I'm speaking from a moral point of view. Eliminating national debt hardly makes up for breaking treaties and sending troops to massacre the women and children of the natives.

That tyrant and socialist big got this country out of the depression



War for no reason? Let's see....Saddam invades Kuwiat, pillages it, and takes control of their oil. Then threatens Saudi Arabia, thus threatening the world's oil supply. Yeah...i think that is a good reason. If Bush 41 hadn't taken on Saddam, you'd be paying double digit gas prices

If Saddam would have invaded the Saudi's, they would have gotten a whooping. The saudi's and the iranians would hit them from both sides while the left over kuwaities did guerilla warfare tactics from the middle. No way Saddam takes over Saudi Arabia with Mecca residing in it.

FDr, yes he got the country out of depression, but he was a tyrant and a socialist. That was need for about 8 years of his 13 in office. He forced our hands into war, the most devastating war in the world's history. The man was evil. How about him wanting to appoint 15 justices to the supreme court. What a great fellow.

--Rob

The Saudis have an army? Get out! So what is Mecca is there? Saddam is a muslim. The only reason we are hated is because we are non-muslims in Mecca



Um...the japanese bombed us, thus creating an act of war. WHAT SHOULD HE HAVE DONE!!!

Saddam is secular. Saddam just started playing the muslim card after the first gulf war to draw support incase a second one happened.

secondly, we embargoed japans oil supply and were costing them their war with china. They had no choice to bomb us. Look it up, that is historical fact. It's not like they bombed pearl harbor because they woke up and said "hey, let's bomb the largest most powerful nation in the world". It doesn't work that way. With the embargo and the lend lease program, FDR got us attacked and into war. Hell in his State of the Union address of 1941 he was trying to convince the people to support getting into the war. Look it up.

--Rob

We embargoed their oil supply after Japan continued on a course of imperialistic and genocidal war throughout Asia. The Japanese were as bad as the Nazis. We had no choice but to cut off the food that fed their war machine. The blame for WW2 lies with Hitler, Mussolini and Japanese warlords like Tojo, not FDR.

Lincoln


Worst President Ever

Sole obbsession as a politician was the "American System": centralized banks, high tariffs, and internal improvement subsidies. In other words, he wanted the South to give up their gold-backed money if exchange for baseless "greenbacks", he wanted the south to pay triple the already oppressive tariff, increasing profits for Northern Manufacturing and tripling government revenues, which he wanted to give to the railroad industry as corporate subsidies.
A few months before he was elected, the tariffs were dramatically increased. In his inagural address, he assured the Southern States that they need not fear an invasion, as long as the new tariffs were paid in a timely manner.
When the South refused, he launched the bloodiest war in our history, killing what would have been 8 million Americans today. When the South got the upper hand, Lincoln ordered his generals to kill women and children, and to burn every house in every town, right before winter.
In the North, he suspended writ of habeus corpus, and imprisoned thousands of northeners who dared question the wisdom of the invasion. He shut down all newspapers that opposed his actions. He ordered the killing of thousands of draft dodgers. He deported the leader of the Democratic Party, and imprisoned the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court when he declared Lincoln's actions unconstitutional.
But after the dust cleared, the government set out in our constitution was destroyed and replaced with an all-powerful central government, the South was subjugated, and the "American System" became the economic system in the country. The ensuing mad dash to loot the treasury through corporate subsidies resulted in the massive corruption of the Grant Administration.


I mean, uh, the Civil War was fought entirely over the North's moral objections to Slavery.

Ummm.
For feuding with the national bank and leading the campaign to block the recharter the national bank, the nation sank into a dreadful national depression after he left office.

His pet banks fueled a speculative boom that was pushed largely by local or regional banks controlling the money supply. Jackson's fiscal policies were a disaster.

Baiken, that is an interesting bunch of assertions about Lincoln. I had no idea he was a war criminal.

IMHO Harding was our worst president ever. Not only did he appoint a bunch of cronies and proceed to let them commit a series of scandals, but he also invited member of the Klan to the White House.

And for the record on part of the Lincoln attack beloew, Lincoln drew up the order to have Chief Justice Taney arrested for granting a writ of habeus corpus but did not have him physically arrested.

