It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Ahhh...The Good Ole Days When Clinton Was President

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Oct, 4 2005 @ 08:44 PM
You should have been around for the Eisenhower administration. Gasoline was twenty cents a gallon, you could rent a three bedroom house for thirty dollars a month and you couldn't squeeze ten dollars worth of groceries into the back seat of your 1958 Edsel. Those were the days.

[edit on 2005/10/4 by GradyPhilpott]

posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 01:47 AM
The Edsel!!!!!! Those are so cool! Kind of ugly front end, remind me of a toilet on the front of a car, but so cool!

BTW is that your cat? Looks so cute!

[edit on 5-10-2005 by Full Metal]

posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 11:41 AM
That's not my cat, but I found it irresistible, as well.

posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 02:40 PM

President Bush is only that, a President. Stop blaming everything on him. The American Government [United States] is a 'Checks and Balances' system. Sorry to let you know about that...but he is not a dictator like many of you wish to believe [although I do not like his views, he is not to blame for everything.]

Please get outta here with that. Republicans own both house and senate. There hasn't been a check or balance five years. There has been late night threats given to moderate republicans in the house to pass the medicare bill. There have been strong arm tactics used against intel-analyst to get the appoval to go to war. There has been record spending and record debt. And, where is the surplus...didn't we have surplus????

What G-Dub wants, G-Dub gets.

Yes, the 90's were incredible. We should all thank Reagan for them

Nope. Thank Bushie 41 for raising taxes and Clinton for raising them some more.

[edit on 5-10-2005 by Saphronia]

posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 03:32 PM
And your point being Saphronia?

You do not seem to understand that not everthing is President Bush, in fact i highly doubt he is involved in half of the laws which have been voted upon during the last few years because no President ever has 100% involvement.

You can't blame him on how other people vote nor can you blame him for people being weak willed. Last I checked he didn't design the political system in place in the United States nor did he pick who is in the party, you need to start looking further afield to who desides who gets Republican backing in an election.

posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 06:55 PM

Originally posted by Full Metal
Reagan? The man whose Reaganomics nearly destroyed the countries economy? The man whose rise to power was funded by NeoConservatives and powered by the Bush Family to help start the dynasty? What the hell did he do for this country? He ruined this country and Russia, damn that's pretty good! He ruined 2 countries, of course Bush has ruined 3 so not that big a deal.

Yeah, er whatever.
Try this:
It's the Reagan Economy, Stupid

Let me know if you need more.


posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 10:51 PM
I love how everyone is quick to thank their own ideology/political party for the successes of a country and blame the other side for the failures. Quite sad isnt it considering all it does is shift any blame or kudos to where it rightfully belongs.


posted on Oct, 6 2005 @ 09:35 AM

You do not seem to understand that not everthing is President Bush, in fact i highly doubt he is involved in half of the laws which have been voted upon during the last few years because no President ever has 100% involvement.

Tell me if I'm wrong, but, for a bill to become law the president has to sign it into law if he vetoes then it takes 2/3 of the congress to get the bill passed.

My point is somewhere along line he has to understand exactly what he's signing so there are people who the taxpayers pay to brief the president on these laws, budgets, and what not before they land on his desk.

Most of these choices are made on the basis of his stated policy toward the matter. This thing called "policy"-- every president has one-- is where the president's personal views come into play. And, G-Dub's "policies" are geared toward the wealthy minority and are effectively shrinking the middle-- 1million plus Americans have fallen below the poverty line under his watch. He is 100% responsible for the tax cuts and the unilateral war in Iraq along with corporate welfare. President Bush signed CAFTA while he dropped the ball on corporate tax fraud leaving tax havens in the CAFTA countries open for business--these are his policy choices and his name is on the dotted line verifying that he backs it...are you saying we can't even hold him responsible for what he signs his name to??? Good grief, I give up then. G-Dub wins again! That slippery bastard.

Deny Knowledge...seems to work for Dubya...why not for you?

