RPGDot Network    
   

 
 
Neocron
Display full image
Pic of the moment
More
pics from the gallery
 
 
Site Navigation

Main
   News
   Forums

Games
   Games Database
   Top 100
   Release List
   Support Files

Features
   Reviews
   Previews
   Interviews
   Editorials
   Diaries
   Misc

Download
   Gallery
   Music
   Screenshots
   Videos

Miscellaneous
   Staff Members
   Privacy Statement

FAQ
Members
Usergroups
Presidential Leadership
  View previous topic :: View next topic
RPGDot Forums > Absolutely Off Topic

Author Thread
Bartacus
Il Buono
Il Buono




Joined: 24 May 2003
Posts: 4706
Location: Belgium Flemmish part
   

@SAL and Val: This is just another republican opinion you have. A greate leader will also be known and admired outside his 'teritory'. Clinton was one of the your presidents that had this and offcourse he will not be known of a certain blowjob. Do you think none of the other presidents have had one over there? Come on, you're just kidding yourself.
_________________
Moderator and Council Magician of the RPGDot Shadows
member of the Sports Fans Forum
Leader's Right Hand at the Gothic Rogues
NFG member
Post Sat Nov 06, 2004 3:57 pm
 View user's profile
Myrthos
Spoiler of All Fun
Spoiler of All Fun




Joined: 07 Jul 2001
Posts: 1926
Location: Holland
   

Well, whenever I hear the name Clinton, my first thought is Monica, closely followed by a thought about a cigar.... and I don't even smoke.
_________________
Kewl quotes:
I often have an odd sense of humor - Roach
Why quote somebody else, think of something yourself. - XeroX
...you won't have to unbookmark this site, we'll unbookmark you. - Val
Reports Myrthos for making me scared and humbled at the mere sight of his name - kayla
Post Sat Nov 06, 2004 4:30 pm
 View user's profile
Moriendor
Black Ring Leader
Black Ring Leader




Joined: 19 Jul 2001
Posts: 1306
Location: Germany
   

As someone who is not from the US, I also feel that Clinton should have a much higher rating. Not only because of the Lewinsky stunt which was hilarious (kidding) but mostly because of his achievements which are listed here . What's strangely missing from the summary of his presidency at the link, is his efforts to bring peace to Israel.
I personally believe that he deserves huge credit for taking action as a mediator in the conflict. Too bad his term ended before he could really succeed in getting further negotiations going and too bad GWB didn't give a rat's ass about continuing where Clinton left off.
I don't know what Clinton did for (or against?) US citizens that led to such a low rating (or if the voters contributing to that ranking were maybe reps mostly) but as a non-US guy who is mostly in the know about his foreign politics, I feel that he should be way up there near the top as he was not the Let's-give-the-rest-of-the-world-the-finger type of US president, plus it seems like the US was in very good condition during his presidency (see link above).
Post Sat Nov 06, 2004 8:16 pm
 View user's profile
Val
Risen From Ashes
Risen From Ashes




Joined: 18 Feb 2002
Posts: 14724
Location: Utah, USA
   

As I said, the Clinton-enamored aren't ready to hear what a mediocre President he was. You bought into his "I'm the greatest President ever" inculcation. Lock, stock and barrel. I don't find it very surprising. As I said before, Bartacus, they took an ideologically balanced group of 132 prominent professors of history, law and political science (In other words, people who know more about these historical figures than you do) to do these ratings. In reading their assesments of each President, they were quite honest about it. That includes the assessment of Clinton. Reading the breakdown of the ranking and how it was done, in the Appendices, shows it. I suppose I could list all of the poeple who participated in the survey and you could investigate each of them individually, but I doubt you'd actually do that to prove your point that it's "propaganda".

@Moriendor: The summaries of the Presidents on the White House page aren't what I'd call critical assessments. It's just a snap shoot. As time passes, history gains perspective. As those who loved or hated a certain President die off, that President is looked at with a more critical eye. JFK used to be very highly ranked in these types of studies twenty or so years ago. Then the glamour wears off. The same thing will happen with Clinton internationally and here in the U.S. These historians and professors are just stating the obvious.