I would have to say Bill Clinton, the guy did not do what he was suppose to do, EG: takeing bin Laden down when he had the chance...but that is actually one of the more littler things that he is accounted for.

Lincoln's First Inaugural Address

Fellow citizens of the United States: in compliance with a custom as old as the government itself, I appear before you to address you briefly and to take, in your presence, the oath prescribed by the Constitution of the United States, to be taken by the President "before he enters on the execution of his office."
I do not consider it necessary, at present, for me to discuss those matters of administration about which there is no special anxiety, or excitement.

Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations, and had never recanted them. And, more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:


"Resolved: that the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend, and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter under what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes."
I now reiterate these sentiments; and, in doing so, I only press upon the public attention the most conclusive evidence of which the case is susceptible, that the property, peace, and security of no section are to be in any wise endangered by the now incoming administration. I add, too, that all the protection which, consistently with the Constitution and the laws, can be given, will be cheerfully given to all the States when lawfully demanded, for whatever cause-- as cheerfully to one section as to another.

There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives from service or labor. The clause I now read is as plainly written in the Constitution as any other of its provisions:


"No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."
It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those who made it for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the intention of the lawgiver is the law. All members of Congress swear their support to the whole Constitution-- to this provision as much as to any other. To the proposition, then, that slaves whose cases come within the terms of this clause "shall be delivered up", their oaths are unanimous. Now, if they would make the effort in good temper, could they not with nearly equal unanimity frame and pass a law by means of which to keep good that unanimous oath?

There is some difference of opinion whether this clause should be enforced by national or by State authority; but surely that difference is not a very material one. If the slave is to be surrendered, it can be of but little consequence to him or to others by which authority it is done. And should any one in any case be content that his oath shall go unkept on a merely unsubstantial controversy as to HOW it shall be kept? Again, in any law upon this subject, ought not all the safeguards of liberty known in civilized and humane jurisprudence to be introduced, so that a free man be not, in any case, surrendered as a slave? And might it not be well at the same time to provide by law for the enforcement of that clause in the Constitution which guarantees that "the citizen of each State shall be entitled to all privileged and immunities of citizens in the several States?"

I take the official oath today with no mental reservations, and with no purpose to construe the Constitution or laws by any hypercritical rules. And while I do not choose now to specify particular acts of Congress as proper to be enforced, I do suggest that it will be much safer for all, both in official and private stations, to conform to and abide by all those acts which stand unrepealed, than to violate any of them, trusting to find impunity in having them held to be unConstitutional.

It is seventy-two years since the first inauguration of a President under our national Constitution. During that period fifteen different and greatly distinguished citizens have, in succession, administered the executive branch of the government. They have conducted it through many perils, and generally with great success. Yet, with all this scope of precedent, I now enter upon the same task for the brief Constitutional term of four years under great and peculiar difficulty. A disruption of the Federal Union, heretofore only menaced, is now formidably attempted.

I hold that, in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution, the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever--it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.

Again, if the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it--break it, so to speak; but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?

Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And, finally, in 1787 one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was "TO FORM A MORE PERFECT UNION."

But if the destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is LESS perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity.

It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that Resolves and Ordinances to that effect are legally void; and that acts of violence, within any State or States, against the authority of the United States, are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.

I therefore consider that, in view of the Constitution and the laws, the Union is unbroken; and to the extent of my ability I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States. Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part; and I shall perform it so far as practicable, unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite means, or in some authoritative manner direct the contrary. I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the Union that it WILL Constitutionally defend and maintain itself.

In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence; and there shall be none, unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere. Where hostility to the United States, in any interior locality, shall be so great and universal as to prevent competent resident citizens from holding the Federal offices, there will be no attempt to force obnoxious strangers among the people for that object. While the strict legal right may exist in the government to enforce the exercise of these offices, the attempt to do so would be so irritating, and so nearly impracticable withal, that I deem it better to forego for the time the uses of such offices.

