A True Leader Unlike Our Current President

[vinnieponte]

Every day Bush wakes up and figures ways out to kill more people, start new wars, shift funds from important research to big republican gala parties. While a former president who made the country better does what he know best, he leads like a leader should. Bush isn't and never will be a true leader!!!!

Annan Selects Clinton for Tsunami Effort

16 minutes ago World - AP Asia


By EDITH M. LEDERER, Associated Press Writer

UNITED NATIONS - Secretary-General Kofi Annan has selected former President Clinton to be the U.N. point man for tsunami reconstruction and ensure that the world doesn't forget the immense needs of the countries devastated by the Dec. 26 disaster, a U.N. diplomat said Tuesday.

U.N. spokesman Fred Eckhard refused to confirm the appointment, but said his office would release a statement later Tuesday. Clinton's office had no immediate comment.


Annan wants to appoint a special envoy not only to focus on the cleanup and reconstruction but to try to make progress on resolving conflicts with rebels in the two worst-hit countries — Indonesia and Sri Lanka, Eckhard said.


The U.N. diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the appointment of Clinton as Annan's top envoy for the rehabilitation of tsunami-devastated countries would expand on the former president's efforts to raise money in the United States.


Soon after the disaster, President Bush named Clinton and his father, President George H.W. Bush, to head a nationwide private fund-raising effort to help countries devastated by tsunamis across the Indian Ocean to Africa. The deadly wall of water killed more than 160,000 people and displaced millions of others in 11 countries.


The two ex-presidents have been traveling throughout the country raising money, and the elder Bush said last week they hope to go to the region to illustrate the need for continued financial help from Americans. He did not say when.

[Smiles]

I guess I feel about your "president" the way you feel about mine.

It's so nice that they found something for Bill to do with all his spare time.

[vinnieponte]

smiles, tell me, what has Dubya done better for this country than Clinton? Our economy was ten times better, the country wasn't divided the way it is now. We didn't go to war on false information. More people had jobs and things were growing, and moving along positively.

[Murphy3]

I just got a raise at work. Thank you 'Dubya'.

[Smiles]

I'm not qualified to determine the validity of your statements. I've heard the arguments from both sides, but I myself have not verified them first hand.

[vinnieponte]

Originally posted by: Murphy3
I just got a raise at work. Thank you 'Dubya'.

Murphy, do you make weapons for a living?

[sike]

where's that IQ thread when we need it?

[capitalcity]

Roundtrip ticket to Thailand - $1134.54
New Sandals & Sunglasses - $168.91
Bottle of Coppertone SPF 36 - $7.24

9038 miles away from Hillary - PRICELESS

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: Murphy3
I just got a raise at work. Thank you 'Dubya'.

I'd bet the raise is due to doing a good job more than anything, eh? just how did Dubya deserve thanks for your raise?

[Murphy3]

Originally posted by: Mavdog

I'd bet the raise is due to doing a good job more than anything, eh? just how did Dubya deserve thanks for your raise?

Wow, it amazes me that you were able to come to that conclusion...now use the reverse with many of your complaints elsewhere throughout the political arena especially when it comes to blaming any and everything on 'dubya'.

[AnMan21]

Originally posted by: Murphy3
I just got a raise at work. Thank you 'Dubya'.

funny, so did i....even funnier is that the government is taking less of it than they were a few years ago.

[FishForLunch]

It must be Bush's fault

[Murphy3]

Originally posted by: FishForLunch
It must be Bush's fault

It's only Bush's fault when something occurs that Mavdog does not like...He never has anything to do when something positive occurs.

[mavsman55]

Originally posted by: vinnieponte
smiles, tell me, what has Dubya done better for this country than Clinton? Our economy was ten times better, the country wasn't divided the way it is now. We didn't go to war on false information. More people had jobs and things were growing, and moving along positively.

If our Economy was "ten times better", then how come the unemployment rate is lower now than it was during any of Bill Clinton's presidency?

George Bush never stood on a podium and deliberately lied to everyone in America. It's that whole... what do I call it.... trustworthiness issue that kept us separated from Clinton.

