Remember the good ol' days, when everyone had a job, the economy was up, there was no fear of using our Social Security, we weren't at war with Iraq, and we were proud to say that Bill Clinton was our President because he knew what he was doing... Yes the man had some moral issues, but altogether he was a great President... If you hate Bush enough and really would like those days to return, then join us as we unite and proclaim that we want a president who is competent and human...WE WANT CLINTON!!!



-From a Facebook group thing

I agree he was a good president and knows what he is doing with in the U.S. and he made good jobs,also he made people happy and he was a strong president unlike the chimp in office (bush I am talking about)

this should  be in the political foreum, for it will soon turn into a political argument. 

And guess what, you won't hear anything from a different point of view this time either....cause I happen to agree.  I am not 100% for Bill Clinton nor 100% for his ideas, but I thought he was a fine president and ran this country very well.

And guess what, you won't hear anything from a different point of view this time either....cause I happen to agree.  I am not 100% for Bill Clinton nor 100% for his ideas, but I thought he was a fine president and ran this country very well.


Im currently taking a course on Clinton foreign policy (and in Novemeber I get to meetin him when he comes to Hofstra for a Conference on his presidency)....through this course I have learned that Clinton made so many mistakes with foreign policy it wasnt funny.  He was all about the economy, and didnt even think the foreign policy issue was worth it.  Also, his autobiography is the most longwinded peice of tripe Ive ever read.  Read War in a time of peace or American Empire instead. 

Is he standing again?

He can't be elected again.  There is a two term limit on the presidency.

My observation was that he pretty much sat back and let the country run itself.  He benefitted from a very good business boom in the 90s (that quickly burst, as characteristic of the business cycle) and the fact that he was an excellent public speaker and great personality. 

I really do think that they should take out that amendment...the only reason they put it in was because FDR kept winning every election, and they were afraid he was going to become a tyrant.  If a president's doing a good job, and just about everybody likes him, they should just keep him.

An interesting point that someone once made is that it would be cool to do something like what the Confederate States had, which is to have the President have ONE term of six years and that's it.  Four years is too short to be able to do anything, because the first year is spent getting used to being the President, and the last two years are spent trying to get re-elected.

I have to disagree and not necessarily because I like Bush or anything but because Clinton was not a great president, far from it actually, despite what you all believe.  A lot of people blamed Bush for the recession when he had little to do with it.  If you remember one of the big things that lead to the big drop in the economy was when huge companies like Enron went under and WorldCom filled for bankruptcy.  Those companies did not go under because of Bush.  Yeah Bush was friends with the CEO or president (whatever he was) of Enron but Bush wasn't the one padding the papers.  And those companies had been padding their papers for years, which means they were doing it under Clinton's administration.  If Clinton had been able to run again and won those companies still would have gone under, the recession still would have happened, and a ton of jobs still would have been lost.  The economy is now fairly strong and just about any economist will tell you that.  Plus many people seem to forget a man by the name of Alan Greenspan who actually has more control over the economy than the president does. 

As for Bush's social security plan it is actually one of the few domestic plans of his I actually agree with.  If social security continues as is then within 50 years it will no longer exist as all the baby boomers that are now retirering will use it up.  Which means people like myself who is 22 will more than likely not have social security to fall back on.  So a change needs to be made and I like Bush's plan.  It gives us more power over were our social security money goes.  Under current plan you have basically no control at all.  I personally like the idea of having more control over my own money.  Also you had all those people blasting Bush's tax cuts complaining it favored the wealthy.  Well of course it favored the wealthy.  The way income tax is set up in this country then just about no matter how he did the tax cut it would have favored the wealthy.  Only way to change that would be to restructure the way income tax is taken or done some new almost radical tax cut idea or given a tax cut on something besides income.