@Darrius: Then why is Theodore Roosevelt ranked so high? He's practically smack dab in the middle of the U.S.' history and he was a peacetime President. There weren't any wars when Jackson held office and Jefferson keep the U.S. out of the Napoleonic wars.
Carter isn't just ranked low because he failed to get Iran to return the hostages. He didn't do anything to help the economy and it showed, with practically the glaring intensity of the sun.
_________________
Freeeeeeedom! Thank heavens it's summer!
What do I have to show for my hard work? A piece of paper! Wee!
=Guardian, Moderator, UltimaDot Newshound=
Post Sat Nov 06, 2004 10:03 pm
 View user's profile
Bartacus
Il Buono
Il Buono




Joined: 24 May 2003
Posts: 4706
Location: Belgium Flemmish part
   

Val, the USA is a divided nation when it comes to these rankings. Have you ever seen "Runaway Jury"?(nothing to do with politics, but it proves that you have to dig very deep into someones personal life to get a view on his ideology.) How do you know that one poses himself as a democrat, while he's really a republican? And still remains the fact of who assembled the team.
So you see it's really difficult to make a fair list of such a thing.
Also you said that I bought his 'I'm the greatest president ever' bullshit. I put him at 18 (as you know when you put an 8 before a ) you get .) Why I wanted to put Bush lower? -> Tell me then why Clinton won and not him. After all the reigning president always get the highest chance to followup themselves.

Beside this, I can only tell you asked for an opinion and so I gave mine.
_________________
Moderator and Council Magician of the RPGDot Shadows
member of the Sports Fans Forum
Leader's Right Hand at the Gothic Rogues
NFG member
Post Sun Nov 07, 2004 10:36 pm
 View user's profile
Lintra
Elf Friend
Elf Friend




Joined: 23 Apr 2002
Posts: 9448
Location: Bermuda, the triangle place with SANDY BEACHES
   

quote:
Originally posted by Moriendor
...What's strangely missing from the summary of his presidency at the link, is his efforts to bring peace to Israel.
I personally believe that he deserves huge credit for taking action as a mediator in the conflict. ....


I think that given he had eight years to accomplish something, and nothing was done (except some nice photo ops) about sums up Clinton's presidency in all things.

Not much constructive got done on his watch, but then, nothing terribley destructive either. Many of the things Clinton claims credit for (balancing the budget, welfare reform etc) were the result of his being a realist. He could oppose have opposed them and lost, or embraced them as his own ideas and appear to win.

In addition, the low inflation, high growth had nothing to do with Clinton's policies and much to with technological changes. I also feel I should point out that Enron, Global Crossing, Tyco etc, all prospered and got away with murder during the Clinton regime. It was not until 2001 that the expositions started. So, it could be argued, the Clinton administration turned a blind eye to corporate malfeance ... much more so than the Bush administration.

I would, however, propose that it really doesn't matter who is was in the White House at the time ... the implosion of Enron et al, had much more to do with the market turning so that mistatements could not be hidden by growth than by any directive from the oval office.
_________________
=Member of The Nonflamers' Guild=
=Just plain clueless=
Post Mon Nov 08, 2004 6:55 pm
 View user's profile
Darrius Cole
Most Exalted Highlord
Most Exalted Highlord




Joined: 04 May 2004
Posts: 406
   

I don't mean that those are the sole criteria. I mean that people's evaluation has been skewed by these factors. That does not mean that any one of these men was not a good President or a good person. But If you can remember being an adult when a certain person was in office you can not compare their administration to that of someone you don't remember.

Look at the top five. Beginning, War, War, Beginning, Peacetime.

Heroes are measured by the size of the threat that they respond to. If George W. Bush had been elected when Abe Lincoln was, could he have produced the same result? If Bill Clinton had been elected when FDR was could he have produced the same result? You can not tell. Thus, we give more weight to those who held the reigns in a more critical time in history.

