Posted: Tue Apr 25, 2006 2:16 pm
by jks
Because he generated a triple surplus, fought crime effectively, kept open negotiations with the countries that actually were a threat to us like N Korea, and others, and made great progress towards alleviating poverty, fixing schools.
Posted: Tue Apr 25, 2006 2:48 pm
by GraphicsArtiste2
He wasn't, the whole 'scandal' was a diversion, a diversion from the genocide occuring in serbia. Politicians employ these manuevers all the time, to detract from more important issues. People are stupid, and gullible enough to get upset and obsessive over these diversions, such as Gay Marriage, and Abortion. The first is just plain stupid and a very dumb thing to debate about, the second the government has absolutely no role in deciding.
Firstly, to do with gay marriage and why you should not give a flying fuck whether gays get married:
First, you have no right to be offended and force others to change their ways just because you don't like it. If something offends you, you have every ability, to get up and leave, change the channel, and exit the program with offensive content. If we had such a right, and a law against offensive material, we would be a nation divided into so many groups, that you may as well form a new country for each of these groups. A nation united we stand, divided we fall. You know, there is an interesting thought I had the other day, about physics. Everything in the universe has to do with objects moving. Light, your computer, electricity, all have tiny atoms and parts of atoms (elextrons, neutrons, protons) inside themselves. If you think about pressure and heat, heat is when the atoms in an object vibrate much faster, causing them to want to expand. A pressurized tank, filled with Gas (petrol), heated, will explode, causing an explosion. It is quite an interesting thought, that all of those little atoms are working together, conforming to cause something to happen. These atoms are like a government, all the individual atoms, in their seperate groups are insignificant, a more heated group will come into contact with a less heated group, and that less heated group will heat up, these two gruops become one, and the process continues absorbing matter into one large chunk. It's almost like gossip, between some people, and then the word spreads, and other people get excited about it as well. One can look at different objects as different governments, their state, and shape can be either evil, or good. Good and Evil are only that, depending on your vantage point. All lifeforms react to pain, pain is a necessary reaction to damage, all life forms want to live and reproduce. Because they all want to do this, pain is a signal, it is something you don't like, something you strive to avoid. This is an example of the differing opinions of objects and life forms. But why aren't there lifeforms that WANT to die? Well, because simply, they already all did die, and there aren't any of them left for us to observe. Their 'bodies' are long assimilated into other organisms, (bacteria eating bacteria), which leaves us no evidence that they exist, but one can surmise that they did exist. One can look at a dictatorship, as a pressurized tank filled with some excited gas. The government is the tank, the shell, containing and imprisoning this gas. The gas can heat up, and if enough heat is applied, break this government (tank, shell), causing a violent explosion, which may be dangerous to other objects (governments), such as people. An evil government, is all just based on your opinion. Who knows, maybe a dictatorship IS the best government for a nation that needs it, such as China. China has had a brutal history, wars and revolutions, the government must be strict and tough, in order to survive, and so that everyone lives. From what I've read/heard, China isn't as bad as the press make it out to be, and it isn't as bad as you would think. The government absolutely must be that way, with the astronomical amount of people in that country, a strong and safe government is necessary to protect, feed, shelter, and clothe all those people. This is merely what I have heard, I think it may be true, it certainly meets the logic, but it may not. As objects, governments, groups, people, atoms, are divided, they are not great, they can get little done, but united, they are great and powerful, they get lots of things done. Look at diamonds, they are the hardest natural substance known to man, that is because their molecular structure is perfect in all directions, it is organised perfectly. Diamonds, happen when carbon is crushed and ground and heated to an extreme degree, carbon usually comes from organic compounds, and organisms. When those organisms die off, they leave behind this residue, which turns into the hardest substance made naturally. Isn't that interesting? Not only are objects great in size, and heated-ness, but in structural integrity (organisation).
Now I must say, I am a bit of a hypocrit. These reasons are supremely logical, but I feel an opposition within myself to these arguments. I do not voice my opinion, I fear social debate and repsrisals, I keep my opinions deep and well kept. Here, I can fear no social problems. It is anonymous.
For were you, to go to school, and honestly say to your classmates: "Gay marriage is a stupid argument, and I believe no one should discuss it, let gays be on their own, I say let people live their lives how they want to, why should you care how someone else lives?", how would they respond? I do not know, I am convinced the obvious assumptions would occur. People would think you were gay as well, those who were gay might think the same thing and then you would have something you don't want. But, think about this, people are assholes about this, here in the United States of America. Most people, hate having someone like them, but not like that person in return. I am not of the social... (what's the word?) well, there is no word, but I do not have the courage to stand up and say those words, to discuss this openly. I am humble, at least when in person (anonyminity has it's advantages >:), ), I do not speak my opinions because of this, I stutter, have difficulty putting my thoughts into sentences, I get very embarassed at pausing at every word I say. When you ask a girl out, or ask her if you like her, and she says no, nice girls would just ask to be friends, smart people know what others feel, what it's like to want someone, but be unable to have them. At least speaking and being around that person is enough, being 'just friends' is enough for some people. But then there are those influences who are egocentric and very mean people, who bring up the assholed opinion of being angry at a girl for that girl wanting to be 'just friends'. People like the idiots on "the Man show", filled with stereo types and other idiocy, believing it is manly and "ok" to take this opinion about this, generous and kind offer. So are people just assholes? Or misguided? I don't believe many people have thought about it like this. So if a gay person asks you out, and you say no, completely distance yourself from this person, even make it public, to further embarrass someone, make something private, public when that person does not wnat it so. Me? I will not say any of this, ever, maybe when someone understands me, but not until then, thus I send this message forth into the world in the hopes that someone, with a decent moral stature, the confidence to say this openly, change public opinion and even change the world.
EDIT: I forgot that I had this to say:
Also, continuuing from the "let people live their lives" part, Religious people have absolutely no say in the matter over this issue. Why? Because marriage is not a religious matter, it may have developed from religious beginnings, but now it is a LEGAL matter, the religious have absolutely no say in the matter, and their opinions and arguments are completely insignificant.
Who am I? I'm just a thinker, not a man of action.
Posted: Tue Apr 25, 2006 4:29 pm
by imgettionowned
Cuda I had the thread cleaned out, and I ask that it is again besides JKS's post. Keep your posts short and to the point.
Responding to JKS:
Yes he did triple the surplus, but the question is whether this was his own skill or luck? Don't forget that there was an economic boom during his presedency and there was a huge tech boom.
I'm not sure about the other things, so I'll have to take your word on it.
Here are the major negative things I can think of:
Monica Lewinski Case - Oral sex is not sex, so would it be right for a 40 year old guy to get a BJ from a 12 year old?
Paula Jones case - Clinton was charged with sexual harrassment
Rwanda & Somalia - These can go either way depending on how you view them. Either he did not take enough action with the U.N. wishes, or he stayed out of a conflict, and kept foreign relations steady
Waco - This wasn't his fault, but government conspiracies usually always negatively affect a president
Again let's try to stick to facts, I'm trying to change one of my stubborn thoughts, and trying to get people to realize that he was not the best president ever.
)