Print

Clinton

Bush

Please post once and this message will disappear! Introduce yourself, say hello, jump into a discussion...

[ramshorns]

In other words who is worse

[vincent]

I can not think of any US President (apart from Kennedy) who was as popular abroad,especially in Europe, as Bill Clinton. Despite his recent errors in supporting his wife's campaign, he remains the greatest US President of recent times, after Kennedy - in terms of US image abroad, US economy and foreign policies in general, and above all as a brilliant orator (as opposed to the one who says "education of our childrens" and "fourthly" after thirdly.

[ramshorns]

I can not think of any US President (apart from Kennedy) who was as popular abroad especially in Europe, as Bill Clinton. Despie his recent errors in supporting his wife's campaign, he remains the greatest US President of recent times, after Kennedy - in terms of US image abroad, US economy and foreign policies in general, and above all as a brilliant orator (as opposed to the one who says "education of our childrens" and "fourthly" after thirdly.

Amen.  How right you are.  If you look at it since the 60's it is fair to say U.S had only 2 presidents that mattered to U.S and the world they are John F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton and may be Jimmy Carter.  They are real leaders and politicians.  Not the 2 bit variety like Reagan or the 2 Bush's who really amBushed the Americans and the rest of the world.

[Cover Point]

would u deny the impact of a reagan to the world? He ended the cold war... did he not?

[ramshorns]

would u deny the impact of a reagan to the world? He ended the cold war... did he not?

What exactly did he do to end the cold war in the large interests of the world??

[vincent]

Correct. But it was mainly due to Gorbachev who really pulled the plug. No problem with Reagan, who was otherwise a decent President far above the current one. But unfortunately, not many people seem to remember the role Gorbachev played. In any case, Reagan might have accelerated it, last but not least due to his "Hollywodesue" vision of "Starwars".

[kban1]

Correct. But it was mainly due to Gorbachev who really pulled the plug. No problem with Reagan, who was otherwise a decent President far above the current one. But unfortunately, not many people seem to remember the role Gorbachev played. In any case, Reagan might have accelerated it, last but not least due to his "Hollywodesue" vision of "Starwars".

More Gorbachev than Reagan anyday.

Of course the right wing explanation is that Reagan spent $4trillion, thereby outlasting the USSR in a spending war and thereby forcing the issue, which at best makes it what --a Pyrrhic victory ?

[Cover Point]

Correct. But it was mainly due to Gorbachev who really pulled the plug. No problem with Reagan, who was otherwise a decent President far above the current one. But unfortunately, not many people seem to remember the role Gorbachev played. In any case, Reagan might have accelerated it, last but not least due to his "Hollywodesue" vision of "Starwars".

More Gorbachev than Reagan anyday.

Of course the right wing explanation is that Reagan spent $4trillion, thereby outlasting the USSR in a spending war and thereby forcing the issue, which at best makes it what --a Pyrrhic victory ?

can u please only use English words. As in English that an educated person can understand

What is Pyrric victory?

[dhruvdeepak]

Correct. But it was mainly due to Gorbachev who really pulled the plug. No problem with Reagan, who was otherwise a decent President far above the current one. But unfortunately, not many people seem to remember the role Gorbachev played. In any case, Reagan might have accelerated it, last but not least due to his "Hollywodesue" vision of "Starwars".

More Gorbachev than Reagan anyday.

Of course the right wing explanation is that Reagan spent $4trillion, thereby outlasting the USSR in a spending war and thereby forcing the issue, which at best makes it what --a Pyrrhic victory ?

can u please only use English words. As in English that an educated person can understand

What is Pyrric victory?

a win that is more harm than good. kban will provide historical context and 3 page reply (romans and epirus etc)

[Cover Point]

Correct. But it was mainly due to Gorbachev who really pulled the plug. No problem with Reagan, who was otherwise a decent President far above the current one. But unfortunately, not many people seem to remember the role Gorbachev played. In any case, Reagan might have accelerated it, last but not least due to his "Hollywodesue" vision of "Starwars".

