Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Damn you're dumb. 'Impeachment' does not mean 'guilty'. The House can only bring charges. It is the role of the Senate to determine guilt. The Senate found him not guilty.
The Senate declined to remove him from office. That has nothing whatsoever to do with guilt or innocence. It's politics, not criminal court.
And BTW, directly insulting another forum user is against the terms of service. Given the number of posts you've made, shouldn't you realize that?
He drove us deep into debt with a sweetheart real estate deal which enriched his revolutionary French buddies for a bunch of undeveloped land we could have had for free.
There's no way the French could have stopped us, they can't win wars.
The Louisiana Purchase was a ripoff.
The last great President was George Washington, and I have doubts about him too.
@The OP: LOL No! Clinton wasn't great. He does IMHO deserve some credit (not all of the credit) for the budget surpluses under his watch, but he in large part got lucky, and he also did some stupid things (letting his wife handle healthcare reform, deregulating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, repealing the Glass-Steagall Act, not focusing enough on al-Qaeda (Yes, he did focus on it more than Bush Jr. did before 9/11, but he could have probably focused on it more), et cetera).
Do you honestly want a great U.S. President? If so, then for all of his flaws, perhaps Teddy Roosevelt fits this bill.
1. He drove us deep into debt with a sweetheart real estate deal which enriched his revolutionary French buddies for a bunch of undeveloped land we could have had for free.
2. There's no way the French could have stopped us, they can't win wars.
3. The Louisiana Purchase was a ripoff.
4. The last great President was George Washington, and I have doubts about him too.
1. Oh, please! We got all of our debt paid off by 1835 or so.
2. The French won the French Revolutionary Wars, and they were also winning the Napoleonic Wars until 1812. While you might like to think of the French as "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" (thank you, The Simpsons!) or whatever, France actually wasn't a weak country at the start of the 19th century. Heck, France might have even had the third or fourth largest population in the entire world back then.
3. Don't worry--after all, didn't the natural resources and/or et cetera there more than compensate for what we paid for it?
4. Well, yeah--on a personal level, Washington was a slave-owner. However, it was extremely noble for him to retire after two terms instead of trying to remain in power for life.
God no. Ronald Reagan was the last Great President we had...followed by Dwight Eisenhower.
Clinton rode the dot.com bubble through his presidency and left office just before it burst, got his d*ck sucked in the oval office, repealed the depression era law widely regarded as the law that could have prevented the housing crisis, and he ramped up the community reinvestment act.
I would hardly qualify that as great.
I am tempted to disagree with you on Ronald "Trees cause pollution" Reagan and on Dwight "Iranian screw-up" Eisenhower.
That said, I agree with your statements about Clinton.
For the record, though, the dot-com bubble burst in 2000, while Clinton was still in office. The large-scale negative economic effects of this burst economic bubble were what occurred after Clinton left office.
I seem to remember Americans been embarrassed by Bill's Sexual Antics and that cringe worthy 'I did not have sexual relations with that woman', which turned out to be a bit untruthful.
@The OP: LOL No! Clinton wasn't great. He does IMHO deserve some credit (not all of the credit) for the budget surpluses under his watch, but he in large part got lucky, and he also did some stupid things (letting his wife handle healthcare reform, deregulating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, repealing the Glass-Steagall Act, not focusing enough on al-Qaeda (Yes, he did focus on it more than Bush Jr. did before 9/11, but he could have probably focused on it more), et cetera).
Do you honestly want a great U.S. President? If so, then for all of his flaws, perhaps Teddy Roosevelt fits this bill.
I don't see how Clinton focused on terrorism more than Bush did considering that Clinton changed the way the CIA could obtain information, thus making the country less secure.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