The mails, unless repelled, will continue to be furnished in all parts of the Union. So far as possible, the people everywhere shall have that sense of perfect security which is most favorable to calm thought and reflection. The course here indicated will be followed unless current events and experience shall show a modification or change to be proper, and in every case and exigency my best discretion will be exercised according to circumstances actually existing, and with a view and a hope of a peaceful solution of the national troubles and the restoration of fraternal sympathies and affections.

That there are persons in one section or another who seek to destroy the Union at all events, and are glad of any pretext to do it, I will neither affirm nor deny; but if there be such, I need address no word to them. To those, however, who really love the Union may I not speak?

Before entering upon so grave a matter as the destruction of our national fabric, with all its benefits, its memories, and its hopes, would it not be wise to ascertain precisely why we do it? Will you hazard so desperate a step while there is any possibility that any portion of the ills you fly from have no real existence? Will you, while the certain ills you fly to are greater than all the real ones you fly from--will you risk the commission of so fearful a mistake?

All profess to be content in the Union if all Constitutional rights can be maintained. Is it true, then, that any right, plainly written in the Constitution, has been denied? I think not. Happily the human mind is so constituted that no party can reach to the audacity of doing this. Think, if you can, of a single instance in which a plainly written provision of the Constitution has ever been denied. If by the mere force of numbers a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written Constitutional right, it might, in a moral point of view, justify revolution--certainly would if such a right were a vital one. But such is not our case. All the vital rights of minorities and of individuals are so plainly assured to them by affirmations and negations, guaranties and prohibitions, in the Constitution, that controversies never arise concerning them. But no organic law can ever be framed with a provision specifically applicable to every question which may occur in practical administration. No foresight can anticipate, nor any document of reasonable length contain, express provisions for all possible questions. Shall fugitives from labor be surrendered by national or State authority? The Constitution does not expressly say. May Congress prohibit slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say. MUST Congress protect slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say.

From questions of this class spring all our constitutional controversies, and we divide upon them into majorities and minorities. If the minority will not acquiesce, the majority must, or the government must cease. There is no other alternative; for continuing the government is acquiescence on one side or the other.

If a minority in such case will secede rather than acquiesce, they make a precedent which in turn will divide and ruin them; for a minority of their own will secede from them whenever a majority refuses to be controlled by such minority. For instance, why may not any portion of a new confederacy a year or two hence arbitrarily secede again, precisely as portions of the present Union now claim to secede from it? All who cherish disunion sentiments are now being educated to the exact temper of doing this.

Is there such perfect identity of interests among the States to compose a new Union, as to produce harmony only, and prevent renewed secession?

Plainly, the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy. A majority held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects it does, of necessity, fly to anarchy or to despotism. Unanimity is impossible; the rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible; so that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or despotism in some form is all that is left.

I do not forget the position, assumed by some, that Constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court; nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding, in any case, upon the parties to a suit, as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government, upon vital questions affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made, in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. Nor is there in this view any assault upon the court or the judges. It is a duty from which they may not shrink to decide cases properly brought before them, and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decisions to political purposes.

One section of our country believes slavery is RIGHT, and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is WRONG, and ought not to be extended. This is the only substantial dispute. The fugitive-slave clause of the Constitution, and the law for the suppression of the foreign slave-trade, are each as well enforced, perhaps, as any law can ever be in a community where the moral sense of the people imperfectly supports the law itself. The great body of the people abide by the dry legal obligation in both cases, and a few break over in each. This, I think, cannot be perfectly cured; and it would be worse in both cases AFTER the separation of the sections than BEFORE. The foreign slave-trade, now imperfectly suppressed, would be ultimately revived, without restriction, in one section, while fugitive slaves, now only partially surrendered, would not be surrendered at all by the other.

Physically speaking, we cannot separate. We cannot remove our respective sections from each other, nor build an impassable wall between them. A husband and wife may be divorced, and go out of the presence and beyond the reach of each other; but the different parts of our country cannot do this. They cannot but remain face to face, and intercourse, either amicable or hostile, must continue between them. Is it possible, then, to make that intercourse more advantageous or more satisfactory after separation than before? Can aliens make treaties easier than friends can make laws? Can treaties be more faithfully enforced between aliens than laws can among friends? Suppose you go to war, you cannot fight always; and when, after much loss on both sides, an no gain on either, you cease fighting, the identical old questions as to terms of intercourse are again upon you.

