Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   You know this election was a brutal one for one party when an uber right-wing blog begins a post with the sentence "I honestly never thought the day would come when I would be nostalgic for the Presidency of Bill Clinton"   (realville-usa.com ) divider line
    More: Amusing, Presidency of Bill Clinton, Bill Clinton, right-wing  
•       •       •

1444 clicks; posted to Politics » on 12 Nov 2012 at 12:22 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



64 Comments   (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-11-12 10:55:52 AM  
If this republic is to be saved with liberty intact, if this monstrous agenda is to be rolled back, then the GOP needs to get themselves off compromise mode, and onto full war footing.

It worked so well since 2010, right?
 
2012-11-12 11:13:50 AM  
"I honestly never thought the day would come when I would be nostalgic for the Presidency of Bill Clinton. Because, well, I'm just going to say it...Bill Clinton wasn't a negro and this guy in the White House, while many of his policies are more conservative than Clinton's...is."

/didn't read
//figured it would boil down to something like this
 
2012-11-12 11:16:56 AM  
That's partly because despite your feeble protestations to the contrary Clinton was not a liberal, he was center right on most taxation issues. It was the Rights continual obsession on culture war and social issues that clouds them from seeing that there hasn't been a true progressive President in the US since FDR. What passes for liberalism in the US would be regarded as fascism in Europe. Twenty years from now when Texas is Blue enough due to population shifts for the Dems to hold both houses of congress you might see some real liberalism
 
2012-11-12 11:28:06 AM  
I remember in 2000 I said that the Clinton years would be looked back on as a golden age and everyone laughed and laughed, but here we are. Low unemployment, no stupid wars, balanced budget were the best, who cares if he got a Beej.
 
2012-11-12 11:38:04 AM  

NowhereMon: I remember in 2000 I said that the Clinton years would be looked back on as a golden age and everyone laughed and laughed, but here we are. Low unemployment, no stupid wars, balanced budget were the best, who cares if he got a Beej.


As far as I care, he freakin' DESERVED the BJ.
 
2012-11-12 12:15:50 PM  
The Era of "The Era of Big Government is Over" is Over

Yo dawg, we heard you like big governments in your eras, so we put etc. etc. etc.
 
2012-11-12 12:24:57 PM  
"uber right-wing"

of all that is blogged i love only what a person has blogged with his blood
 
2012-11-12 12:27:52 PM  
Maybe they should have thought twice about running a guy who had no chance in Hell of getting reelected to his only previous political post?
 
2012-11-12 12:29:06 PM  
FFS.

The Obama administration is now releasing new regulations at the mind boggling clip of more than 6,000 per quarter.

That statement links to an article with this title:

6,125 Proposed Regulations and Notifications Posted in Last 90 Days--Average 68 per Day

Then, from that article:

Some of the proposed regulations revise regulations already on the books.

The website also links to a video of a speech President Barack Obama gave at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in Washington, D.C. on Feb. 7, 2011, in which the president promised to remove "outdated and unnecessary regulations."

"I've ordered a government-wide review, and if there are rules on the books that are needlessly stifling job creation and economic growth, we will fix them," the president said.


Did this farkwit actually read the article he linked to? Also, what's his Fark handle?
 
2012-11-12 12:29:19 PM  

Vodka Zombie: NowhereMon: I remember in 2000 I said that the Clinton years would be looked back on as a golden age and everyone laughed and laughed, but here we are. Low unemployment, no stupid wars, balanced budget were the best, who cares if he got a Beej.

As far as I care, he freakin' DESERVED the BJ.


My issue with that BJ is that Clinton made us look bad on the world stage with his ugly interns. If he'd been like Kennedy and tapping a movie star on the side it would have been much more acceptable.
 
2012-11-12 12:31:13 PM  
You mean you miss the days that a Democrat in the White House just bows to pressure from a Republican controlled Congress as Clinton did. Today not only do you have a black man as President, you have one that stands up against the GOP run House masters.
 
2012-11-12 12:32:56 PM  
i121.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-12 12:33:31 PM  
www.englishexercises.org
 
2012-11-12 12:34:06 PM  
www.infobarrel.com

That poor, poor chicken.
 
2012-11-12 12:34:12 PM  
Actually, it's because Barrack can actually fark his wife instead of getting strange in the oval office.
 
