Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

It doesn't matter that i think he will be remembered well. It's too hard to truly look at his presidency and say what was wrong and what was right.

When we can come to an agreement on his presidency's failures and achievements we will see that he isn't a terrible person or president. We will see how hard the media and public were to him and how he got blamed for things he didn't do. He got blamed simply because he is the main figure head.

If he isn't remembered well i hope that his achievements don't go unnoticed.

we wont know yet but i bet he will be seen as a horible president and person.

At 1/18/09 02:27 PM, Patton3 wrote:

At 1/17/09 10:24 PM, Alphabit wrote: I think Bush would have made a much better president had he been tied to a chair, handcuffed and his mouth taped.

So he would have been a better president if we imprisoned him at Guantanamo?

At least he would have considered the issue of torture after receiving a few rounds of waterboarding himself.

At 1/18/09 02:46 PM, Patton3 wrote:
He durastically improved our economy,

Oh really? So Clinton waved his magical wand and our economy improved? No, Clinton didn't imrpove anything. All he did was preside over a period of economic growth. Never mind the fact there was a Republic controlled Congress pushing a balanced budget and Alan Greenspan doing everything within his somewhat finite power to improve finances.

Fun fact: did you know when Clinton was leaving office there was a growing recession which lasted 1999-2005 that Bush inherited? So , by your logic, if Clinton improved the economy he must of been the one responsible for that choppy economy we experienced in bush's first term?

the value of the dollar,

Yes, because Clinton said the magic words and the value of the dollar went up.

and decreased our national debt.

Yeah, because Clinton got the government more money with his tax hikes.

And despite Bin Laden's thought's on the U.S military, the same military a few years down the road not only beat him, but kicked his ass.

You don't seem to grasp how badly Clinton Presidency waned on our military power. Infact, I'd go as far to say Clinton was the American equivalent of Yeltsin in that regard. Not only did he cut spending for developing weapons to make our armed forces more efficient and potentially save American lives, but he appointed people who shouldn't of been one hundred yards within a command post(Wesley Clark) and policies that hurt both our intelligence and military might(Torricelli Princiople).

Just to give you an idea; Clinton is the only President in US history to be so hated by our military personnel that when he went to give some sort of speech in a Marine Corp Camp only to have every single person(Marines) in the audience stand up and turn their back to him.

Clinton did some good in his Presidency(NAFTA, Welfare Reform), but generally most of the good things attributed to him were not exclusively his doing. That's why I find it astounding hilarious when you try to call him one of our best.

Not one of our best overall, but one of our best democratic presidents in the last thirty or so years. Overall he's number... 25 maybe?

I think he will be remembered as one of the worst the USA has seen. Unless of course you work or own a major energy company, or can somehow benefit from one. Then you will see him as the guy who opened up two major energy fronts, Iraq and Afghanistan to the USA.
See, the people in Chevron will remember him as a god, while the people of New Orleans will see him as, well not so god like.

Look, I'm not disagreeing with everything you are saying. I also feel that Clinton's legacy is going to decline as historians look back (well, pretty much everyone from Reagan through G. W. Bush is going to take a spanking), but I can't agree with a lot of your reasons.

At 1/19/09 04:17 PM, Zeistro wrote:

At 1/18/09 02:46 PM, Patton3 wrote:

Oh really? So Clinton waved his magical wand and our economy improved? No, Clinton didn't imrpove anything. All he did was preside over a period of economic growth. Never mind the fact there was a Republic controlled Congress pushing a balanced budget and Alan Greenspan doing everything within his somewhat finite power to improve finances.

I don't even know if I'd go that far. Had we been allowed to take our medicine then, it is doubtful that we'd be in the current economic mess we are in now. Much of that growth was based on credit which is now deflating.

Fun fact: did you know when Clinton was leaving office there was a growing recession which lasted 1999-2005 that Bush inherited? So , by your logic, if Clinton improved the economy he must of been the one responsible for that choppy economy we experienced in bush's first term?