This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their CONSTITUTIONAL right of amending it, or their REVOLUTIONARY right to dismember or overthrow it. I cannot be ignorant of the fact that many worthy and patriotic citizens are desirous of having the national Constitution amended. While I make no recommendation of amendments, I fully recognize the rightful authority of the people over the whole subject, to be exercised in either of the modes prescribed in the instrument itself; and I should, under existing circumstances, favor rather than oppose a fair opportunity being afforded the people to act upon it. I will venture to add that to me the convention mode seems preferable, in that it allows amendments to originate with the people themselves, instead of only permitting them to take or reject propositions originated by others not especially chosen for the purpose, and which might not be precisely such as they would wish to either accept or refuse. I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution--which amendment, however, I have not seen--has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied Constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.

The chief magistrate derives all his authority from the people, and they have conferred none upon him to fix terms for the separation of the states. The people themselves can do this also if they choose; but the executive, as such, has nothing to do with it. His duty is to administer the present government, as it came to his hands, and to transmit it, unimpaired by him, to his successor.

Why should there not be a patient confidence in the ultimate justice of the people? Is there any better or equal hope in the world? In our present differences is either party without faith of being in the right? If the Almighty Ruler of Nations, with his eternal truth and justice, be on your side of the North, or on yours of the South, that truth and that justice will surely prevail, by the judgment of this great tribunal, the American people.

By the frame of the government under which we live, this same people have wisely given their public servants but little power for mischief; and have, with equal wisdom, provided for the return of that little to their own hands at very short intervals. While the people retain their virtue and vigilance, no administration, by any extreme of wickedness or folly, can very seriously injure the government in the short space of four years.

My countrymen, one and all, think calmly and WELL upon this whole subject. Nothing valuable can be lost by taking time. If there be an object to HURRY any of you in hot haste to a step which you would never take DELIBERATELY, that object will be frustrated by taking time; but no good object can be frustrated by it. Such of you as are now dissatisfied, still have the old Constitution unimpaired, and, on the sensitive point, the laws of your own framing under it; while the new administration will have no immediate power, if it would, to change either. If it were admitted that you who are dissatisfied hold the right side in the dispute, there still is no single good reason for precipitate action. Intelligence, patriotism, Christianity, and a firm reliance on him who has never yet forsaken this favored land, are still competent to adjust in the best way all our present difficulty.

In YOUR hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in MINE, is the momentous issue of civil war. The government will not assail YOU. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. YOU have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the government, while I shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend it."

I am loathe to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where does Lincoln state that the South need not fear invasion, as long as the new tariffs are paid? Please help me here. It appears to me Lincoln is addressing the South's prime concern; slavery.

You really need to do more homework on this one- there is a thread dealing with this- the "Clinton didn't take down Bin Laden" myth has been thoroughly refuted on this site on another post.

Bush 2 is shaping up to be the worst president ever, even beating the nincompoop of all time, Reagan! Quite a feat so far!

I find it very funny that although this is a site for debate, it is extremely partisan. I think it's quite obvious Clinton did not take down Bin Laden or anyone for that matter. No one can refute that. Yes we haven't had a good president in office forever, but how can you say clinton was good but reagan was bad, or reagan was good but clinton was bad. Neither was all that great. I think a lot of people think of the economy boom of the 90's and nothing else in regards to Bill Clinton, but forget about all the bad stuff he did in the process. Let's step away from partisan politics and just admit, hey Clinton was terrible, Reagan was pretty bad himself. For a person sitting in the middle, it's not too hard to see.

--Rob

The fact is in 50 years neither the name Reagan or Clinton will immediately pop up when talking about great, or terrible, Presidents. Reagan may get some credit for helping to end the Cold War and some blame for running up a deficit to do it. Clinton may get some credit for the prosperity of the '90s and that impeachment charge will always hang over his head.

Well, we don't know about Clinton. We are still finding out little tidbits about his administration. Reflecting back, no one touches FDR and or Lincoln. They did crazy stuff.

