Clinton they had a space program with plans to put someone on the moon. We already know the Chinese were given sophisticated missile technology by the Clinton administration and obviously they used this not only to further a space program but to develop long range ICBM’s to accurately reach the US.
The Chinese are massively overhauling their military, modernizing and expanding. This includes their nuclear forces. I refuse to be one of those people who mistakenly bet on no war just due to economics or because “no one would win”. It’s foolish to think China is building a huge military for simple show purposes. China recently shot a ground based missile and successfully destroyed one of their own satellites. What use would the US and their military be if their satellites were all destroyed?

Actually, it predated him, as the threat was built up from American involvement with the resistance to the soviets in Afghanistan. All the major players today formed during that time period. Nor did anybody really have much to say about it. W flatly ignored it until 9/11, and then he used it as an excuse to go after the wrong target, which had nothing to do with the attack, and wasn't harboring any of the organization...until W let them in.

Yes it predated Clinton but Clinton failed to do anything about it. It’s like seeing a burning building with people inside and saying, well I didn’t start the fire why should I do anything? Bush was only in office 8 months when 9/11 happened, hardly enough time to implement any substantive anti-terror program (it could very well be that he wasn’t going to do anything like Clinton but we will never know). He could have done the same thing Clinton did after the first towers bombing, nothing, however we know differently.

I'd say that all of the links you have made are at odds with history.

I am not saying that Clinton caused all the problems we are facing today. What I am saying is that he didn’t do anything about those problems or his policies to deal with them on a large extent failed. When you look at what is happening now I can’t see how you could ignore those failures or claim that they are at “odds with history” when they are clearly not.

Wow long post sorry to anyone who read it

X

[Shaggy Hiker]

I was only trying to show why people thought Clinton was so good for the country not make a statement about what type of parenting is best.

But you were suggesting that the "cool Dad" was somehow inferior to the authoritarian, yet the evidence doesn't support that. It's a cliche that authoritarian parents have rebellious kids, so if people saw Clinton as the cool dad, and if he was, then why is that a bad thing?

That’s where all of our major achievements have come from, the private sector, and that is where they should stay. Government funded research and development is usually money not well spent, like all government programs and funding a lot usually goes to waste. Cutting these government programs and letting the free market work is a good thing not a bad thing. Technology hardly stood still during the 80’s, it boomed.

That's the conservative position, certainly. Every market is regulated, except in anarchic states. You can find some free markets, just look for societies that are melting down. Reagan just shifted the tax burden from the rich to the poor.

When economies face high inflation it is typical for interest rates on saving accounts to be high. When Reagan took office we had double-digit inflation, hence the high yields on savings accounts and CD’s. The early 80’s I remember still not being that great, it took several years of Reagan being in office before the interest rates went down and employment got better. By the time Reagan was running for his 2nd term unemployment was dipping considerably from its highs, the economy has generally stabilized which is probably why Reagan won in a landslide victory in 1984. So you can say the 80’s were all things, bad in the beginning, mediocre in the middle, and great at the end.

I would say they were bad at the beginning, mediocre in the middle, and declining towards the end. The stock market crash happened in 87 (I think, It might have been 88), and the recession that removed Bush Sr. from office was getting going by the end of the 80's (Bush Sr. lost in 91, technically, though he didn't leave office until 92). So where is the "great"? Is it in the recession, or the market crash?

Clinton’s surplus can be attributed to the Republicans taking control of both houses of Congress in 1994. Remember the president cannot spend anything; it is the Congress that controls the purse strings.

That's just a fantasy that is used to attribute good news to the party of your choice. The president has the single largest impact on how spending happens of anybody involved. He may not technically set the budget, but to pretend that it isn't his doing requires considerable deception.

My only regret is they soon forgot their fiscal restraint once they had a Republican in the White House.

I killed off the first part of the quote about the Contract on America by accident. I've never heard anybody assert that before. Not in the conservative journals, not in the mainstream magazines, and I actually haven't read the liberal ones.

Of course there are failures along the way but if you notice no one is even talking about Iraq anymore (his supposed biggest failure). I don’t hear anything in the news; you generally have to dig around to find anything.