2012-11-12 12:35:20 PM  
"the GOP needs to get themselves off compromise mode"

They were on compromise mode??????
 
2012-11-12 12:37:59 PM  
Yeah, Clinton compromised to work with the GOP to gut welfare and treat regulation like a joke (which, by the way, never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever turned around to bite us in the ass, isn't that right, banking disaster?) and got impeached for the favor.

Obama knows (or he should, anyway, I kinda doubt President Cavey McGive-In will think of it) what to expect as his thanks from the Grand Ol' Party for all the service he did for them over the past 4 years. I believe that was, what, 97% of what John Boehner wanted?

Indeed, he's the liberallest liberal that ever done liberalled a liberal.
 
2012-11-12 12:39:24 PM  

ha-ha-guy: My issue with that BJ is that Clinton made us look bad on the world stage with his ugly interns. If he'd been like Kennedy and tapping a movie star on the side it would have been much more acceptable.


Hell, the French have mistresses and they have no issue with it.
 
2012-11-12 12:41:30 PM  

Shrugging Atlas: "the GOP needs to get themselves off compromise mode"

They were on compromise mode??????


When Boehner got 98% of what he wanted during debt limit negotiations. Of course now it's all 100% Obama's fault.
 
2012-11-12 12:43:54 PM  
Read some of his other posts. He says the Republicans haven't run a conservative since Reagan.
 
2012-11-12 12:44:13 PM  
All my right wing relative (so all my relatives) love Clinton because he gutted welfare. Even as Clinton was making that speech at the convention making the case for Obama, they were on Facebook wistfully wishing he could get a third term, instead of another four years of Kenyan Hitlerstalin.
 
2012-11-12 12:45:29 PM  
I personally enjoyed the section about abortion. If I may evaluate the right-wing articles I've read recently, the GOP feels they must lie to the public in order to gain votes. The pro-life stance isn't a "fanatical religious stance" but a well-reasoned belief that "all life is sacred". Good luck convincing the electorate. We have all heard the Bible quotes from your side regarding your pro-life stance. We have all witnessed the attempts to deter women from seeking abortions. We have all listened to your side publically vilify women who seek medical sound, and legal, procedures. Good luck changing anyone's mind. Maybe if you start now, the electorate 4 generations from now might buy your line of B.S.
 
2012-11-12 12:46:23 PM  
Well, one thing I can say for the Republicans is that, rather than whine or gurgle the same whargarble they have been for the past four years, they've immediate begun outlining their plans, in detail, on how they plan to improve conditions in America. For that, they are to be commended.
 
2012-11-12 12:46:27 PM  
fark you!!

You guys said Clinton was the worst (most liberal) president ever while he was president. You attacked him for everything he did manufacturing false scandal after false scandal and impeached him. Only now that he is not president and can't run again you are looking at him fairly and saying he was good. The same exact thing will happen to Obama after he is out of office.

So fark you!!!
 
2012-11-12 12:51:54 PM  

clancifer: If this republic is to be saved with liberty intact, if this monstrous agenda is to be rolled back, then the GOP needs to get themselves off compromise mode, and onto full war footing.



Dnrtfa but judging by this sample, his blog sucks.
 
2012-11-12 12:54:04 PM  

DubyaHater: I personally enjoyed the section about abortion. If I may evaluate the right-wing articles I've read recently, the GOP feels they must lie to the public in order to gain votes. The pro-life stance isn't a "fanatical religious stance" but a well-reasoned belief that "all life is sacred". Good luck convincing the electorate. We have all heard the Bible quotes from your side regarding your pro-life stance. We have all witnessed the attempts to deter women from seeking abortions. We have all listened to your side publically vilify women who seek medical sound, and legal, procedures. Good luck changing anyone's mind. Maybe if you start now, the electorate 4 generations from now might buy your line of B.S.


Ha! Me too! It's now a human rights issue. Let's see how that message "trickles down".
 
2012-11-12 01:02:42 PM  
Don't be fooled.

The righties allegedly pining for the heady days of the Clinton administration are the same ones who were screeching for his impeachment in 1997.
 
2012-11-12 01:03:57 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: FFS.

The Obama administration is now releasing new regulations at the mind boggling clip of more than 6,000 per quarter.

That statement links to an article with this title:

6,125 Proposed Regulations and Notifications Posted in Last 90 Days--Average 68 per Day

Then, from that article:

Some of the proposed regulations revise regulations already on the books.