--Rob

I doubt that many of us are actually qualified to make any pronouncements concerning whom might be the "worst president in American history." I'm not a historian. Having said that, I'm willing to display my ignorance as readily as the next person.

I nominate Daddy Bush. The embarrassment factor alone earns him this nomination, in my mind. When, as a Republican candidate, he labeled Michael Dukakis a "card-carrying member of the ACLU," I wanted to crawl back into the womb.

He also voiced this gem: "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."

Of course, I'm sure there have been worse presidents, but Daddy Bush personally caused me more shame as an American than any president in my lifetime.

I'm excluding his son from my judgement until he is no longer in office, to give a little more depth to the opinion.

The worst leader????

It's a tough question to answer because I don't know which one really
did the poorest, worst job.....

So, based on my intuitive opinion I'm declaring a tie for the "Worst Leader" award:


George Bush
George W. Bush

The father and son take the honors. They can share in the following adjectives:

Dishonest
Greedy
Selfish
Undemocratic

Clinton would have gotten Bin Laden if he could have, but as GB is finding out, Bin is a tough bastard to find.

Clinton is the cleverest president we have had in my lifetime. He had a sound grasp of economics. It was confidence in the soundness of government financial strategy that fueled the Clinton boom more than anything else. Bush has run a 2 Trillion dollar Clinton surplus into a 800 Billion deficit. He has not caught Bin Laden. He has seized Iraq but not subdued Iraq. He has lost 3 million jobs.

I do not say that Bush is the worst leader we have ever had. But I do say that Clinton was one of the best.

I think also that the father and son duo is probably the worst presidents. Lord, there were a bunch of bad presidents and it is hard to pick which one was the worst.

If only the president put the people first and not partisanship and politics. There was only one president in my lifetime that tried to be honest and put partisanship last. That was President Jimmy Carter and the politicians crucified him.

I consider myself a Democrat, but I definitely hold people accountable for their actions. Most people are using this site to bash the current or previous administration, but in all honesty the worst President had to be Andrew Jackson. If it wasn't for the Congress overstepping its boundaries, there is no telling what the country would be like under his leadership.

Now for Clinton: To those who are actually going to defy the fact that he was the first person to pay down the deficit in 40 years, lay aside the fact that he actually had the most diversified cabinet ever, and totally forget the fact that he cut pork-barrel spending, used a good economy to pay off debts, increased jobs, and actually created peace between the Middle Eastern Nations as well as kept the US in good standing with North Korea (something a certain somebody messed up when he decided to include N. Korea in the list of US enemies in 2002) all while juggling two women at the same time, just say that you can be *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** because he is a Democrat instead of a Republican, then I say get a life.

No better yet, get a better leader, because nothing you can criticize Clinton for can be nearly as terrible as Mr. "Don't mess with Texas".

But then again, it could just be because I'm a Democrat

Wow. Quite a bold statement.


The debt has increased every year since 1961.
Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual The deficit may have been reduced, but there was still a deficit and the national debt increased.



Bush's cabinet is just as diverse as Clinton's was. Bush selects Cabinet as diverse as Clinton's



I'd like to see some links on that one...Spending increased under Clinton, not decreased, except defense spending. The tax revenues also increased.


Granted. Jobs did increase under Clinton and unemployment dropped from 7.5% to 4.2%.

Remind me again where this happened? I certainly hope you don't say Palestine...

This was one of Clinton's great failures, to be honest. He gave North Korea nuclear power plants, with an agreement that North Korea would cease its pursuit of nuclear weapons. What did North Korea do? Use this technology to further develop its nuclear program to the point where it is today (they claim to have functional nuclear weapons). I would hardly call Clinton's mishandling of North Korea a positive point.

Clinton certainly did not help the international terrorism situation either (although he DID just miss OBL by 45 minutes...). The Clinton presidency was certainly no shining beacon of how an administration should be run.

I guess Israel and the Palestinians didn't get that memo.



By turning a blind eye to their nuke project. I'm sure it did make them happy!



At least two. I'm wondering, though, since when was it a mark of a good man, let alone a good leader, that he's able to have sexual relationships with several women?