More Gorbachev than Reagan anyday.

Of course the right wing explanation is that Reagan spent $4trillion, thereby outlasting the USSR in a spending war and thereby forcing the issue, which at best makes it what --a Pyrrhic victory ?

can u please only use English words. As in English that an educated person can understand

What is Pyrric victory?

a win that is more harm than good. kban will provide historical context and 3 page reply (romans and epirus etc)

why are you asking him to be brief?

[ruchir]

Correct. But it was mainly due to Gorbachev who really pulled the plug. No problem with Reagan, who was otherwise a decent President far above the current one. But unfortunately, not many people seem to remember the role Gorbachev played. In any case, Reagan might have accelerated it, last but not least due to his "Hollywodesue" vision of "Starwars".

More Gorbachev than Reagan anyday.

Of course the right wing explanation is that Reagan spent $4trillion, thereby outlasting the USSR in a spending war and thereby forcing the issue, which at best makes it what --a Pyrrhic victory ?

$4 Trillion is a rather hyperbolic figure. According to Time, the conservative figure seems to be $120 billion in 25 years. http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1723735,00.html

[kban1]

Correct. But it was mainly due to Gorbachev who really pulled the plug. No problem with Reagan, who was otherwise a decent President far above the current one. But unfortunately, not many people seem to remember the role Gorbachev played. In any case, Reagan might have accelerated it, last but not least due to his "Hollywodesue" vision of "Starwars".

More Gorbachev than Reagan anyday.

Of course the right wing explanation is that Reagan spent $4trillion, thereby outlasting the USSR in a spending war and thereby forcing the issue, which at best makes it what --a Pyrrhic victory ?

$4 Trillion is a rather hyperbolic figure. According to Time, the conservative figure seems to be $120 billion in 25 years. http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1723735,00.html

I wasnt talking about the missile program, I was talking of the Arms race, and the resultant effect on the economy and the national debt.

[Cover Point]

Correct. But it was mainly due to Gorbachev who really pulled the plug. No problem with Reagan, who was otherwise a decent President far above the current one. But unfortunately, not many people seem to remember the role Gorbachev played. In any case, Reagan might have accelerated it, last but not least due to his "Hollywodesue" vision of "Starwars".

More Gorbachev than Reagan anyday.

Of course the right wing explanation is that Reagan spent $4trillion, thereby outlasting the USSR in a spending war and thereby forcing the issue, which at best makes it what --a Pyrrhic victory ?

$4 Trillion is a rather hyperbolic figure. According to Time, the conservative figure seems to be $120 billion in 25 years. http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1723735,00.html

I wasnt talking about the missile program, I was talking of the Arms race, and the resultant effect on the economy and the national debt.

didnt the economy do great right after the cold war? The years from 92 through 2001 were the golden years.

[kban1]

The years 1992 thorugh 2000 were great years not because of the end of the Cold war (which incidentally happened at the end of Reagan's term -- in case you forgot, there were 4 years of GB-I in there between 1988 to 1992, at which time we were in a recessaion --which really was the effect of Reagan's so called policies. Pity, his successor bore the brunt of it) but because the US had a fiscally responsible President in power (during 1992-2000) who leveraged the effects of a booming economy with prudent policies.

You really need a primer on economics if you think Reagan's policies put the US economy in a good place. Its a widely spread myth which people continue to believe despite data to the contrary.

[ramshorns]

The years 1992 thorugh 2000 were great years not because of the end of the Cold war (which incidentally happened at the end of Reagan's term -- in case you forgot, there were 4 years of GB-I in there between 1988 to 1992, at which time we were in a recessaion --which really was the effect of Reagan's so called policies. Pity, his successor bore the brunt of it) but because the US had a fiscally responsible President in power (during 1992-2000) who leveraged the effects of a booming economy with prudent policies.

You really need a primer on economics if you think Reagan's policies put the US economy in a good place. Its a widely spread myth which people continue to believe despite data to the contrary.

