Quote Originally Posted by Xanith
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.