The website also links to a video of a speech President Barack Obama gave at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in Washington, D.C. on Feb. 7, 2011, in which the president promised to remove "outdated and unnecessary regulations."

"I've ordered a government-wide review, and if there are rules on the books that are needlessly stifling job creation and economic growth, we will fix them," the president said.

Did this farkwit actually read the article he linked to? Also, what's his Fark handle?


Or look at those regulations.
For example, here are last 407 from last week. http://www.regulations.gov/#!searchResults;np=7;dct=N%252BFR%252BPR;rp p=25;po=0


New Jersey; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plans: Revision to Increase Public Availability of the Administrative Record File

Proposed Flood Elevation Determinations for Madison County, AL and Incorporated Areas,

TFR: Safety Zones: Alliance Road Bridge Demolition; Black Warrior River, Locust Fork; Birmingham, AL (Federal Register Publication)

Twenty-fifth Update of the Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket

Meetings: National Institute of General Medical Sciences

etc, etc.


Guess what folks, this is a big country, we produce a lot of documents. You wanted ALL these documents put online, now they are. Guess what, its a LOT.
 
2012-11-12 01:06:12 PM  
I wasn't a big fan of Clinton, mostly because of his two-faced slimeball routine and triangulation baloney. He also had some truly awful cabinet members - Albright, Reno, Burger. I didn't care that he banged an intern and the impeachment was the moment that I finally gave up on the Republican party and the likes of Joe Loserman and other sanctimonious democrats.

But balancing the budget and a healthy economy .... not bad. Although a lot of good programs got screwed during that era. Kid of annoying when the administration is saying that R&D needs to be cut, when it was proven over and over to pay off huge for the economy. Little things like "the internet" and "lasers" and "computers" and "satellites", or more mundane things like "batteries" and "medical technology". As much as W was a total douchebag asshole, his administration did just as much to fund science and technology as Clinton's. He even had a true Democrat as science adviser. Bizarre but true.
 
2012-11-12 01:08:12 PM  

gilgigamesh: Don't be fooled.

The righties allegedly pining for the heady days of the Clinton administration are the same ones who were screeching for his impeachment in 1997.


The negative behavior around Clinton is pretty much the same as Obama. Socialisms, will persecute Christians, and will let the US surrender to the UN. Goes to show that really some Republicans haven't changed after two presidencies.
 
2012-11-12 01:16:06 PM  
Really? So when Obama proposes that we return the taxes on the top bracket back to 39.2 percent, like Clinton did in 1993, you'll be all for it?
 
2012-11-12 01:17:57 PM  

WizardofToast: gilgigamesh: Don't be fooled.

The righties allegedly pining for the heady days of the Clinton administration are the same ones who were screeching for his impeachment in 1997.

The negative behavior around Clinton is pretty much the same as Obama. Socialisms, will persecute Christians, and will let the US surrender to the UN. Goes to show that really some Republicans haven't changed after two presidencies.


No, but they'll die off pretty soon, so there's that...
 
2012-11-12 01:36:34 PM  

NuttierThanEver: That's partly because despite your feeble protestations to the contrary Clinton was not a liberal, he was center right on most taxation issues. It was the Rights continual obsession on culture war and social issues that clouds them from seeing that there hasn't been a true progressive President in the US since FDR. What passes for liberalism in the US would be regarded as fascism in Europe. Twenty years from now when Texas is Blue enough due to population shifts for the Dems to hold both houses of congress you might see some real liberalism


Nobody seems to remember it, but Clinton won his first presidential election by running to the right of H.W. Bush. He personally oversaw the execution of a black man who was so mentally incapacitated that he couldn't understand much of anything, let alone the charges against him, and Clinton did that during his presidential run. He had several women harassed, probably raped a few more, rocketed the only facility in Sudan that produced medicine to provide a distraction from his impeding impeachment, rivaled Romney as a pathological liar, and screwed over the gay community with DADT. It's easy to see why the right is nostalgic for the guy, he has so much in common with them.

/That he's a southerner and not black probably helps a lot for them too
 
2012-11-12 01:39:38 PM  
"The Most Liberal President of All-time"
 
2012-11-12 02:04:29 PM  

zerkalo: "The Most Liberal President of All-time"


lol. TR, WW and FDR are amused.
 