[reeds]

"If our Economy was "ten times better", then how come the unemployment rate is lower now than it was during any of Bill Clinton's presidency?"

Well, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics , you are WRONG again..

ECONSTATS.com...Well, I could tell you what years Bush was in charge, but I think its rather obvious...

| Unemployment rate |

year %|
2004 exp 5.525
2003 exp 5.992
2002 exp 5.783
2001 rec 4.750
2000 exp 3.967
1999 exp 4.217
1998 exp 4.500
1997 exp 4.942
1996 exp 5.408

[FishForLunch]

Here is the standard democrat answer to any question "It must be Bush's fault"

[reeds]

its right there in BLACK and WHITE..spin it as you wish..you always do, dont let us down...

[FishForLunch]

Its not spin it must be Bush's Fault

[dude1394]

Originally posted by: AnMan21

funny, so did i....even funnier is that the government is taking less of it than they were a few years ago.

Hmmm...me too.

[dude1394]

Originally posted by: reeds
"If our Economy was "ten times better", then how come the unemployment rate is lower now than it was during any of Bill Clinton's presidency?"

Well, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics , you are WRONG again..

ECONSTATS.com...Well, I could tell you what years Bush was in charge, but I think its rather obvious...

| Unemployment rate |

year %|
2004 exp 5.525
2003 exp 5.992
2002 exp 5.783
2001 rec 4.750
2000 exp 3.967
1999 exp 4.217
1998 exp 4.500
1997 exp 4.942
1996 exp 5.408

Wow 5.5-3.9 ==> 1.4 points better during clintons best year, 10 times better? Of course it's funny that your stats end at 1996? Wasn't clinton pres for a few more years than that?

Clinton did a great job being prez during the dot-com bubble that he had nothing to do with.

I'll stack up dubya's handling of the economy after the clinton recession and the 9/11 terrorist attack that clinton had kicked down the road anytime. It's another reason why the dems lost seats again, they just can't get people to believe their bad math.

Yup, those blue states and their IQ, .75 points is 10 times better.

[Smiles]

I have heard one person say their economic situation was better before Bush, but everyone else I know about seems to have done a lot better since Bush took office.

I also live in a community/region that supports Bush and the war in Iraq. My relatives in San Diego, CO and Virginia support the war in Iraq... I truly don't know any communities that are divided on this issue. The media seems to indicate that there are extreme leftist who are anti-the-war, but I don't expect to be united with them on much more than environmental issues at best. If we're to go on what we've seen and experienced, what more can I say? I'm steeped in Bush country, I guess.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: Murphy3

It's only Bush's fault when something occurs that Mavdog does not like...He never has anything to do when something positive occurs.

wow murphy, you are so negative.

[madape]

As much as conservatives oppose Clinton, at least he was a semi-rational leader, unlike the Democrats of today. He didn't do squat in terms of forein policy. His inactivity and scale-back of the military actually made us a weaker and more vulnerable nation in my opinion. I'll stop short of blaming him for 9/11, but I beleive that if we had had a more proactive adminstration who wasn't scared to confront rogue nations and terror supporting states, we'd be a hell of a lot better off than we are. I don't think Clinton should be given much credit for the economic boom of the 90's simply because he tried his damneness to implement social reform measures like his wife's health care bill that would have ruined it (and screwed us for years and years). It's actually hard to point to a single piece of legislation that was passed in his term that contributed to the boom. But to give SOME credit, he didn't screw it up.. although he tried.

All in all, Clinton wasn't as terrible as some Republicans make him out to be. It could have been much, much worse. And not to break any Dem's hearts - but the party of Clinton is dead. You are now in a socialist/communist anti-establishment left-wing nut-house party.

In case you haven't heard, here's your new leader:



May the revolution begin!

Har har har.

[u2sarajevo]

Originally posted by: dude1394

Wow 5.5-3.9 ==> 1.4 points better during clintons best year, 10 times better? Of course it's funny that your stats end at 1996? Wasn't clinton pres for a few more years than that?

Clinton did a great job being prez during the dot-com bubble that he had nothing to do with.