The pop of the internet bubble. Again, too much credit allowed for investment in bullshit companies that consisted of a domain name, some html, and well, that's it.

the value of the dollar,

Yes, because Clinton said the magic words and the value of the dollar went up.

Actually, increasing the strength of the economy and decreasing debt would increase the dollar, and those would at least be attributable somewhat to Clinton's policies.

and decreased our national debt.

Yeah, because Clinton got the government more money with his tax hikes.

Well, yes, that is one of the things you do to reduce debt. You cut unnecessary spending, and you increase your revenues. In this case, the debt was caused in large part by prior presidents' spending. I'm sorry, but I'm getting fed up with people who become morally outraged about any and all taxes they must pay that don't benefit them directly. If you want to be mad at someone, be mad at Reagan and Bush Sr. for the deficit in the first place.

You don't seem to grasp how badly Clinton Presidency waned on our military power. Infact, I'd go as far to say Clinton was the American equivalent of Yeltsin in that regard. Not only did he cut spending for developing weapons to make our armed forces more efficient and potentially save American lives, but he appointed people who shouldn't of been one hundred yards within a command post(Wesley Clark) and policies that hurt both our intelligence and military might(Torricelli Princiople).

Military spending with respect to our later fight with Al Qaeda is largely irrelevant. Bin Laden was able to escape some of the most expensive and accurate missile systems in the world. Insurgencies aren't beaten with raw technology. It didn't work in Vietnam, and it isn't working now. If you aren't willing to turn the place into glass, you are going to have to learn how to fight on their level.

Also, let us place Clinton's decision into historical context. Clinton took shortly after one of the largest military build ups in the history of the planet. We built up the largest military force ever to stand up to (and bankrupt) the Soviet Union. When Clinton took office, the Soviet Union had dissolved into a bunch of largely bankrupt and economically depressed democracies that posed not threat to us. We simply didn't need that large or that strong of a military for defense.

I won't comment on the intelligence decisions, though, as I have not reviewed them.

Just to give you an idea; Clinton is the only President in US history to be so hated by our military personnel that when he went to give some sort of speech in a Marine Corp Camp only to have every single person(Marines) in the audience stand up and turn their back to him.

Public opinion makes for interesting footnotes, but it doesn't prove anything in and of itself with respect to the effects of policy.

Clinton did some good in his Presidency(NAFTA, Welfare Reform), but generally most of the good things attributed to him were not exclusively his doing. That's why I find it astounding hilarious when you try to call him one of our best.

NAFTA? Are you kidding me? NAFTA was a good thing? It helped accelerate the departure of industrial base and led to the beloved "service economy" that is now swirling down the bowl. This is hardly a good thing.

will it will even it self out in time. Remember many still see him as the man that has protected America. no attacks on the usa since 9/11.

Well, for one he'll be recognised as the president when 9/11 happened, which won't make much of a positive outlook on him. Really, I see him as an embarresment to the Americans, not only was he elected, but his actions were disregarded so much that he was even re-elected.
>_>

He'll be remembered as the worst president in recent history. He fucked up so badly, he deserves it.

He'll be remembered for the reason why the dinosaurs went extinct.

Bush=Lowest Approval Rating in Presidential History

Conclusion

Bush=Fail

Enough said!!!!!!!!!!

At 1/22/09 03:06 PM, nyboywonder wrote: Bush=Lowest Approval Rating in Presidential History

Conclusion

Bush=Fail

Enough said!!!!!!!!!!

The Congress approval rating's even worse.

I think he will be known as the dumbest president ever. He looked clueless each time he took a picture. And he was.

At 1/19/09 09:42 PM, VigilanteNighthawk wrote: Look, I'm not disagreeing with everything you are saying. I also feel that Clinton's legacy is going to decline as historians look back (well, pretty much everyone from Reagan through G. W. Bush is going to take a spanking), but I can't agree with a lot of your reasons.