2012-11-12 02:11:46 PM  

thunderbird8804: screwed over the gay community with DADT


You realize the right's proposal at the time was a blanket ban on homosexuals in the military, right? And that's what they'd like to go back to? But yeah, Clinton was terrible.
 
2012-11-12 02:16:46 PM  

Vodka Zombie: NowhereMon: I remember in 2000 I said that the Clinton years would be looked back on as a golden age and everyone laughed and laughed, but here we are. Low unemployment, no stupid wars, balanced budget were the best, who cares if he got a Beej.

As far as I care, he freakin' DESERVED the BJ.


"JFK aimed high-Marilyn Monroe! Bill showed his dick to a government CLERK. There's a dropoff, here..."
--Carlin
 
2012-11-12 02:16:58 PM  
We get it. He's black.
 
2012-11-12 02:19:05 PM  
Welcome to the Toilet Zone, america
 
2012-11-12 02:50:57 PM  

qorkfiend: thunderbird8804: screwed over the gay community with DADT

You realize the right's proposal at the time was a blanket ban on homosexuals in the military, right? And that's what they'd like to go back to? But yeah, Clinton was terrible.


I'm aware of what the right wants now, and what they wanted then, but the fact remains that Clinton ran in 92 on helping out homosexuals, and instead he immediately relegated them to the closet, then told them "What are you gonna do about it? Turn to the Republicans? Vote Clinton in 96!" The whole thing was shameful, and I'm just glad we're finally starting to get past that unhealthy level of realpolitik.
 
2012-11-12 03:00:13 PM  

clancifer: If this republic is to be saved with liberty intact, if this monstrous agenda is to be rolled back, then the GOP needs to get themselves off compromise mode, and onto full war footing.

It worked so well since 2010, right?


When has the GOP been in compromise mode? Did I miss that?
 
2012-11-12 03:37:40 PM  
During the Bush administration democrats were nostalgic for Nixon. It really is a crazy world.
 
2012-11-12 04:17:28 PM  

thunderbird8804: qorkfiend: thunderbird8804: screwed over the gay community with DADT

You realize the right's proposal at the time was a blanket ban on homosexuals in the military, right? And that's what they'd like to go back to? But yeah, Clinton was terrible.

I'm aware of what the right wants now, and what they wanted then, but the fact remains that Clinton ran in 92 on helping out homosexuals, and instead he immediately relegated them to the closet, then told them "What are you gonna do about it? Turn to the Republicans? Vote Clinton in 96!" The whole thing was shameful, and I'm just glad we're finally starting to get past that unhealthy level of realpolitik.


So you'd prefer Clinton simply allowed the blanket ban on homosexuals in the military, instead of trying to work out a compromise with a Congress who had no interest in letting homosexuals openly serve? Yeah, that'll get you real far.
 
2012-11-12 05:12:26 PM  

qorkfiend: thunderbird8804: qorkfiend: thunderbird8804: screwed over the gay community with DADT

You realize the right's proposal at the time was a blanket ban on homosexuals in the military, right? And that's what they'd like to go back to? But yeah, Clinton was terrible.

I'm aware of what the right wants now, and what they wanted then, but the fact remains that Clinton ran in 92 on helping out homosexuals, and instead he immediately relegated them to the closet, then told them "What are you gonna do about it? Turn to the Republicans? Vote Clinton in 96!" The whole thing was shameful, and I'm just glad we're finally starting to get past that unhealthy level of realpolitik.

So you'd prefer Clinton simply allowed the blanket ban on homosexuals in the military, instead of trying to work out a compromise with a Congress who had no interest in letting homosexuals openly serve? Yeah, that'll get you real far.


Two things:

1. Strawman
2. Even if that wasn't a strawman, that wouldn't come close to being a counter argument to what I just said
 
2012-11-12 05:21:07 PM  
Ya, I know what you mean, because the Clinton presidency was so terrible, like when he took away all of our guns and instituted FEMA concentration camps and the stock market fell to almost zero and we had unemployment over 30%. Ya, those Clinton days were just terrible.
 
2012-11-12 06:00:14 PM  

Shrugging Atlas: "the GOP needs to get themselves off compromise mode"

They were on compromise mode??????


This is the Rush line, the last GOP house comptromised too much, Obama ran the dirties campaign in his memory, Obama lied more than any campaign in history, stuff like that.