You must listen to Fox. I hear about Iraq every day. If you really haven't been hearing anything, here's a brief update: They are still killing people at a good clip. The surge appears to have reduced some of the violence in Iraq, but the violence in Afghanistan is rising just as fast, and the decrease in Iraq happened to coincide with a couple of confounding factors, so figuring out which part can be attributed to the surge is dependent on what answer you want.

This largely has to do with the newfound successes there.

A few more successes like that and we'll be broke, but it won't matter, because we'll also be dead.

I do like the pro-active approach to things, mostly due to what I have learned from history (things get far worse if you ignore, placate, or appease).

You haven't read enough of history. Things like Chamberlain and Hitler are trotted out to justify rushing off to war whenever needed. There are FAR more examples where we just talked rather than taking a hard line, and many more examples of others doing the same. There isn't one solution, and the hard line is not just one alternative, it is often disastrous. Even in the case of Hitler, everyone assumes that if Chamberlain had taken a hard line right from the start that WWII would have been averted. Based on what? At the start of WWII, France had the greatest army in the world by everyones estimation. They had more tanks, better tanks, better aircraft, etc. When Hitler was finally given no choice, he attacked with the Panzer I and II, which were training tanks with fake armor....and he crushed France and threw the Brits into the sea. Why does everyone assume that he would have been reasonable a few years earlier? Why does anyone think the result would have been different? Hitler wasn't prepared for the fight when it did come. Those early training tanks were just used because the real tanks were just starting to be developed.

Clinton was the exact opposite to pro-active, easily likeable by people at the time because there are no ugly wars or entanglements, but looked down in history’s eyes because these are the kind of people that usually set up far worse things down the road due to lack of action (in Clintons case we have North Korea, Iraq, Radical Islamic Terrorism, etc..).

The ugly wars and entanglements were created by W. N Korea is the same mess as it has been since the truce was declared, no better, no worse. Iraq was 100% neo-cons, and the first offensive war in the history of the US. RIT was the creation of Reagan, if anybody can be given the blame, because of the Afghanistan issue. So now we have action taken, and we are in a mess in Afghanistan, a mess of our own creation in Iraq, a growing mess in Pakistan, and a cooling status quo ante in N. Korea. Now everybody knows we wear no clothes.

Last I heard they were shutting down their program with talks to continue.

Same here, and with the same deal as before: They get oil, they seal the nuke plant.

Also if you think they restarted their program just because Bush yelled at them I think you are being a little naive. Everything points to North Korea working on their nuclear program after the deal with the Clinton administration, they didn’t suddenly start it up again because the big bad US was picking on them. They were working on it all along.

The seals were on the reactor. They didn't restart that until Bush cut off oil shipments. He may have felt justified in doing so because they were not being nice, which is doubtless true, since they aren't nice, but the result was even worse.

The Chinese pre-Clinton couldn’t get a rocket off the launch pad. Post Clinton they had a space program with plans to put someone on the moon.

In the same time they put in place a program to go from a 3rd rate economy to one of the most powerful in the world, and they are on a pace to succeed. I wouldn't say that had anything to do with Clinton so much as American desire for cheap plastic crap. Give a creative people sufficient capital, as we are doing as fast as we can, and they can solve their technological problems on their own.

We already know the Chinese were given sophisticated missile technology by the Clinton administration and obviously they used this not only to further a space program but to develop long range ICBM’s to accurately reach the US.
The Chinese are massively overhauling their military, modernizing and expanding. This includes their nuclear forces. I refuse to be one of those people who mistakenly bet on no war just due to economics or because “no one would win”. It’s foolish to think China is building a huge military for simple show purposes. China recently shot a ground based missile and successfully destroyed one of their own satellites. What use would the US and their military be if their satellites were all destroyed?

The same use that they were against the Russians during the cold war pre-sattelites. MAD still exists, and always had. We can't beat the Chinese if they are willing to fight us, nor can they beat us. I'm not the slightest bit worried about them unless we attack them.

Bush was only in office 8 months when 9/11 happened, hardly enough time to implement any substantive anti-terror program (it could very well be that he wasn’t going to do anything like Clinton but we will never know). He could have done the same thing Clinton did after the first towers bombing, nothing, however we know differently.

Yeah, he attacked a country that wasn't involved with 9/11 in any way.