I'll stack up dubya's handling of the economy after the clinton recession and the 9/11 terrorist attack that clinton had kicked down the road anytime. It's another reason why the dems lost seats again, they just can't get people to believe their bad math.

Yup, those blue states and their IQ, .75 points is 10 times better.

I was curious why he only went to 1996 also, so I did some digging and found the numbers for 1995, and 1994 as well... this is why he left them off. I couldn't find anything earlier than that... not yet anyway...

1995 5.591
1994 6.100

That data can be found here.

So basically reeds, by starting the records with the year where Clintons record on unemployment was lower than Bush.... well, that was Bush league.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: madape
It's actually hard to point to a single piece of legislation that was passed in his term that contributed to the boom.

how about the Telecom Reform Act of 1996?

the NAFTA agreement of 1994?

the Welfare Reform act of 1996? (with bi-partisan efforts....there actually was that sort of thing back then)

[Mavdog]

[quote]
Originally posted by: u2sarajevo

I was curious why he only went to 1996 also, so I did some digging and found the numbers for 1995, and 1994 as well... this is why he left them off. I couldn't find anything earlier than that... not yet anyway...

1995 5.591
1994 6.100

That data can be found here.

So basically reeds, by starting the records with the year where Clintons record on unemployment was lower than Bush.... well, that was Bush league.

Try this link which will allow for the graph to go prior to 1994.
link

Althought the hyperbole of "ten times" is certainly an eggageration, the facts show that the unemployment rate steadily decreased from the beginning of the Clinton time in office, and the unemployment rate was lower during the majority of Clinton's term in office than during anytime of GWBush's time in office.

To be fair, in discussing economic peformance it would be more accurate to look at the President's economic data from their second year in office their second year out of office

[madape]

no doubt the telecom reform act was huge... I'll give Clinton credit for ratifying it. It was clearly a conservative bill. As was NAFTA.

I don't think any of them would ever get passed under today's socialist Democratic party. Sadly, the Democratic party has abandoned rational, centric-thinking. Dean would prefer this country to look more like Cuba of 1970 than the America of 1999. If you truly beleive in free trade, deregularion, and an open economy, I'd suggest you switch party affiliations quickly.

[Mavdog]

There was a huge amopunt of opposition from the conservative side of the aisle to both the deregulation of the telecommunication industry, and a great deal of vocal opposition to NAFTA. I certainly never saw Perot as anything but a conservative, and he was very vocal in opposing NAFTA. Remember "that great sucking sound"?

The Democrat platform is not protectionist, it is not proposing to reinstate regulation where it has been removed (save for environmental issues), and is for open markets. Perhaps you're confusing it with the Green Party platform.

[reeds]

"Wow 5.5-3.9 ==> 1.4 points better during clintons best year, 10 times better? Of course it's funny that your stats end at 1996? Wasn't clinton pres for a few more years than that?

Clinton did a great job being prez during the dot-com bubble that he had nothing to do with.

I'll stack up dubya's handling of the economy after the clinton recession and the 9/11 terrorist attack that clinton had kicked down the road anytime. It's another reason why the dems lost seats again, they just can't get people to believe their bad math.

Yup, those blue states and their IQ, .75 points is 10 times better."

Actually, It WASNT me who said "10 times" better...But it was rather easy to prove MavsMan55 WRONG..that was the fun part..

[mavsman55]

who says?

See for yourself. The links are already there.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: mavsman55
who says?

See for yourself. The links are already there.

You made the statement:

If our Economy was "ten times better", then how come the unemployment rate is lower now than it was during any of Bill Clinton's presidency?

which is false, the unemployment rate is NOT "lower now than it was during any of Bill Clinton's presidency". It is currently at 5.4% while it was as low as 4.0% during Clinton's term.

[mavsman55]

If that is truly the case, then I stand corrected. However, the idea that the economy is doing poorly simply isn't true right now.

Just out of curiosity, when was the unemployment rate 4.0% under Clinton?

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: mavsman55
If that is truly the case, then I stand corrected. However, the idea that the economy is doing poorly simply isn't true right now.

Just out of curiosity, when was the unemployment rate 4.0% under Clinton?

1999

[dude1394]

Not per reeds numbers.