Actually, now that I think of it, he was a bit off his game today. It was all projection for the 45 minutes I listened, no straw men, no mischaracterization, no lying about others true message. In fact, I think he only said he was right twice.
 
2012-11-12 06:04:39 PM  

Corvus: fark you!!

You guys said Clinton was the worst (most liberal) president ever while he was president. You attacked him for everything he did manufacturing false scandal after false scandal and impeached him. Only now that he is not president and can't run again you are looking at him fairly and saying he was good. The same exact thing will happen to Obama after he is out of office.

So fark you!!!


I wish they would do the same thing with Reagan, but instead they suck his decomposing schlong.
 
2012-11-12 06:07:56 PM  

WizardofToast: gilgigamesh: Don't be fooled.

The righties allegedly pining for the heady days of the Clinton administration are the same ones who were screeching for his impeachment in 1997.

The negative behavior around Clinton is pretty much the same as Obama. Socialisms, will persecute Christians, and will let the US surrender to the UN. Goes to show that really some Republicans haven't changed after two presidencies.


They just don't remember. The real minds behind the GOP knew they could simply recycle the lies and the base wouldn't notice or care. More efficient, it left them lots of time to plan their voter suppression strategy.
 
2012-11-12 06:24:08 PM  

thunderbird8804: screwed over the gay community with DADT


It wasn't the ideal solution, but it was a halfway measure that allowed gays to serve without being questioned about their private lives. How is that screwing them over?
 
2012-11-12 06:28:46 PM  

HighOnCraic: thunderbird8804: screwed over the gay community with DADT

It wasn't the ideal solution, but it was a halfway measure that allowed gays to serve without being questioned about their private lives. How is that screwing them over?


I hate to do it, but I'll just quote myself here:

thunderbird8804: I'm aware of what the right wants now, and what they wanted then, but the fact remains that Clinton ran in 92 on helping out homosexuals, and instead he immediately relegated them to the closet, then told them "What are you gonna do about it? Turn to the Republicans? Vote Clinton in 96!" The whole thing was shameful, and I'm just glad we're finally starting to get past that unhealthy level of realpolitik.

 
2012-11-12 06:37:54 PM  

thunderbird8804: HighOnCraic: thunderbird8804: screwed over the gay community with DADT

It wasn't the ideal solution, but it was a halfway measure that allowed gays to serve without being questioned about their private lives. How is that screwing them over?

I hate to do it, but I'll just quote myself here:

thunderbird8804: I'm aware of what the right wants now, and what they wanted then, but the fact remains that Clinton ran in 92 on helping out homosexuals, and instead he immediately relegated them to the closet, then told them "What are you gonna do about it? Turn to the Republicans? Vote Clinton in 96!" The whole thing was shameful, and I'm just glad we're finally starting to get past that unhealthy level of realpolitik.


They were already in the closet; his admittedly crappy compromise prevented them from being forced out.

From wiki:

The "don't ask" part of the DADT policy specified that superiors should not initiate investigation of a servicemember's orientation without witnessing disallowed behaviors, though credible evidence of homosexual behavior could be used to initiate an investigation. Unauthorized investigations and harassment of suspected servicemen and women led to an expansion of the policy to "don't ask, don't tell, don't pursue, don't harass."

The full name of the policy at the time was "Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Pursue." The "Don't Ask" provision mandated that military or appointed officials will not ask about or require members to reveal their sexual orientation. The "Don't Tell" stated that a member may be discharged for claiming to be a homosexual or bisexual or making a statement indicating a tendency towards or intent to engage in homosexual activities. The "Don't Pursue" established what was minimally required for an investigation to be initiated. A "Don't Harass" provision was added to the policy later. It ensured that the military would not allow harassment or violence against service members for any reason.
 
2012-11-12 06:45:18 PM  
In twenty years there'll be a new MOST LIBERALIST PRESIDENT EVER and right-wing idiots will be talking about how they yearn for the days of Obama.
 
2012-11-12 06:46:49 PM  
Knows that feel bro . . .

2.bp.blogspot.com 

/Hot?
 
2012-11-12 07:25:29 PM  

Imperialism: In twenty years there'll be a new MOST LIBERALIST PRESIDENT EVER and right-wing idiots will be talking about how they yearn for the days of Obama.