Are you going to back that one up, or just leave it there hoping we'll all just accept it as true?

He didn't give North Korea anything. He was about to start a war against them when Jimmy Carter made an agreement which the republican congress decided to not to uphold. We basically said we'll give up some food and heating oil if you stop making Nuclear weapons and then didn't give them anything.
He was a great president, maybe you mean Andrew Johnson? He was never actually found guilty during impeachment though.

The debt is an accumulation of the deficit each year. Not only was the deficit reduced but there was a surplus in 2 or 3 years, So if the deficit was reduced and there was a surplus there can not be a deficit in that year. A deficit is not an accumulation of year to year. It is just for one year.

Below is link for Clintons surplus in 1999

http://clinton3.nara.gov/WH/Work/102899.html

Some facts from that websites:
The Largest Surplus in History:


The $123 billion surplus in 1999 is the largest dollar surplus in history, even after adjusting for inflation;
The surplus, expected to be about 1.4% of GDP, is the largest surplus as a share of the economy since 1951;
1999 is the second year in a row of surplus, marking the first back-to-back surpluses since 1956-57;
This is the first time in U.S. history that we've experienced seven years in a row of fiscal improvement.

The Largest Debt Reduction in History:


Over the last two years, America has paid down $140 billion in public debt, the largest debt pay-down ever;
The debt held by the public is $1.7 trillion lower than was projected when President Clinton took office;
As a result, in 1999 alone, interest payments on the debt were $91 billion lower than projected.

In contrast Bush has a RECORD DEFICIT.

Give me ole BJ Clinton over DECEIVER(or liar whichever one you desire)King George II anytime.

The link is missing. Must be in the same place as the Rose Law Firm's billing records.

In any event, a) Congress controls spending, and the surplus was projected, not actual.

If he COULD HAVE??? Sudan offered him on a silver platter. All Clinton had to say was "go for it". But what did he say? "no thanks"



Where? The current violence sure doesn't show it!

First I wanted to so in response to Rancid Uncle that I was referring to Andrew Johnson instead instead of Jackson. I apologize and thank you for coreecting me. Now on to my previous statements...

So I guess many of you thought I was making up all that I said about the previous President Clinton's successes (didn't want you to be confused with the successes of the "future" President Clinton, but she another topic).

So here goes:

According to CNN.com (Clinton Unveils His Balanced Budget, the former President not only released his "end to the deficit era" ( not the National Debt but the deficit) on February 2, 1998 but also proposed 4-year bill to have a continued budget surplus -something that DID happen over the next four years. His hopes were also to one day have the National Debt paid down, but a certain someone made sure that would never happen (don't you just love my allusion?).

As for the most diversified cabinet ever, I was referring to the fact that he was the President who ran his campaign on creating a cabinet that represented the "face of America". This is not saying that Bush didn't also, this is just saying that Clinton was the person to set that standard for future presidents to adhere to (Bush selects diverse cabinet

Now as far as cutting pork-barrel spending, most of us know that pork-barrel spending is where legislators tag on a little something for themselves onto a legislation. During Clinton's reign he used his power of line-item veto to cut $255 million dollars worth of pork. (Line-Item Veto Is Struck Down

Continuing on...

Clinton did actually increase peace in the Middle East, and yes even with Palestine. However, this posting is getting kind of long so I will just post the page (TIME RIPE TO REVIVE MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS SAY CLINTON, MUBARAK

And lastly, Clinton didn't "turn a blind eye". In fact, he acted in a fashion of diplomacy. You know, the kind that doesn't require labeling people as enemies? His agreement with North Korea was that they would discontinue the nuclear facilities and we would give them light-water reactors and 500,000 tons of oil in energy alternatives. Unfortunately, Bush Jr's labeling North Korea an enemy caused Pyongyang to withdraw from the Nuclear non-proliferation treaty. And NOW (now meaning just within the past few months) we have been threatened by North Korea who won't go back into the treaty QUOTE "under the current administration". So what do we see? President Bush groveling with N.K. hoping to come to some consensus. (Nukes and the "Axis of Evil", President Delivers State of the Union Address

Well, this posting is long enough, but just wanted to show my statement wasn't unfounded, and yes - I still think he's better than Mr. "Don't mess with Texas".

