studentx said:He was having blowjobs while massive genocide occurred and he got away with it?
I like Clinton
He was lucky to be in the room at the time of the Internet boom, he was lucky that his one war won itself, he was lucky that his attempt at the largest increase in spending and government bureacracy since social security (national healthcare) failed, and he was lucky that people were too blinded by their stock portfolios to notice the dramatic (and deadly) rise of Al Queda during his term or care that he made no effort to stop them.decibel said:may i ask why you say lucky?
Except of course, the one that we were in when he left office. http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/22/news/economy/nber/There were no recessions during the Clinton presidency.
http://www2.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/recov2004.htmOne common definition of a recession is two consecutive quarters of a negative rate of growth in gross domestic product (GDP), the broadest measure of the economy. GDP shrank in the first three quarters of 2001, and the Commerce Department recently said revised benchmark data showed GDP also shrank in the third quarter of 2000.
i think a lot of people believe Clinton was a good president merely because of the charm he emits.
His fiscal responsibility caused a boom in lenders confidence. Remember, the elder Bush had publicly stated that permanent deficit spending was acceptable. Without Clinton's bold increase in taxation, the costs associated with venture capital would have made the risky internet development unacceptable.russ_watters said:He was lucky to be in the room at the time of the Internet boom,
No war wins itself. Certainly, no war wins itself with no combat casualties.russ_watters said:he was lucky that his one war won itself,
.
Do you know how much money Clinton saved Americans just by threatening to nationalize health care? He reduced inflation from 19% to 1% in a sector of the economy that occupied 1/5 of GDP at the time. The savings was about 200 billion dollars in the first year after the attempt. It was well over a trillion dollars over Clinton's presidency. The effects of that savings are still compounding to this day.russ_watters said:he was lucky that his attempt at the largest increase in spending and government bureacracy since social security (national healthcare) failed,
.
Efforts were made. The millenial bomber was caught at a routine border stop, but over 200 arrests worlwide were made from intelligence extracted from him.russ_watters said:and he was lucky that people were too blinded by their stock portfolios to notice the dramatic (and deadly) rise of Al Queda during his term or care that he made no effort to stop them.
'"This is complete break from the way recessions are dated," Achuthan said. ' (from your own link)russ_watters said:Except of course, the one that we were in when he left office. http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/22/news/economy/nber/ http://www2.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/recov2004.htm
russ_watters said:Regarding his book, what little I have heard about it confirms my assesment of him from long ago: he's a man of little self control ('I did it because I could') and no real ideals other than what he gets from public opinion polls. In short, he isn't now and never was a leader.
"Risky" is not a word that was in the vocabulary of venture-capitalists in the mid-late 90's. They gave money to virtually anyone who asked for it.Njorl said:His fiscal responsibility caused a boom in lenders confidence. Remember, the elder Bush had publicly stated that permanent deficit spending was acceptable. Without Clinton's bold increase in taxation, the costs associated with venture capital would have made the risky internet development unacceptable.
I was referring, of course, to Kosovo/Yugoslavia. Up until then, no war had ever been won without the use of ground troops. And that one was only won because the citizens overthrew their own government.No war wins itself. Certainly, no war wins itself with no combat casualties.
You're saying he failed on purpose as part of a larger plan? I'd like to see some proof of that. In any case, we had a healthcare problem then and it didn't go away. It continued to (and continues to) get worse.Do you know how much money Clinton saved Americans just by threatening to nationalize health care?
He could't have been any luckier on that one. That's not effort, that's a bag of money falling into his lap from the sky. Good example.Efforts were made. The millenial bomber was caught at a routine border stop but over 200 arrests worlwide were made from intelligence extracted from him.
You don't need to go to war to make an effort. A thousand CIA agents (oops: Clinton cut human intel) and two SEAL teams could have halted the rise of Al Queda.The African embassy bombings were significantly less damaging (to Americans) because of security improvements done by Clinton's State department. Do you think he should have gone to war over the Cole? Could any leader in the history of the world have prodded the American people to war over the Cole?
You didn't stop reading there, did you? The change is being made becuase monthly GDP data didn't used to be available for this purpose. Now that they have data, they can use it. Seeing as how GDP growth alone is the most common definition of a recession, just including it as one of the factors seems pretty reasonable to me.'"This is complete break from the way recessions are dated," Achuthan said. ' (from your own link)
Well, ok, if you'd prefer we can just throw out their opinion entirely and just use the historical definition: two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth, which started with Q1 2001 (after a negative Q3 and stagnant Q4 2000).I'm sure it's just a coincidence that a private company is changing the rules about defining recessions as we go into a razor close election.
Of course not! Yikes, Njorl, that's very surprising coming from you. If that were the way it worked, we'd be in a direct democracy not a representative one. We elect leaders because they are better equipped to make tough decisions than we are, both because they are smarter and better educated than the average American and have a team of advisors to keep them better informed.I see. Someone who gets done what the people want is not a leader.
Not sure where you would get the idea that I believe that - clearly you are making a Bush reference, but besides being OT, I've said repeatedly that I'm not a Bush fan and not likely to vote for him.A leader is someone who lies to the people to get their opinions to come in line with his.
The book "Clinton on 60 Minutes" is a collection of interviews between former President Bill Clinton and journalist Steve Kroft on the popular television program "60 Minutes." The interviews cover a wide range of topics, including Clinton's personal life, political career, and the scandals that plagued his presidency.
The book has been ranked as a #1 best seller due to its high sales and popularity among readers. It offers a unique and in-depth look into the life and presidency of Bill Clinton, making it a must-read for those interested in politics, current events, and American history.
The book was written by David E. Kaplan, a journalist and author who has covered politics and government for over 25 years. He has written for numerous publications, including Newsweek and The New York Times, and has authored several other books on politics and history.
The book is available for purchase at most major bookstores, including Barnes & Noble and Amazon. It can also be purchased online in both physical and digital formats.
Yes, the book is based on the actual interviews between Bill Clinton and Steve Kroft on "60 Minutes." The conversations were transcribed and edited for clarity and flow, but the content and quotes are all from the original interviews.