[edit on 6-10-2005 by Saphronia]

posted on Oct, 6 2005 @ 11:43 AM
I tend to disagree on George Bush. With the amount of time spent on holiday and is intelligence, I would say half the work he does have on his desk is signed by old Slippy Dick Cheney because he isn't there in the office.

Also you have to remember, if it gets through and onto his desk very few presidents will sign a no due to the fact they are not the true reprosentatives and also they tend to look at the majority a bill is passed with. If it is high they will hardly ever go against it...because it just takes even more time.

posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 10:23 AM
It's my honest opinion that Bill Clinton did more damage to the U.S. than George W. Bush will have done by the time he leaves office, barring nuclear war.

Not because he was a worse president. He was a much better president. In fact, I'd have to say that he was the best Republican president this country has seen since Theodore Roosevelt.

And that would be just peachy, except that he ISN'T a Republican. He's a Democrat. And his victory, which was a victory for the Democratic Leadership Council of which he is a member, cemented the Democrats in place as a corporatist party. It's because of Clinton that we now have two corporatist parties whose only significant difference is on social issues, and that economic issues are largely kept out of the media and out of the political dialogue.

posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 05:53 AM

Originally posted by Carseller4
I have only one response...Pathetic.

Anyone who relies on government, federal or local, for their well-being is pathetic.

Am I better off now than 5 years ago? Yes. Is it because of Bush? No.

Tax cuts helped alot, but I do not credit government because I am doing better. Anyone who is doing worse now did not properly plan their future.

BTW, my 401K is doing great!

Clinton left a legacy of doing nothing for 8 years, and we are paying for it now.

Wrong. Yeah, so going to war with Bush ius better than doing nothing. We have only lost 2000 troops its not that much. Give me fricken break.

Lets kill our parents for money. You can not just ask you parents for money. Some of us, aren't rich. We rely on the govt to stay alive. There is no other choice.

BIG NEWS Guess what, tax cuts may help you now, but they are very selfish, taking away from govt only promises that this country will be in debt in the future. Yes, you don't have to pay, but in the end, we all have to pay. Believe me our debt adds up over time, getting around it by having tax cuts is not going to stop it. Very selfish. You my friend, are the pathetic one here.

posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 01:15 PM

Originally posted by Carseller4
I have only one response...Pathetic.

...BTW, my 401K is doing great!

Really? Heavily invested in foreign currencies and overseas sweat shops are we?

Good for you, patriot!

The Dow ended 2005 lower than when it started 12 months ago.

In fact, while it was the 0.6% decline for the year that generated headlines, most seem to have overlooked the fact that on the day Bush was sworn into office in January 2001, the Dow Jones stood at 10,732.46. As of now, it's at 10,717.50.

In other words, after five years of Bush's presidency, the stock market has a cumulative gain of negative 15 points.

Under Reagan, the Dow went up 148%. Under Clinton, it grew 187%. After five years, Bush isn't quite breaking even.

Sure, Republican administrations have consistently under-performed Democratic administrations on stock market growth, but who would have guessed that nearly five years after Bush took office, the Dow wouldn't have grown at all?

I mean even Republicans surely know Bush's job growth is the worst in 50 years, right?

Everywhere but Central America of course.

Honduran sweat shop owners love the Republican Party almost as much as jailhouse bulls are going to when they get their meaty paws on your quivering, pasty party.

[edit on 3-1-2006 by RANT]

posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 10:03 AM
Rant got it! Any economic growth under a republican administration comes at the sacrifice of some poor sweatshop workers wellbeing. It sure seems that way at least. NAFTA, and the WTO and the rest only exploit workers so we can prance around praising our booming economy.
Clinton didnt do a terrible job, and he definately didnt ruin our reputation worldwide. Domestics aside, Clinton didnt kick dirt in the faces of our friends worldwide.

Part of our strength as a nation comes from unity, not just within, but unity with our allies as well.
This is the biggest atrocity under W's regime IMO.

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in