Kban, You are right on the money again.  Reagan/Bush I(Remember he was the VP at the time) policies dragged the economy down the gutter and the irony is GB as the president saw the brunt of it thankfully replaced by the most brilliant of Presidents in Clinton that saw U.S through in 1992-96 time frame and a boom there after.

[arjunah]

Is this poll a joke?

[Cover Point]

Is this poll a joke?

yes

[dave_dj]

The years 1992 thorugh 2000 were great years not because of the end of the Cold war (which incidentally happened at the end of Reagan's term -- in case you forgot, there were 4 years of GB-I in there between 1988 to 1992, at which time we were in a recessaion --which really was the effect of Reagan's so called policies. Pity, his successor bore the brunt of it) but because the US had a fiscally responsible President in power (during 1992-2000) who leveraged the effects of a booming economy with prudent policies.

You really need a primer on economics if you think Reagan's policies put the US economy in a good place. Its a widely spread myth which people continue to believe despite data to the contrary.

Kban, You are right on the money again.  Reagan/Bush I(Remember he was the VP at the time) policies dragged the economy down the gutter and the irony is GB as the president saw the brunt of it thankfully replaced by the most brilliant of Presidents in Clinton that saw U.S through in 1992-96 time frame and a boom there after.

1990/1991 recession was huge across every sector while the recent ones have been mixed  not as pronounced 1990-1991.  We were then led to believe that war always do good to the domestic economy becuase of local industries feeding off government's expense in defence industry.  Instead the country ent into deeper recession at that time.

Reagan - this guy started income tax for students who used to make $500 a month and we saw tax deduction of business meals entertainment.  He is the guy who  started the trickle down economics that never trickled and made it a fashion to incur huge national debts.  Supposedly the republicans do not believe in high tax.  But these Republicans start taxing people who make paltry sum and make ordinary people pay for national debts (which benefits choicest industries).

Politicians are politicians but I never could understand the rationale of Indians supporting Republicans.  What do they support really -  abuse of environment, exploitation of labor, lack of investment in education and health, national debt, more tax for ordinary people?  What is there to support?

We talk about poverty of other countries.  There is significant poverty in USA - there are lot of people hurting here.  Yet end up with huge national debt wasting so much money wars that are needless  instead of investing for these people.

The standard of life that an American family had in 60's and early 70's from a single income cannot be achieved today by a family that has earning husband, wife and even 2 children.  Whereas we have seen increase in average salary of a CEO with respect of average salary of an employee from 40 to 1 in early 90's to over 400 to 1 in late 90's.

[dextrous]

In other words who is worse

in which way can clinton presidency be considered "bad"?!

[kban1]

In other words who is worse

in which way can clinton presidency be considered "bad"?!

Read the other thread - next president of US. Rjo has some fascinating theories

[ramshorns]

Is this poll a joke?

Not meant to be.  After the debate on the other thread with Ruchir I wanted to get a DG pulse on how others view Bush and Clinton presidency overall and see who among them according to each of you is worse.

At the last count it is 17-0 in favor of Mr. Clinton.

I sincerely think Iraq is the single biggest reason why Bush failed to make an impression on anyone but for hardcore rightwing supporters who will do anything to justify and show Bush is ok even if it means bringing in Clinton and Kosovo or anything else.

This vote is only a validation to prove that almost all feel Iraq and Kosovo are on different stratospheres when it comes to comparision though any war even if there is 1 death or injury is tough and bad for anyone to swallow.

[Cover Point]

I will start another poll

'Who was a better batsman. Bradman or Ganguly'

Should be the same

[ramshorns]

I will start another poll

'Who was a better batsman. Bradman or Ganguly'

Should be the same

And that will not be the worst poll ever started by you.  Believe me.

[Cover Point]

I will start another poll

'Who was a better batsman. Bradman or Ganguly'

Should be the same

And that will not be the worst poll ever started by you.  Believe me.

ramji aap to naaraaz ho gaye. I was on your side. I was agreeing that there is no comparison between Bush and Clinton.

Same as Ganguly and Bradman.

