--->He eliminated 300,000 government jobs. Yep, 280,000 military and 42,000 Veterans Affairs. The civilian bureaucracy remains as strong as ever.

--->The economy was strong. Yes it was. Should we credit that to politicians? If so, then the lion's share of credit belongs to Congress, the true policymakers, which was Republican dominated. While politicians may deserve a little credit, the privatization of the Internet led to much more money being invested than any policies.

Can anyone else help me? I mean, I remember enough scandals to make him only the third President to be impeached...certainly his "white trash" roots showed trhough.

I remember taking donations from Chinese business leaders. I remember him pardoning a guy responsible for the worst tax fraud ever against the US government, in return for a large donation to his library.

I witnessed the morale of the Army drop precipitously. I recall a $71million dolar trip to Pakistan and India that had no peace enhancing effect. And I can't forget that the situation in the Middle East worsened, despite (or because of?) his frenetic intervention.

I can give him a pass on the Middle East stuff. They've been fighting half a century. But I don't remember that much good stuff. Will someone plase help me?

Whatever the deal with Nixon, impeachment was definite, and removal likely before he resigned.

Varn,

I'm really not that partial. I never vote the party line for any party. I actully can't stand the two party system - usually it's just different flavors of shit. The 2 party system does more harm than good.

FDR was very liberal but the time called for it. He got us through some of the worst periods in our nation's history....though now his programs are outdated. (That was the Great Depression and World War 2...I see you;re from NZ)

I'm just trying to figure out what Clinton did that was so amazing. Someone help me.

He lies and has as much said to the public that it is okay to lie.

I am not sure he has done anything worthwhile except spend our money as he continues to to this day.

ps, I don't think that being intelligent requires you to be impartial. Just as being dumb doesn't require you to drool.

Kennedy did not put a man on the moon...that wasnt until 1969...he was long dead by then.
Lincoln didnt give a rats ass about slaves..hes just couldnt stand the fact that the south wasnt being subordinate.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr H:
Because unlike the presidents preceeding and proceeding him, he was able to form coherent sentences.

---

Actually Mr H, since we're on the subject of coherent sentences, the proper word use would be "preceding and succeeding him". Based on your wording, you are not qualified to judge a coherent sentence, so your opinion is worthless.

Chesty,

------------------
"Keep your friends close and your enemies closer..."

Go Slick Willy your beautifully spoken words mask your true intentions.

You will all claim what he does and has done is wrong but I doubt he is the first president to do it and I doubt he'll be the last.

Okay so it is premier. Kennedy instituted and commanded America to put a man on the moon before the turn of the century. The only thing he did worthwhile. If not for his order, it would never have happened.

Lincoln did free the slaves whatever his alterier motive may have been he did free them. And he was one of the few to become president without being rich and part of the brotherhood.

FDR did start the new deal which has led to the biggest falacy and failure in America its social programs. He was not crippled until his final term in office from ms I believe.

Of note isn't it funny how a majority of the wars and conflicts have been started by democratic presidents and congresses? With the exception of the Gulf war and a few incidents of the past, I find that rather startling and disturbing.

He left office with the longest rise of economic growth, ever.

Unemployment was cut in half.

The stock market more than tripled.

The surplus is projected to be enough to pay off the entire Federal debt and fund Social Security for several more decades.

He got China into the WTO.

That's also with the republicans going against everything the man wanted.

They allowed him basically no room to try anything new, yet he's blamed for the country's "failures." Let's just forget about the two times the gov't shut down because they wouldn't agree with Bill.

That's not the republicans fault, let's blame Clinton.

And who said having china in the wto is good. for that matter who said the wto is worth any thing.

------------------
"Keep your friends close and your enemies closer..."

[This message has been edited by blackhaus1 (edited February 12, 2001).]

No one wants infallibility. But outright lies can be a little hard to swallow.

Mr H,

You're killing me today. Economic explosions of the 1990's cannot be directed at any one individual or policymaking body.

The economic expansion of the 1990's is directly attributable to the PRIVATIZATION OF THE INTERNET. This resulted in unprecedented venture capital investments, which created considerably more jobs and wealth. The current slump can be traced to the OVER-investment by venture capital types.....throwing money at anything that ended in ".com"

Now that many .com's have been weeded out, a great deal of investments returned nothing...and there is a good deal of debt out there - the unpaid bills from these corporations that failed.

It had nothing to do with Clinton or the Republican Congress.

Yes - the President gets undue blame when the economy is bad.

The boom really took off in 1994. Prior to that, there was mild growth - nothing exceptional. The Internet was privatized in 1994. It was created 1969.

The slow down started early 2000 long before WJC left. It isn't a recession either....it's just a slowing compared to the mega growth. In any other context, the current economy is fine.

I still wish McCain won the republican nomination but I'll support Bush as he is in charge of our country.

My Uncle has a brother who must be one of the best realestate lawyers in D.C.

I like the one cause of death listed as natural causes and they found the head in a trash can next to the body.

Yeah your right about the premier and prime minister. Only lived there six weeks. Montreal to be exact.

LMFAO!

Obviously, the man is a walking scandle, and his wife is no different. The perfect political couple.

However his behavior during the last days of his presidency really shows where he came from and that he still has a little white trash in him. The trashing of the White HOuse and pardoning a bunch of thugs that supported his cause was a total disgrace to every American.

Now then, do all of you guys really think he killed all these people and has done all the crimes he's accused of? Why is he not in jail? Why has this news only been reported in the "fringe media"? Do you realize how much dirt the Republicans have unsuccessfully (or successfully) tried to dig on Clinton? The bar has been raised and now the hens will come home to roost on Mr Bush. That's the vicious cycle of Washington today.

America needs John McCain as it's next president and I hope the 53% of the people who vote will vote for him.

Kennedy was an awful President. Getting assassinated was the best thing that could happen to him regarding his legacy.

His relationships with the USSR almost got us into nuclear war on several occasions. Cuban missile crisis? Bay of Pigs? Mean anything to you?

Yes, he started the "space race", and we are the first and only country that has gone to the moon. But he was long dead when that happened.

RFK was a lying bastard. After he got to be AG, he quickly prosecuted the mob types that handed him the election in Chicago. it is no wonder tehy were both assassinated.

And Ted? he's the biggest fuckup of them all.

Does the political party in power have any sway over the economy, or is it as I suspect, its own animal with politics only minimully aiding or sabotauging it?

The only danger in this is if what they do causes an undamped cycle to begin which means that it could runaway in either direction unchecked which would be devastating.

I think that is close and very basic.

The sitting President has almost nothing - NOTHING - to do with economic changes.
He can't introduce laws, and can't make wholesale changes to economic policy.

He gets too much blame for bad times (Bush 1992) and too much credit for good times. (Clinton 1994-2000)

economics is now a worldwide animal - yes, it is basically true that the world follows the US economy, but that is far from a truism.

Also, Chesty is right on in saying that legislative entities try to keep things constant.

it goes way beyond any nation's borders or leaders.