Also the people who jump on Bush for slow response to Hurricane Katrina need to go back and learn how the political chain works in these kinds of circumstances.  Bush has little control over the what happend before the hurricane and the initial relief effort.  The ones who are at fault were Mr. Brown (former Homeland Security Secretary) the Mayor New Orleans and the Gov. of Louisiana.  For example FEMA had busses in New Orleans sitting there before the hurricane hit for the cities use to move anyone out who couldn't move themselves out and those busses never moved and there are even pictures of those busses still sitting lined up half under water the day after that hurricane hit.  Also why did the Gov. and Mayor wait to put the mandatory evacuation in place until 10am the day before the hurricane hit.  Why the wait that should have been put in place at least a day earlier than that if not more so.  Putting out evacuations is the city and states job not Bush's and actually Bush is not even allowed to issue them or overall the city and state in these situtations.  And the Mayor and Gov. can't say they didn't know it was going to be like this because for days they were both being warned over and over again that Katrina had the potential to be wose than any we had never seen before, which is exactly what ended up happening.  Yes FEMA was slow responding which had a little bit to do with the circumstances but overall yes they were much slower than they should have been.  But this is why people like Mr. Brown no longer have a job. So yeah Bush is very far from perfect but he is also far from at fault for all that he gets blamed for.

Going back to Clinton, where do you think Bush got most of his information about the supposed WMDs that were thought to have been in Iraq.  He got a bunch of it from all the information Clinton's administration had collected.  When Bush started making these claims he had not been in office long enough to gather that kind of information and so he and his administration went back to Clintions administrations findings.  Should Bush have done more investigating to try and prove those findings before launching an attack, yes he definitely should have because he could have learned that WMD were not present.  Not that Saddam was making it easy to figure it out though.  So a lot of the things people jump on Bush for had strong connections to Clinton.  Bush and his administration never really brought these things out which I do tend to give him credit for because most politicians would have jumped at an opportunity to rub something like that in the opponents party's face.

Clinton as a whole was not a good president and if he had been able to and had served longer this would have come out, he just happen to get lucky as h*ll and get out just at the right time.  Clinton was a weak president in the terms that he did not do much.  As Rice Cube put it earlier "...he pretty much sat back and let the country run itself" which is asking for big trouble.  Its like taking a bunch of toddlers who have just learned to walk wonder around while you sit back and just let them do their things because when all things are said and done you are going to have one huge mess on your hands and thats exactly what happened.  Thinking back to Clintons time in office I can't really think of any big positive things he did.  All that man really had going for him was his charisma and the fact he was an great public speaker, if you take those two things away from him he had nothing.

OK I am done ranting now, you all can have a field day with me if you want which I am sure some of you will (but I guess thats one of the things that makes this board so popular?).  But, if you really go back and do some research you will find that the majority of what I just said is the truth.  And is it just me or is this topic kinda out of place, shouldn't it be under the Polictics one?

There is a thread like this one in the politics board, too.  I don't know why she put it both places.  I think it is better suited to the political forum based on the kind of answers it is bound to receive.

He can't be elected again.  There is a two term limit on the presidency.



Actually, he can. The Constitution says two CONSECTUTIVE terms.




Cat

There is a thread like this one in the politics board, too.  I don't know why she put it both places.  I think it is better suited to the political forum based on the kind of answers it is bound to receive.


Um actually I had it on the 2000s board first. Then someone suggested that I put it on the politics board, which is why I put it there. I apologize, I didnt mean for there to be any confusion.

Actually, he can. The Constitution says two CONSECTUTIVE terms.




Cat


No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.


So no, he can't.

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.


So no, he can't.



I do stand corrected.  I thought that the Constitution said "consectutive terms".  My mistake.




Cat

I just saw a funny headline:  "Hillary's Chest Gets Bigger As '08 Gets Closer."  ;D

  How come whenever Bill Clinton is mentioned, Mr. Haney from Green Acres enters my mind?

He had charisma. People I think miss the act he put on more than what he did. That doesn't mean things were going well all the time.

Well lemme think back........I got the best job I ever had in October 1990, before "Wiley Willy" was in office. I worked hard, advanced in the company and between 1999 and 2000 our stock, along with many other companies, fell back to 1980's levels. My company was sold in 2000, I got the boot, I'm still trying to get ahead. Yeah, what a genius we had taking care the economy, which I believe was his campaign mantra. I won't even go into foreign affairs and response to attacks on U.S interests/properties.