[ramshorns]

I will start another poll

'Who was a better batsman. Bradman or Ganguly'

Should be the same

And that will not be the worst poll ever started by you.  Believe me.

ramji aap to naaraaz ho gaye. I was on your side. I was agreeing that there is no comparison between Bush and Clinton.

Same as Ganguly and Bradman.

No way I will be Naaraaz with you ever.  You know that.  Even if we diagree on a few issues.

17-0 proves that. 

May be Ruchir is waiting to cast the tie breaking vote.  Good luck to him.

[LosingNow]

Politicians are politicians but I never could understand the rationale of Indians supporting Republicans. 

Simple - these Indians have started making money and are now paying not only their own bills but their kids' too. I don't know of a single person in such situation ...who would not like to pay lower taxes

My bleeding-heart-liberal business partner (of Indian origin) after writing his tax check on April 15 and foreseeing huge bills that are coming with 2 kids going to college in a few years, said.. that is it, I am voting Republican this year

I may have quoted Churchill earlier - "At 20, you are a liberal and at 40, you become a conservative".. because at 20 someone else is paying your bills and at 40 you are paying someone else's bills

Not saying that they are for waging silly wars, not balancing budget, not investing in education etc.

[dave_dj]

Politicians are politicians but I never could understand the rationale of Indians supporting Republicans. 

Simple - these Indians have started making money and are now paying not only their own bills but their kids' too. I don't know of a single person in such situation ...who would not like to pay lower taxes

My bleeding-heart-liberal business partner (of Indian origin) after writing his tax check on April 15 and foreseeing huge bills that are coming with 2 kids going to college in a few years, said.. that is it, I am voting Republican this year

I may have quoted Churchill earlier - "At 20, you are a liberal and at 40, you become a conservative".. because at 20 someone else is paying your bills and at 40 you are paying someone else's bills

Not saying that they are for waging silly wars, not balancing budget, not investing in education etc.

I am all for low taxes - everybody is but I think the statement that Republicans mean low tax is a big hoax.  Who pays for bonds that California had to float to pay for the manipulation of energy?  Who pays for all national debt?  Who pays for the war?  Who pays for health care of Wal-Mart's employees (since the y are not offered health benefit)?  Don't we?  We pay indirect taxes in lot of ways - we pay more because of Republicans.

[keep-it-cool]

dont know about the republican / democratic policies on taxes ... but indirect taxes hurt people a lot more because they are the same for everyone irrespective of income levels ...in direct taxes, at least, there can be slabs that make sure that taxation is based on income levels.

[dave_dj]

dont know about the republican / democratic policies on taxes ... but indirect taxes hurt people a lot more because they are the same for everyone irrespective of income levels ...in direct taxes, at least, there can be slabs that make sure that taxation is based on income levels.

I agree.  State run lottery to support state programs (because Republicans cut on funds to support war and corporate subsidies) is a form of indirect taxation of the poor.  It is well-known that the poor people buy lottery tickets.  There have been instances when state run lottery programs would heighten their advertisements in ghettos on pay days.

[keep-it-cool]

Well, technically, i wouldnt call a lottery a tax because you have an option whether to buy a ticket or not ... although running a lottery to fund state programs is as daft as it gets.

I was talking more in terms of your earlier point ... you can cut taxes but the deficit has to be borne somehow ...so, you do that by some other way which is not directly visible ..something like printing more money or borrowing more which leads to overall higher prices that affect the poor as well as the rich in equal measure.

[dave_dj]

Well, technically, i wouldnt call a lottery a tax because you have an option whether to buy a ticket or not ... although running a lottery to fund state programs is as daft as it gets.

I was talking more in terms of your earlier point ... you can cut taxes but the deficit has to be borne somehow ...so, you do that by some other way which is not directly visible ..something like printing more money or borrowing more which leads to overall higher prices that affect the poor as well as the rich in equal measure.

I agree.   Let me qualify by saying that lottery has become a voluntary indirect tax for poor in contrast to involuntary indirect tax that mentioned earlier.

[ruchir]

In other words who is worse

in which way can clinton presidency be considered "bad"?!