Everyone has a right to their opinion unless you live in under a dictatorship(Cuba, North Korea, Libya)

I'm going to skip the talk on economics because something tells me it would turn into a Friedman versus Keynes quagmire. So I'll stick to the military part.

Military spending with respect to our later fight with Al Qaeda is largely irrelevant.

Ummm, no. Both Clinton and the Senate had access to reports detailing just exactly how dangerous terrorist cells are and that they possessed purchasing power well into the hundreds of millions. You can get a lot of surplus NATO and Warsaw military munitions and gear with that kind of penny. I'd expect Clinton to get more serious about the military after the big fucking hole in the U.S.S Cole or the first World Trade Center bombing.

Bin Laden was able to escape some of the most expensive and accurate missile systems in the world.

Yes, but it sure as shit doesn't help to cut funding, does it? Guess those soldiers will have to make due with their shit intercepter vests that can't stop pistol bullets instead of getting those high-grade, kevlar ballistic vests because Mr. Clinton thought it was more important to spend the money on his dogshit social programs.

Insurgencies aren't beaten with raw technology.

Well gee. It sure helps to have a well-funded military instead of one that has to use M60 machine guns from the 70s because some asshole President.

It didn't work in Vietnam,

Actually, we were winning in Vietnam. Our enemies (Vietcong and North Vietnamese) never won one engagment and we were sorely kicking their ass(If memory serves, 57k americans died whilst 800K Vietcong and North were slaughtered).

and it isn't working now.

So, if the US is losing Iraq than who's winning?

If you aren't willing to turn the place into glass, you are going to have to learn how to fight on their level.

Of course. And that's why it's important to have a well-funded military in order to train them in counter-insurgency. Oh wait.....

Also, let us place Clinton's decision into historical context. Clinton took shortly after one of the largest military build ups in the history of the planet. We built up the largest military force ever to stand up to (and bankrupt) the Soviet Union. When Clinton took office, the Soviet Union had dissolved into a bunch of largely bankrupt and economically depressed democracies that posed not threat to us. We simply didn't need that large or that strong of a military for defense.

If that's true then it shows how short-sighted Clinton was. God forbid should another country rise up to challenge the military dominance and economic hegemony. Plus, a lot of our allies I simply don't trust (France, Israel, Spain). Aside from the UK, I don't think the US has any deeply committed allies. Anyone of them would fuck us over if it meant they'd top dog.

I won't comment on the intelligence decisions, though, as I have not reviewed them.

Public opinion makes for interesting footnotes, but it doesn't prove anything in and of itself with respect to the effects of policy.

Aside from his inept yesmen in the the armed forces, Clinton was absolutely despised by just about every soldier, marine, pilot and sailor. Politics aside, many of them knew how he held them in contempt for him not only cutting funding, but using it to garner favor from the international community. Afterall, it was fresh in the minds of the soldiers how Clinton fucked over the soldiers in Somalia.

At 1/19/09 02:41 AM, Sp10x wrote: It doesn't matter that i think he will be remembered well. It's too hard to truly look at his presidency and say what was wrong and what was right.

I think a basic amount of research on his policies and programs and whether they were successful or unsuccessful is a great indicator of whether you can call his administration successful or not. This sounds like lazy apologistic crap (and really, can't we at least wait until he's dead to try this stuff?).

When we can come to an agreement on his presidency's failures and achievements we will see that he isn't a terrible person or president. We will see how hard the media and public were to him and how he got blamed for things he didn't do. He got blamed simply because he is the main figure head.

You're right. I guess I shouldn't blame him for Guantanomo even though he signed that one in and kept reiterating how important it was. Spearheading more ability for American agencies to spy on citizens and brought us closer to Big Brother then just about any president ever. Condoned, instituted, and PROMOTED torture, and even said the Geneva Convention shouldn't really apply to us. Repeatedly abused his powers and ignored the Constitution where convenient. Lied, either personally, or through his subordinates (hi Dick Cheney, I'm looking at you buddy) to enter us into a war with Iraq and force a regime change which helped send an already weakening economy further into the pits.