To all the Clinton Bashers: Exactly what needed to be done differently while Clinton was in office? Start a war maybe? Start some new economic plan to ruin the economic expansion we were already in? There were so many different things to to be done that the Republican congress launched an Independent Counsel investigation into whether he had oral sex in the oval office.
_________________
Always with you what can not be done. Hear you nothing that I say? - Master Yoda
Only the powerful are free. - Darrius Cole
Post Mon Nov 08, 2004 7:32 pm
 View user's profile
Val
Risen From Ashes
Risen From Ashes




Joined: 18 Feb 2002
Posts: 14724
Location: Utah, USA
   

@Bartucus: Excuse me one moment while I laugh my head off. Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
*wipes the tears of laughter from her eyes*
Whew! Thanks for the laugh, Bartacus. It's by far the best laugh I've had all day and it's about the only response that argument of yours is worth.

As for asking for your opinion, I asked for the opinions of my fellow citizens (because I know they need a basic knowledge of U.S. history to graduate from high school) and for the opinions of non-U.S. citizens who have studied U.S. history. If you don't fall into one of those two categories, then no, I did not ask for your opinion.

@Darrius: Why can't I compare it? I can learn everything about George Washington's presidency by reading a history book or biography. I can do the same with more recent political figures. I am quite capable of making an even-handed decision about the importance of one President over another. It doesn't matter what someone might have done. All that matters it what the person, in that position, at that time, actually did do. "What ifs?" don't matter, reality does, because I live in reality, not an alternate universe.
I'm a Clinton basher because I called him mediocre? Gee, I wonder what I'd be if I called him a failure or less than average?
Clinton did get involved in several wars, or police actions if you want to call them that. Committing perjury and obstruction of justice don't speak well of one's character. Bombing an aspirin factory just doesn't strike me as a military victory. His foreign policy is a long list of failed, aborted or abandoned initiatives, especially in the realm of international terrorism. That one came back to bite the nation squarely in the butt. So, Lawanda's comparison of him to Coolidge is accurate. Coolidge ignored economic problems that blew up in the nation's face in the form of the Great Depression. He did nothing to guarantee economic growth into the new millennium. All he did was ride the wave that was created during the Reagan years and fed by the boom in technology. He never really did anything that makes him stand out. No sweeping reform that he initiated. No battles won. Not even inspiring catch-phrases that are remembered today. Unless you want to count "I didn't inhale".
He'll end up being remembered for his scandals, because he had no great achievements.
_________________
Freeeeeeedom! Thank heavens it's summer!
What do I have to show for my hard work? A piece of paper! Wee!
=Guardian, Moderator, UltimaDot Newshound=
Post Wed Nov 10, 2004 9:12 pm
 View user's profile
Darrius Cole
Most Exalted Highlord
Most Exalted Highlord




Joined: 04 May 2004
Posts: 406
   

Why you can't compare or at least why you can't honestly compare.

Two reasons: Bias and Imperfect information.

1. Bias - If you live in the hear and now, you hear about and have an opinion of recent US Presidents. Moreover, you are influenced by other peoples opinions of US Presidents. If you have an opinion on something it colors the facts you see. I don't mean that it causes you to look at the facts with prejudice; I mean it literally changes the way you see the world when you are trying to be honest. You like a guy and his good deeds are greater and his bad deeds are smaller. You don't like a guy and his bad deeds are truly hideous and his good deeds are insignificant.

2. Imperfect information - What everyone thinks is your biggest achievement today may not actually be your best acheivement in historical standards. With Presidents we are talking of policies that take decades to unfold and sometimes stay with us for centuries. With a man who was just in office 5, 10, or 20 years ago many of these policies have not yet run their course. Whereas with an older administration you have much more information about the results of the policy on which to judge.