Read the other thread - next president of US. Rjo has some fascinating theories

Did I call Clinton a bad president? 

[kban1]

In other words who is worse

in which way can clinton presidency be considered "bad"?!

Read the other thread - next president of US. Rjo has some fascinating theories

Did I call Clinton a bad president? 

LOL -- I was pointing Dex to the origin of the debate.

I do disagree with you about the way to tackle illegal immigration and I dont think Clinton's Kosovo misadventure was either as detrimental nor duplicitously calculated or executed as Bush's Iraq war --thats what I referred to as your fascinating theories.

[ruchir]

In other words who is worse

in which way can clinton presidency be considered "bad"?!

Read the other thread - next president of US. Rjo has some fascinating theories

Did I call Clinton a bad president? 

LOL -- I was pointing Dex to the origin of the debate.

I do disagree with you about the way to tackle illegal immigration and I dont think Clinton's Kosovo misadventure was either as detrimental nor duplicitously calculated or executed as Bush's Iraq war --thats what I referred to as your fascinating theories.

We can have disagreements on illegal immigration, and the target of that discussion with Rams was use of the word Killer. Everything else was peripheral.

[pieterSAN]

Well, technically, i wouldnt call a lottery a tax because you have an option whether to buy a ticket or not ... although running a lottery to fund state programs is as daft as it gets.

I was talking more in terms of your earlier point ... you can cut taxes but the deficit has to be borne somehow ...so, you do that by some other way which is not directly visible ..something like printing more money or borrowing more which leads to overall higher prices that affect the poor as well as the rich in equal measure.

I agree.   Let me qualify by saying that lottery has become a voluntary indirect tax for poor in contrast to involuntary indirect tax that mentioned earlier.

I recall someone saying in class that a lottery is a tax on people who don't understand probability.

[inoc]

In other words who is worse

in which way can clinton presidency be considered "bad"?!

Read the other thread - next president of US. Rjo has some fascinating theories

Did I call Clinton a bad president? 

LOL -- I was pointing Dex to the origin of the debate.

I do disagree with you about the way to tackle illegal immigration and I dont think Clinton's Kosovo misadventure was either as detrimental nor duplicitously calculated or executed as Bush's Iraq war --thats what I referred to as your fascinating theories.

We can have disagreements on illegal immigration, and the target of that discussion with Rams was use of the word Killer. Everything else was peripheral.

ruchir

not qualified to comment on the American political conundrums but adding my perspective to this discussion of a 'killer'

1. CLINTON:

He was a reluctant participant in the NATO led Kosovo incident. there was a huge support for Tony Blair and NATO to go in and 'do something' in Kosovo in UK and in Europe. the two countries opposing such a strike were russia and china for well known reasons. it is estimated that there were around 100,000 deaths due to the genocide, as opposed to the estimated maximum deaths related to the bombing - 6000, conservative estimates, 1200. other than sporadic extreme left wing and libertanian right wingers the world population as a whole, atleast in europe, and particularly in england, were supportive of such a role.

the way they conducted the bombing has been highly criticized and rightfully so for using cluster bombs/depleted uranium bombs . they are however similar to the bombing tactics in Iraq.

2. TRUMAN:

he really didnt have a choice. US was at war with Japan. a war which would have probably lasted for some time considering the widespread nature of their accessions. the whole of the south east asia upto burma. the debate on the use of nuclear weapons has been ongoing since then and there are sufficient arguments for and against. Truman was trying to win a war already in existence, his use of WMD is still debatable but not comparable to starting a war. dont you think so?

NB: I dont agree to the use of nuclear bombs from a medical point of view and am against the arguments for such a deployment.


3. BUSH:

he had no opposition to the invasion of Afghanistan. it was the correct thing to do (despite me and hopefully others being against wars per se) since that was the place where the AQ leaders were supposed to be hiding.

now everybody knows that the AQ leaders are hiding in Pakistan, what is the 'war on terror' doing about it? Pakistan is an US ally just like Saddam was 10 years ago - so we have to withdraw our guns now! do we? if you can justify the war in Iraq you must be egging on the war against Pakistan, otherwise you are a hypocrite.