If these guys are saying things like this then they must forget about what it was like back then. I remember. They HHHHAAATTEEEDDD Clinton like nothing I'd ever even heard of before. My dad seemed to have it summed up pretty good; they hated him because he wasn't establishment. He was a poor kid, raised by a single mother, never even met his father, got through college with academic accomplishment instead of legacy, and actually built his life himself instead of having it handed to him.

They loathed Clinton. Absolutely and totally. Even when he gave the right everything they wanted, they still spat when they said his name. He had the audacity to go above his position in society. How dare he actually make something of himself?? What if other poor people do that, who will our betters have to rule??? They hated him like European nobility hated Napoleon.

Obama is all of that plus he's black and has a funny name. I never thought the right could hate more than they hated Clinton. I guess that's because I never knew true hate.
 
2012-11-12 07:42:06 PM  

HighOnCraic: They were already in the closet; his admittedly crappy compromise prevented them from being forced out.


Compromise on what? His party was in control of both the house and senate when DADT was passed.
 
2012-11-12 08:03:19 PM  

thunderbird8804: HighOnCraic: They were already in the closet; his admittedly crappy compromise prevented them from being forced out.

Compromise on what? His party was in control of both the house and senate when DADT was passed.


It's been a long time, so I don't remember all the details, but from wiki:

"Congress rushed to enact the existing gay ban policy into federal law, outflanking Clinton's planned repeal effort. Clinton called for legislation to overturn the ban, but encountered intense opposition from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, members of Congress, and portions of the public. DADT emerged as a compromise policy."

I think he even faced opposition from within his own party from Sam Nunn.

Link
 
2012-11-12 08:23:59 PM  

HighOnCraic: thunderbird8804: HighOnCraic: They were already in the closet; his admittedly crappy compromise prevented them from being forced out.

Compromise on what? His party was in control of both the house and senate when DADT was passed.

It's been a long time, so I don't remember all the details, but from wiki:

"Congress rushed to enact the existing gay ban policy into federal law, outflanking Clinton's planned repeal effort. Clinton called for legislation to overturn the ban, but encountered intense opposition from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, members of Congress, and portions of the public. DADT emerged as a compromise policy."

I think he even faced opposition from within his own party from Sam Nunn.

Link


The democrats actually had enough of a majority to bypass the opposition in the senate, he was really appeasing the joint chiefs, which is a big mistake because you never want the military to dictate policy to the civilian government. It should, and needs to always be the other way around.
 
2012-11-12 08:28:37 PM  

thunderbird8804: HighOnCraic: thunderbird8804: HighOnCraic: They were already in the closet; his admittedly crappy compromise prevented them from being forced out.

Compromise on what? His party was in control of both the house and senate when DADT was passed.

It's been a long time, so I don't remember all the details, but from wiki:

"Congress rushed to enact the existing gay ban policy into federal law, outflanking Clinton's planned repeal effort. Clinton called for legislation to overturn the ban, but encountered intense opposition from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, members of Congress, and portions of the public. DADT emerged as a compromise policy."

I think he even faced opposition from within his own party from Sam Nunn.

Link

The democrats actually had enough of a majority to bypass the opposition in the senate, he was really appeasing the joint chiefs, which is a big mistake because you never want the military to dictate policy to the civilian government. It should, and needs to always be the other way around.


The policy at the time was to kick out gays; Clinton's compromise was to allow them to stay in the service as long as they weren't open about it, and the compromise prevented investigations and harassment. Not perfect, but hardly screwing them over.
 
2012-11-12 09:19:18 PM  

HighOnCraic: thunderbird8804: HighOnCraic: thunderbird8804: HighOnCraic: They were already in the closet; his admittedly crappy compromise prevented them from being forced out.

Compromise on what? His party was in control of both the house and senate when DADT was passed.

It's been a long time, so I don't remember all the details, but from wiki:

"Congress rushed to enact the existing gay ban policy into federal law, outflanking Clinton's planned repeal effort. Clinton called for legislation to overturn the ban, but encountered intense opposition from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, members of Congress, and portions of the public. DADT emerged as a compromise policy."

I think he even faced opposition from within his own party from Sam Nunn.

Link

The democrats actually had enough of a majority to bypass the opposition in the senate, he was really appeasing the joint chiefs, which is a big mistake because you never want the military to dictate policy to the civilian government. It should, and needs to always be the other way around.