That is why I say that you can't really compare the performance a true historical figure with that of a guy you voted for or chose not to vote for.
_________________
Always with you what can not be done. Hear you nothing that I say? - Master Yoda
Only the powerful are free. - Darrius Cole
Post Thu Nov 11, 2004 7:01 pm
 View user's profile
Bartacus
Il Buono
Il Buono




Joined: 24 May 2003
Posts: 4706
Location: Belgium Flemmish part
   

Val, I see now that I was very accurate with my 'guess' that you were a hardcore republican. Only then you would have given such a ridiculous response. It's quite easy to say that I never studied the history of the US, but the fact remains I did a bit of it. Perhaps not so much as an American citizen would do, but that's because I don't see why I have to remember every little small peace of another nations history. I know enough of US history to debate here.

About Clinton and the Israelic-Palestinian conflict: There was a relative peace under his governement. There never was one under GW Bush. Now you can say that it had more to do with Sharons visit to the holy place of the muslims. And I think your half way there. The other piece is that Bush at the beginning of his governement didn't want to do anything with foreign policies and just turned his back to the Palestinians. Israel was a good tradepartner and there could be Jewish votes won for the 'next' (the one that's now over) election. If there wasn't a 9/11 (still feels weird to put the month before the day), he prob would never changed his foreign governement.
Clinton couldn't hold back 9/11, but he would never had the conflict in Israel taking on and on.
_________________
Moderator and Council Magician of the RPGDot Shadows
member of the Sports Fans Forum
Leader's Right Hand at the Gothic Rogues
NFG member
Post Fri Nov 12, 2004 10:14 pm
 View user's profile
Lintra
Elf Friend
Elf Friend




Joined: 23 Apr 2002
Posts: 9448
Location: Bermuda, the triangle place with SANDY BEACHES
   

quote:
Originally posted by Bartacus
...
About Clinton and the Israelic-Palestinian conflict: There was a relative peace under his governement. There never was one under GW Bush. Now you can say that it had more to do with Sharons visit to the holy place of the muslims. And I think your half way there. The other piece is that Bush at the beginning of his governement didn't want to do anything with foreign policies and just turned his back to the Palestinians. Israel was a good tradepartner and there could be Jewish votes won for the 'next' (the one that's now over) election. If there wasn't a 9/11 (still feels weird to put the month before the day), he prob would never changed his foreign governement.
Clinton couldn't hold back 9/11, but he would never had the conflict in Israel taking on and on.


@Bart - I don't know how you can say there was 'relative peace' during Clinton's time in the White House. It is not like the suicide bombings ceased, it is not like Arafat accepted the peace terms where he got 99.5% of what he asked for (or was it 110%, I forget *grin*). During his time in office there were terror attacks against the US Cole and elsewhere to which his response was? Hmmm, I forget. Oh yeah. Nothing.

Also, might I point out that Bill's idea of flexing his muscles was to bomb an asprin factory to take attention away from his impeachment and his 'apology' that wasn't. He did next to nothing (aside from posing for pix) to further peace in the region. Which might be your point ... do nothing, then you can't be blamed for anything ... but that is a vacuous argument.
_________________
=Member of The Nonflamers' Guild=
=Just plain clueless=
Post Mon Nov 15, 2004 2:04 pm
 View user's profile
Darrius Cole
Most Exalted Highlord
Most Exalted Highlord




Joined: 04 May 2004
Posts: 406
   

quote:
By Lintra
During his time in office there were terror attacks against the US Cole and elsewhere to which his response was? Hmmm, I forget. Oh yeah. Nothing.
That is not accurate. The attack on the so-called asprin factory was an attempt to eliminate a terrorist threat. And I do seem to recall that a major terrorist operation targeted toward a Los Angeles airport was thwarted on Clinton's watch as well.