However, the IRAQ war was totally incomprehensible.

the world opinion was against it.

the unprecedented apolitical demonstrations the world over should have been a deterent to such a move. never in the history of the world and uk alone had there been millions marching against the war.
people with their children on their shoulders were protesting in broad daylight. leaders including Blair and Bush should have noted that.

general opinion is somewhat diluted by our politicians, but time and again it has been proven that the general populace actually knows better.

Bush/Blair presided over a war which has been pro ven to be unnecessary (in retrospect) and unpopular (as ignored by them) and unwinnable as we see it now.

anybody who orders the killing of people is a killer. that includes the judges who preside over death sentences.

the main argument here is would you club the judge, who followed legal principles, to order a killing, a killer?

no is my answer.

why?

similarly Bush went against the 'jury', the people of this world and thereby he is a killer in contrast to the killer judge who pronounced his judgement according to the jury.

[LosingNow]

general opinion is somewhat diluted by our politicians, but time and again it has been proven that the general populace actually knows better.

you think so? GWB was reelected in 2004!!

[kban1]

general opinion is somewhat diluted by our politicians, but time and again it has been proven that the general populace actually knows better.

you think so? GWB was reelected in 2004!!

Thank the voting machines in Ohio and the systematic rigging of voter rolls.

Anyways, the point Inoc does not mention is that Bush went into Iraq not on the basis of faulty intelligence but on the basis of fabricated intelligence.

There have been numerous exposes as to how both CIA and British intelligence analysts were unwilling to proclaim what the administrations wanted because it did not fit but leaders -- from Bush to Cheney to Rumsfield to Blair pressurized such analysts to present data and inferences that somehow created a basis for the war.

What is even more damaging is the fact that neo-con think tanks (later to be associated with Bush's cabinet) had drawn up and formalized plans to attack Iraq and depose Hussein as far back as 1999 -- when 9/11 had not happened. 9/11 was just the ruse for this administration to set into motion its predetermined plan for an invasion of Iraq.

[inoc]

general opinion is somewhat diluted by our politicians, but time and again it has been proven that the general populace actually knows better.

you think so? GWB was reelected in 2004!!

i was talking about the general populace, in other words the world opinion. whether GWB managed to win an election based on conservative principles in middle US matters little.

[ramshorns]

general opinion is somewhat diluted by our politicians, but time and again it has been proven that the general populace actually knows better.

you think so? GWB was reelected in 2004!!

Thank the voting machines in Ohio and the systematic rigging of voter rolls.

Anyways, the point Inoc does not mention is that Bush went into Iraq not on the basis of faulty intelligence but on the basis of fabricated intelligence.

There have been numerous exposes as to how both CIA and British intelligence analysts were unwilling to proclaim what the administrations wanted because it did not fit but leaders -- from Bush to Cheney to Rumsfield to Blair pressurized such analysts to present data and inferences that somehow created a basis for the war.

What is even more damaging is the fact that neo-con think tanks (later to be associated with Bush's cabinet) had drawn up and formalized plans to attack Iraq and depose Hussein as far back as 1999 -- when 9/11 had not happened. 9/11 was just the ruse for this administration to set into motion its predetermined plan for an invasion of Iraq.

Actually WN is totally wrong on this.  Inoc and Kban just if you back track the killer Bush's instincts became only clearer and the monster only showed up on the radars in 2005.  So during the 2004 timeframe people still bought into the notion of fighting terrorism and that Bush was the better choice to make the tough calls.  So that is how he got elected.  I clearly remember how the rightwingers like Limbaugh and Hannity were ridiculing the Democrats and how great a job Bush was doing in Iraq at the time.

Even the baddest of decisons(Invading Iraq in 2003) sometimes take time to take effect and boy when they showed up did that make Bush/Cheney regime look so bad.  It is only sad that he will be let go scot free for lying and misuing the power and post as the president which killed thousands.

Shame we have people among us who want to vote for a party which Bush is a part of.