"The President's FY 1999 Budget Plan. President Clinton's FY 1999 budget demonstrates that the prospect of balanced budgets and future surpluses has erased fiscal discipline in Washington. The Administration claims its budget would produce the first balanced budget in more than 30 years, with surpluses being recorded over the next five years. However, the Congressional Budget Office reported in March 1998 that the President's plan would actually reduce the surpluses projected under current policies by $ 43 billion through the 1999-2003 period. This means that if Congress merely maintained current policies, the result would be a surplus of $ 151 billion, as opposed to $ 108 billion after implementation of the President's new initiatives. Moreover, according to the CBO, the President's initiatives will result in a single-year budget deficit of $ 5 billion in the year 2000." -- THE FEDERAL BUDGET; How to Get Spending Under Control by Scott A. Hodge and Geoffrey Freeman



So basically, at least by your logic, Bush is at least as good at this as Clinton. Rankling, isn't it?



"PORK WITHOUT END: Steve Moore of the Cato Institute argues the problem with the line-item veto is not that President Clinton used it too often but rather too rarely. What follows is a list of programs and projects that were not struck from last year's appropriations bills by the line-item veto but, Mr. Moore says, should have been:

$286,000 for research to enhance the flavor of roasted peanuts; $250,000 for pickle research; $3.3 million for shrimp farming studies in Hawaii, Mississippi, Massachusetts, California, and Arizona; $700,000 for an "aquatic and fitness center" at Cedar Crest College in Allentown, Pa; $1.5 million for the Southeastern Pennsylvania Consortium for Higher Education to collect data for social public policy; $1.2 million for a business innovation laboratory in Hoboken, NJ.; $1.35 million to renovate the Paramount Theater in Rutland, Vt.; $2.5 million for a New Mexico Hispanic cultural center; $950,000 for a fish hatchery in Ruskin, Fl.; $1.4 million for the Lake Tahoe, California intermodal center; $2 million for New Orleans streetcar named "Desire;" $3 million for Reno Nevada buses; $51 million for a regional bus plan in Houston; $2 million for the renovation of an Art Gallery in Buffalo; $500,000 for continuation of a study of livestock pollution (cow dung) at Tarleton State University; $1.5 million for the National Alternative Fuels Training program; $1 million for the World Congress on Information Technology in Fairfax, Va.; $150,000 for development of the George C. Marshall Memorial Plaza in Uniontown, Pa; $100,000 for hops research in the Pacific Northwest; $950,000 for rice research in Arkansas and Texas; $250,000 for food fermentation research in North Carolina; $500,000 for honey bee research in Texas; $1.2 million for potato research $150,000 for the National Center for Peanut Competitiveness; $100,000 for maple syrup research in Vermont; $33 million for wind energy research; $55 million for the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor. Just what we need, right?" -- In the Eurocratic spirit, etc, The Washington Times, March 14, 1998.



Post whatever article you like. The facts contradict your assertion.



Bravo Sierra. The simple fact of the matter is that they had been working on nukes since day one. Do you think they just began their whole military nuclear project since that Axis of Evil speech? Edit: What an ignorant idea!

If you had checked my reply you would have seen that I audited it 5 minutes later. I forgot to capitalize 2 letters. But I don't see any connection between that and the Rose Law Firm books. Am I missing something here or is that a good old typical dirty down in the dirt reply from our moral right in the Republican party. No, I must be mistaken.

Also your comment about there not being an actual budget surplus. Would you believe the official records of the OMB. As quoted below:

Sorry for not clicking on your link more than once to verify that it is broken ( ). Next time I will just keep clicking on it endlessly until it works. It will slow down the server, but if that's what I have to do, I guess that's what I will do.



It's called a joke. Oxford's defines it as, "something said or done to excite laughter or amusement; a witticism, a jest; jesting, raillery; also, something that causes amusement, a ridiculous circumstance." And no, it's not dirty. If you want to know what a dirty joke is, I suggest you email me. I would be more than happy to provide you with a few examples.