As far as the Israel-Palestinian conflict, I do remember many more talks between the two parties under Clinton than we have had in the last four years. However, I suspect we will have more talks in Bush's next term than we had in his first term.
_________________
Always with you what can not be done. Hear you nothing that I say? - Master Yoda
Only the powerful are free. - Darrius Cole
Post Mon Nov 15, 2004 6:08 pm
 View user's profile
Lintra
Elf Friend
Elf Friend




Joined: 23 Apr 2002
Posts: 9448
Location: Bermuda, the triangle place with SANDY BEACHES
   

quote:
Originally posted by Darrius Cole
quote:
By Lintra
During his time in office there were terror attacks against the US Cole and elsewhere to which his response was? Hmmm, I forget. Oh yeah. Nothing.
That is not accurate. The attack on the so-called asprin factory was an attempt to eliminate a terrorist threat. ....


@Darrius - I recall the event very clearly, as we were all gathered for a summer vacation at a friends house to celebrate his 40th b-day. Day 1 - Clinton entertains us all with his non-apology. Silly string covered the TV (it was meant to be sprayed at the b-day boy, but Clinton made a much better target as he tried to make us feel bad for something he did). The next two days see amazing heat from the press over his performance. Monday morning headlines "US Attacks Suspected Terrorists Havens in Three Countries".

It does not take a super computer to realized that Mr C was feeling the heat of the NY Times, the Washington Post, the Boston Globe and the Wall Street Journal (the four papers we devored eat morning over breakfast), and had to come up with a distraction. The sad part is that it worked.

To me, that bordered on war crimes. And if you watched CNN that Monday morning you could tell that Albright had no clue what was going on ... so this was not a 'long considered attack' (Side bar - we discussed turning on the tube in the morning and all decided it was too important not to). The timing was just way too suspicious, and his Secretary of State's obvious lack of knowledge means this was a last minute thing done only to distract. To me that smacks of war crimes: in that to kill people to take attention off your own gaffs is ... unforgivable.

As to why the lack of talks recently: Israel refused to recognise Arafat as the Palestinian leader. The canceled elections of 99 undermined his credentials ... that combined with his inability to stop the violence and his lack of willingness to negotiate all combined force the US to follow suit, and to make any talks meaningless.

By not stopping the violence Arafat demonstrated that he had no control and no mandate ... so in the unlikely chance that he actually agreed to anything he'd demonstrated he didn't have the power to enforce any agreement he made. So why bother wasting time talking with him? It only reinforced the myth that he was running the show.
_________________
=Member of The Nonflamers' Guild=
=Just plain clueless=
Post Mon Nov 15, 2004 9:20 pm
 View user's profile
Darrius Cole
Most Exalted Highlord
Most Exalted Highlord




Joined: 04 May 2004
Posts: 406
   

So now, after the thwarted attempt to terrorize and Los Angeles aiport, after 9/11, after Bush tell you for years that we are at war with terror, you still don't believe that there was a terrorist threat that Clinton attacked. You just can't bring yourself to admit that Bill Clinton even tried to do anything good.

A few days after Monica Lewinsky, an affair that had nothing to do with the management of the country I might add, hits the papers you say he is trying to "wag the dog." This is not necessarily true, but understandable. Then he puts out a reward on Osama Bin Laden. You say Clinton does nothing to fight terror. Then we stop a terror attempt on our soil. You say Clinton does nothing to fight terror. Then the same man the Clinton told you he tried to kill, the same man he had a hit/reward on, launches the most successful terror attack in US history. You still say Clinton did nothing the fight terror, even though he has a stop and an attempt to kill Bin Laden on record.

As far as war crimes, that is ridiculous. No President who attacks terrorists bent on killing Americans is a war criminal, not Clinton, not Bush, not the other Bush, or any one else.

Don't let insignificant scandals or your dislike for Clinton take your eye off the big picture, Clinton didn't and Bush doesn't either.

Israel doesn't have the right to decide who is the leader of the Palestinian people. If the Palestinian people say it is Yassar Arafat, then it is Yassar Arafat. You either talk to him or don't talk to the Palestinian people. Israel, obviously chose the latter, and Bush backed them whole-heartedly. Actually, Israel, still recognized that Arafat was the leader of the Palestinian people by using the military to confine him to his compound, an obvious attempt to curb his influence.