You're right, what a bunch of fucking assholes we are. We should all stop being so mean to him and not let pesky things like facts stand in the way of blindly obeying our leaders. That's what GW taught us anyway.

If he isn't remembered well i hope that his achievements don't go unnoticed.

I've listed several of them right now. Trust me, I think we'll be remembering his "achievements" for years to come.

The main achievement he should be remembered for is his campaign to help AIDS in Africa. Other than that, the only other achievement he could possibly have is Iraq if it somehow becomes a bastion of democracy in the Middle East years from now. I hope it will happen just as much as anyone else (the only people who don't are petty), but it will have the odd effect of making a terrible president look decent.

Bush will be remembered as the president during 9/11, and for two terms, successfully prevented new attacks on American soil.

Historians will probably make clear that the financial crisis was due to Clinton's amendments to the CRA, and when Obama becomes the new worst president of all time, people will forget that Bush had low approval ratings.

Oh and for some people above me

-Bush didn't have the lowest approval rating of all time
-NAFTA was drafted by George Bush Sr and not Clinton, it was implemented by Clinton though
-NAFTA had an overall positive impact on jobs, including industrial jobs in the US and America was shfiting to more service based jobs regardless of NAFTA.

At 1/23/09 01:18 PM, n64kid wrote: Bush will be remembered as the president during 9/11, and for two terms, successfully prevented new attacks on American soil.

If some actual definable PROOF of that happens, then sure. But right now I could say Clintons record on terrorism prevention is just as good as Bush's, but with less money spent and illegal activity engaged in (Clinton had one attack during his 8 years, then none after. Bush had one, then none after. Records are identical in that regard).

Historians will probably make clear that the financial crisis was due to Clinton's amendments to the CRA, and when Obama becomes the new worst president of all time, people will forget that Bush had low approval ratings.

Ah, see, now you just fucked up your credibility. How do you KNOW Obama will become the new worst president ever? He's only been in office a couple days and already he's dismantled some of the worst of Bush's crimes. At least folks like Memorize when repeating this meme can link me to the sources of why they feel Obama will be bad for the country. You're just spouting what looks like a butt-hurt reaction to the guy you didn't want getting in.

But again, I don't think the crisis falls totally on Clinton, Bush spent massive amounts of money during his administration (creating Homeland security and beefing up whatever other agencies he felt were needed, two wars, a stimulus package) so to me you can't say "It's completely Clinton" because I think it's fair to say Bush's policies helped to make a bad situation that much worse, and the fact that he didn't turn around when he got into office and say "oh geez, would you look at all this stupid stuff Clinton did? I'm just gonna work on doing away with that right now". They both failed to stop the problem.

Oh and for some people above me

-Bush didn't have the lowest approval rating of all time
-NAFTA was drafted by George Bush Sr and not Clinton, it was implemented by Clinton though
-NAFTA had an overall positive impact on jobs, including industrial jobs in the US and America was shfiting to more service based jobs regardless of NAFTA.

At 1/23/09 01:33 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

If some actual definable PROOF of that happens, then sure.

Can you refute it?

Ah, see, now you just fucked up your credibility.

You misinterpreted what I said. I made a joke as the worst president ever is always the president currently in office. I am not saying Obama will fuck up, you assuming I did is your problem.

But again, I don't think the crisis falls totally on Clinton, Bush spent massive amounts of money during his administration (creating Homeland security and beefing up whatever other agencies he felt were needed, two wars, a stimulus package) so to me you can't say "It's completely Clinton" because I think it's fair to say Bush's policies helped to make a bad situation that much worse, and the fact that he didn't turn around when he got into office and say "oh geez, would you look at all this stupid stuff Clinton did? I'm just gonna work on doing away with that right now". They both failed to stop the problem.

Deficits and spending on the military doesn't ruin economies, and congress tried to push legislation against subprime lending in '99 '01 '02 '03 and '05. As I've said previously, I use a 60/40 blame on democrats/repbulicans for the economic crisis we have today.