1999 exp 4.217

[Dooby]

Originally posted by: Mavdog
There was a huge amopunt of opposition from the conservative side of the aisle to both the deregulation of the telecommunication industry, and a great deal of vocal opposition to NAFTA. I certainly never saw Perot as anything but a conservative, and he was very vocal in opposing NAFTA. Remember "that great sucking sound"?

The Democrat platform is not protectionist, it is not proposing to reinstate regulation where it has been removed (save for environmental issues), and is for open markets. Perhaps you're confusing it with the Green Party platform.

Sigh. So many comments.

First, Perot was not a conservative. Pro-choice; anti-free trade; wanted to raise taxes; cut military spending. I could go on, but I won't. In reality, he was a single issue candidate-the deficit. I am not saying he was a liberal either. There are people that are neither, you know?

Second, there were a lot of people opposed to NAFTA. If you want to break it down by interest groups, you have farmers, ranchers, small business owners. You can say they are all GOP-leaners (you'd be wrong, but you can say it). On the other side were the unions who hated it then and hate it now. It really was a miracle the damn thing passed. But it squeaked by because it was in the best interest of the country as a whole, which is how things like that work. BTW, Clinton got it passed, but the Bush administration negotiated it. There is zero doubt in my mind that Bush would have gotten it passed, too.

You use protectionist and regulation and environment in the same sentence, but all three have dramatically idfferent meaning in a political sense. "Protectionism" is a free trade concept. The democratic by and large is protectionist, because that is what the unions want. Regulation is not really related to trade, but rather the conduct of business in this country, which republicans tend to oppose and democrats tend to favor, in all areas, not just the environment.

[Dooby]

Anyway, Clinton was an average President. History will judge him as such.

He had literally no foreign policy accomplishments.

He had a good economy. However, the economy was turning south before he left office. Further, it isn't as if he helped engineer a fundamental restructuring of our nation's economy during his term or that "his" economy had any lasting effects. In contrast, look at the Reagan presidency where he slashed the tax rates and curbed inflation; if the tax rates and interest rates returned to pre-Reagan levels, there would be rioting in the streets. Other examples would be FDR, Kennedy to a degree, Coolidge, TR. Finally, I would give Clinton more credit for his economy if I could pinpoint a real decision that he made that actually led to the robust economy he had.

His abysmal first two years, led to his party getting swept out of the state houses and both houses of Congress. The man actually went on television to defend his own relevancy. While some give him credit for forestalling republican policies that some would view as harmful, the truth is he was responsible for putting those republicans in a position of power.

I think I have ranted in the past that neither Clinton nor the congress deserved credit for balancing the budget, so I will spare everyone unless someone asks me to explain it.

His saving grace is welfare reform. And even that didn't occur till very late in the game.

[vinnieponte]

CONGRATS TO ALL THE REPUBLICANS!!!! 4 MORE YEARS IS RIGHT!!!!! GO BUSH!!!! YEA DUYBA!!!!!!!!!!!
NOW LETS SEE WHATS IN STORE THE NEXT 4 YEARS, THE PICTURE SAYS IT ALL...............

[AnMan21]

vinnie you ought to be embarrassed to have such a picture in your signature. if you even think for a second that a) said picture is a good way to "support" your feelings, b) funny, or c) bush is comparable to hitler, then you're far less intelligent than any of us previously believed. it's obvious that you're merely seeking attention, but only a sick mind would push the envelope as far as you've just done. only the lowest scum of our society would fail to see a problem with that picture.

[dude1394]

Vinnie should actually have a picture of Chairman Mao of Uncle Stalin. Since he's an avowed leftist, he should be a positive one.

He's just one of the hate america firsters. Sad...

[dude1394]

Thought I'd help reeds update his list.

year %|
2005 5.2 (I think I like the trajectory). Maybe we should enact a tax increase so that we can put the leftist democrat economic plan in action. I'm sure that would do the trick.
2004 exp 5.525
2003 exp 5.992
2002 exp 5.783
2001 rec 4.750
2000 exp 3.967
1999 exp 4.217
1998 exp 4.500
1997 exp 4.942
1996 exp 5.408