As for the OMB, would you mind providing a source for that quote, maybe a link? Maybe even one that works? I'll keep hitting the "Refresh" button until you respond.

And this seems to be the sad but honest truth. No matter how well a Democrat does, the Republican party as a whole will never give him (or in respect to the future President Clinton, her) the respect he(she) deserves. And it seems that no matter how bad a presidential leader may be, if he tags on the letter "R" after his name (I say he because you KNOW there will never be a female Republican as president-too many barriers to cross) the Republican nation will follow that Pied Piper to the depths of Hell, then find a Democrat to blame it on.

Here's a true discussion question: When will there be a President voted on because of his/her capabilities INSTEAD of political affiliation?

"Well, johnny, what do you want to be when you grow up?"

"President!"

"Oh Jesus, Bless this child..."

Utterly false. I have just posted contradicting your assertions about President Clinton. The rest of that statement is based upon nothing but your own personal fantasy. Plenty of Republicans, including me, disagree with the President on various issues. I will blame him for what he needs to be blamed for. It seems that it is you and your ilk who are all too ready to don the Presidential kneepads for Bill Clinton. All I've heard from you is how perfect you seem to think he was.

When liberals and Democrats like you blame us for falling in lockstep behind Dubya, I suggest you take a good long look in the mirror at yourself, then look at what it was that you defended.



O-kay.

I am so sorry that I made a mistake on my post and corrected it 5 minutes later. I am also sorry that I am not like you Republicans and never make a mistake, or worse never admit you make a mistake.
Have you went back and clicked on the corrected website and checked on the facts.

PERSONAL ATTACK REMOVED. If it is all the same I will never debate any issues with you.

here is the website:

http://w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/fy2001/guide04.html



p.s. sorry Jaime, but his attitude deserved it, and I apologize to you and the rest of AD.

So you knew it was wrong and you did it anyway? -Jaime

^blinks^
That was quite a bit of flamebait...
Anyway. Back on topic?
I think the Gulf of Tonkin wins this one... Lyndon Johnson screwed up majorly. These massive military powers who took the initiative to win, succeeded in costing the lives of 58,000 U.S. soldiers, 198,000 VietMinh soldiers, 344,000 VietCong soldiers, and more than 1.5 million civilians....
So.... I can't claim to like this guy.
[me]

I want to ask Conagher what exactly he proved me wrong about?

Let's go back over this again. Every statement you look at shows that the Clinton administration balanced the budget, yet you want to say that isn't true? And that somehow it would have been balanced anyway? (Something you won't agree with, but the we all know is true...A great economy + decreased defense spending + not lowering taxes in the face off opposition = SURPLUS. In fact the republicans were angry because Clinton would not approve a tax cut).

Then, I proceed to talk about the first president in history with an administration as diversified as Clinton (that still did one hell of a good job), and you say that it's "rankling" that Bush did the same thing. My argument in the first place was not that Bush didn't have a diverse administration. My argument was that Clinton was the FIRST president to see that there are more abled bodies than 50-year old white men - as the article states - setting PRECEDENT for future Presidents to have to live up to (this includes Bush Jr by the way).

I then show articles about how Clinton cut pork-barrel spending and you give me an OPINION column on why he should have done more. Let's not forget it was the REPUBLICANS who got angry at the line-item veto and took it to court (as well as a Republican HOUSE who sent a referendum rejecting the line-item post-play).

But it doesn't stop there. I show how Clinton created a bastion of peace in the East and you whine "I don't have to listen to you. You're wrong". Yeah, I'm sure this contradicted my posting.

And last but not least, I show how Clinton eased N.K. into a non-proliferation treaty they broke coincidentally RIGHT AFTER the address by none other than your good buddy. And what is your response? (Your response sucked so I will post this one again) "I don't have to listen to you. You're wrong"

Let's take a lesson from California: Dems felt Davis was doing a bad job and decided not to vote for him. Reps didn't care who Arnold was and voted him in because he was a fellow Repub.

If you don't want to listen to a Democrat when I say open your eyes, hell, listen to your 5.7 billion brothers and sisters around the world. Our president is about as good with politics as he is with chewing a pretzel.