You assume that Arafat honestly wanted to end the attacks, I don't. But even if he did Israel had systematically destroyed the Palestinian police infrastructure. It is hard to police people when an exterior army is killing your police officers.

My point is Israel is not angel or devil, and the Palestinians are not angels or devils either. Supporting the decision to break off talks with the only leader they have is not helping the situation.
_________________
Always with you what can not be done. Hear you nothing that I say? - Master Yoda
Only the powerful are free. - Darrius Cole
Post Mon Nov 15, 2004 10:26 pm
 View user's profile
Moriendor
Black Ring Leader
Black Ring Leader




Joined: 19 Jul 2001
Posts: 1306
Location: Germany
   

quote:
Originally posted by Lintra
quote:
Originally posted by Darrius Cole
quote:
By Lintra
During his time in office there were terror attacks against the US Cole and elsewhere to which his response was? Hmmm, I forget. Oh yeah. Nothing.
That is not accurate. The attack on the so-called asprin factory was an attempt to eliminate a terrorist threat. ....


@Darrius - I recall the event very clearly, as we were all gathered for a summer vacation at a friends house to celebrate his 40th b-day. Day 1 - Clinton entertains us all with his non-apology. Silly string covered the TV (it was meant to be sprayed at the b-day boy, but Clinton made a much better target as he tried to make us feel bad for something he did). The next two days see amazing heat from the press over his performance. Monday morning headlines "US Attacks Suspected Terrorists Havens in Three Countries".

It does not take a super computer to realized that Mr C was feeling the heat of the NY Times, the Washington Post, the Boston Globe and the Wall Street Journal (the four papers we devored eat morning over breakfast), and had to come up with a distraction. The sad part is that it worked.

To me, that bordered on war crimes. And if you watched CNN that Monday morning you could tell that Albright had no clue what was going on ... so this was not a 'long considered attack' (Side bar - we discussed turning on the tube in the morning and all decided it was too important not to). The timing was just way too suspicious, and his Secretary of State's obvious lack of knowledge means this was a last minute thing done only to distract. To me that smacks of war crimes: in that to kill people to take attention off your own gaffs is ... unforgivable.

As to why the lack of talks recently: Israel refused to recognise Arafat as the Palestinian leader. The canceled elections of 99 undermined his credentials ... that combined with his inability to stop the violence and his lack of willingness to negotiate all combined force the US to follow suit, and to make any talks meaningless.

By not stopping the violence Arafat demonstrated that he had no control and no mandate ... so in the unlikely chance that he actually agreed to anything he'd demonstrated he didn't have the power to enforce any agreement he made. So why bother wasting time talking with him? It only reinforced the myth that he was running the show.


Umm... Lintra, could we lay off the Clinton hate for a minute and recall some historical facts, please?
The timing of the attacks on Sudan and Afghanistan hardly had ANYTHING to do with the Lewinsky affair but EVERYTHING with the bombing of the US embassies in Kenia and Tanzania (August 1998).
The cruise missile attacks conducted by US warships were a direct response to the embassy bombings.
Targets were terrorist camps in Afghanistan and a facility in Sudan that was at that time believed to be used for chemical weapons.
I'm not sure if it has been 100% confirmed to this day if the facility was indeed merely an Aspirin factory. Maybe. Maybe not.
If so, a bad intelligence job for sure... but how is that Clinton's fault? And how was it a "war crime"? ROFL... if we call that "minor" attack based on bad intelligence a "war crime" then what do we make of the current war in Iraq? GWB would have to be shot by a military firing squad tomorrow morning if we go by such standards for war crimes.
Post Tue Nov 16, 2004 1:18 am
 View user's profile


Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
All times are GMT.
The time now is Tue Apr 16, 2019 9:50 am



Powered by phpBB © 2001 phpBB Group
 
 
 
All original content of this site is copyrighted by RPGWatch. Copying or reproducing of any part of this site is strictly prohibited. Taking anything from this site without authorisation will be considered stealing and we'll be forced to visit you and jump on your legs until you give it back.