The policy at the time was to kick out gays; Clinton's compromise was to allow them to stay in the service as long as they weren't open about it, and the compromise prevented investigations and harassment. Not perfect, but hardly screwing them over.


Once again, there was no need for a compromise. Clinton's party was in control of the house and the senate, with ample majorities in both to be able to pass something far better than DADT, and if they didn't feel like doing that through congress, Clinton could have just issued an executive order and the matter would be settled. Instead of doing that he relegated gay enlisted men and women to the closet for 17 years, and that was their reward for swallowing his bullshiat campaign promises and supporting his presidential run. Sorry, but they were screwed over.
 
2012-11-12 09:33:04 PM  

thunderbird8804: HighOnCraic: thunderbird8804: HighOnCraic: thunderbird8804: HighOnCraic: They were already in the closet; his admittedly crappy compromise prevented them from being forced out.

Compromise on what? His party was in control of both the house and senate when DADT was passed.

It's been a long time, so I don't remember all the details, but from wiki:

"Congress rushed to enact the existing gay ban policy into federal law, outflanking Clinton's planned repeal effort. Clinton called for legislation to overturn the ban, but encountered intense opposition from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, members of Congress, and portions of the public. DADT emerged as a compromise policy."

I think he even faced opposition from within his own party from Sam Nunn.

Link

The democrats actually had enough of a majority to bypass the opposition in the senate, he was really appeasing the joint chiefs, which is a big mistake because you never want the military to dictate policy to the civilian government. It should, and needs to always be the other way around.

The policy at the time was to kick out gays; Clinton's compromise was to allow them to stay in the service as long as they weren't open about it, and the compromise prevented investigations and harassment. Not perfect, but hardly screwing them over.

Once again, there was no need for a compromise. Clinton's party was in control of the house and the senate, with ample majorities in both to be able to pass something far better than DADT, and if they didn't feel like doing that through congress, Clinton could have just issued an executive order and the matter would be settled. Instead of doing that he relegated gay enlisted men and women to the closet for 17 years, and that was their reward for swallowing his bullshiat campaign promises and supporting his presidential run. Sorry, but they were screwed over.


I saw it as getting a small amount of progress vs. maintaining the status quo. We can agree to disagree. Peace!
 
2012-11-13 03:31:58 AM  
You liberals are forgetting about Hillary's trip down Whitewater. I for one am still angry and glad our GOP controlled house stood up and were willing to spend 40 million dollars to ghet him thrown out of office. It takes real heroes to pony up and take money out of their constituent's pockets to protect the constitution from the evil that was Clinton. However, it's much worse with this Nazi, fascist, communist, aithiest, seekret muslin, Kenyan usurper in the white house. No wonder the republicans were so successful in keeping the house this time around. I will proudly wear my flag pin in their honor.
 
2012-11-13 05:15:31 AM  

ha-ha-guy: Vodka Zombie: NowhereMon: I remember in 2000 I said that the Clinton years would be looked back on as a golden age and everyone laughed and laughed, but here we are. Low unemployment, no stupid wars, balanced budget were the best, who cares if he got a Beej.

As far as I care, he freakin' DESERVED the BJ.

My issue with that BJ is that Clinton made us look bad on the world stage with his ugly interns. If he'd been like Kennedy and tapping a movie star on the side it would have been much more acceptable.


You almost have to think that the reason why it never became an issue with JFK was because even his political enemies couldn't spin nailing Marilyn Monroe as a downside.
 
2012-11-13 07:17:52 AM  

ha-ha-guy: Vodka Zombie: NowhereMon: I remember in 2000 I said that the Clinton years would be looked back on as a golden age and everyone laughed and laughed, but here we are. Low unemployment, no stupid wars, balanced budget were the best, who cares if he got a Beej.

As far as I care, he freakin' DESERVED the BJ.

My issue with that BJ is that Clinton made us look bad on the world stage with his ugly interns. If he'd been like Kennedy and tapping a movie star on the side it would have been much more acceptable.


No. Most of us foreigners do not care about Clinton's sex life. Bush was much more damaging to the reputation of the US, and more recently the various horrid , medieval statements from some of your elected official regarding rape.
 
2012-11-13 07:25:34 AM  

Ambivalence: During the Bush administration democrats were nostalgic for Nixon. It really is a crazy world.


Nixon was actually quite liberal by today's standards.
 
Displayed 64 of 64 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report