The housing bubble and lending bubble isolated can be attributed to Clinton's amendments to the CRA. Confidence, handling OPEC, pressuring the FED to raise interest rates 8 years ago are failures that I attribute to the Bush administration. Inflation coupled with two bubbles burstingis the cause of this mess, but the bulk of the downturn was directly caused by the CRA.

At 1/22/09 01:47 PM, Idiot-Finder wrote: He'll be remembered for the reason why the dinosaurs went extinct.

Naw man, Bush is the reason why the Mongols were able to conquer much of Asia and Eastern Europe. History will show that he was responsible for it. Why couldn't he have been a good president, like Jimmy Carter?

Best when waxed.

At 1/23/09 01:46 PM, n64kid wrote: Can you refute it?

No, but can you refute what I said either? Because as I've said. The only difference between Bush's record on terror and Clinton's record is Bush spent tons of money on new agencies, commissioned illegal activities, and two wars, and achieved a record of only a single attack on his watch. Clinton did none of these things, and still attained an identical record.

That's the problem with your argument, you're basing it on Bush must have been doing something right for us to not have another attack while condemning Clinton when Clinton did much much less publicly, and still achieved the same record. So that makes me personally question is it a situation where Bush really made us safer, or is it a situation where Bin Laden and other terrorists either didn't feel a need to attack again, or couldn't muster the resources and the planning needed to do it again.

You misinterpreted what I said. I made a joke as the worst president ever is always the president currently in office. I am not saying Obama will fuck up, you assuming I did is your problem.

You weren't clear on that point to my mind. Hence the misinterpretation, which bats the ball back into your court. Yay tennis typeness with problems!!!

Deficits and spending on the military doesn't ruin economies, and congress tried to push legislation against subprime lending in '99 '01 '02 '03 and '05. As I've said previously, I use a 60/40 blame on democrats/repbulicans for the economic crisis we have today.

Just so long as you're willing to admit that the Republicans share some blame on the issue as well. I'm not trying to blame it on one party, my point is that ALL parties that are placed in a position that they could avert or cause the catastrophe have to eat some blame for the situation as stands. It's not 100% one side or the other.

I disagree, he will be looked at like dick hole but I don't think should be. After 9/11, there wasn't another terrorist attack during his presidency.

At 1/23/09 04:27 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 1/23/09 01:46 PM, n64kid wrote: Can you refute it?

No, but can you refute what I said either? Because as I've said. The only difference between Bush's record on terror and Clinton's record is Bush spent tons of money on new agencies, commissioned illegal activities, and two wars, and achieved a record of only a single attack on his watch. Clinton did none of these things, and still attained an identical record.

All I said was that there has been no new attack since 9/11 and you said "If some actual definable PROOF of that happens, then sure." Bush is already out of office and I don't recall a more recent terrorist attack than 9/11 that hasn't been foiled.

Since you're bringing up Clinton I can say more troops died under Clinton than Bush, despite two wars. I can also say that the military budget has been roughly the same as a percentage of total federal expenditures, and I can say that 9/11 changed everything. But I don't recall comparing or contrasting Bush with Clinton on military policies.

That's the problem with your argument, you're basing it on Bush must have been doing something right for us to not have another attack while condemning Clinton when Clinton did much much less publicly, and still achieved the same record.

Clinton didn't have 9/11, all I said was that history will remember Bush as the man who boosted security and prevented new attacks despite constant threats during his presidency. Clinton was pre 9/11, and he had his own share of terrorist attacks during the '90s, just minus the jihad.

So that makes me personally question is it a situation where Bush really made us safer, or is it a situation where Bin Laden and other terrorists either didn't feel a need to attack again, or couldn't muster the resources and the planning needed to do it again.

10 years, you'll forget the specifics like everyone else and hisotry will remember bush as the 9/11 president with no new attacks.

It's not 100% one side or the other.

Few people (over 12) claim such.

At 1/23/09 04:11 PM, RaharuHaruha wrote: Best when waxed.

Who the fuck let you out of the general forum?