Bill Clinton pounds Republicans for ‘sitting around just begging for America to fail’

originally posted by: Gryphon66

The Constitution is one of the most brilliant documents in human history.

It's a nice start but one that has lost it's elected (LOL) leaders and I doubt the leaders will agree with that being all so important as a whole. Think they are trampling all over it as a matter of fact.

originally posted by: hillbilly4rent
Slick willy is one to talk about America failing. With NAFTA, the patriot act, failed foreign policy, socialized medical, ties to FBI and the Kennedy assassination, the lose of personal freedoms, my kids belong to the state, warntless wire tapping, murder and white water, lust and perversions, NSA spying on everyone. Need I go on.

Yes you do....The only thing you listed above that is negative toward Clinton is his "failed foreign policy" and that is just your opinion! Clinton would be welcomed by me back in office if this is your "$hit list"....Try that with Obama and Bush, see how much larger and more important to the USA those lists are...

a reply to: Connman

It's not merely a nice start.

The Constitution has guided our development for over 220 years.

Current crops of politicians come and go.

The system is sound.

originally posted by: randomtangentsrme
The GOP is not begging for America to fail, they see the failure of the health care bill as it stands right now.
As do some democrats.

While I'm not a huge Bill Clinton fan, I have to admit that he's mostly right on this one.

While I wouldn't go so far as to say they "wanted America to fail," they sure as hell wanted our President to fail and at one time, they even stated that was "their number one goal."

Once they made that declaration, they chose obstructionism as the primary tool in their attempt to accomplish that goal.

Furthermore, most of what's wrong with the ACA today, are policies that were put there in a futile attempt to break the obstructionism and appease republicans.

Namely, "the individual mandate" which originated from the Heritage Foundation, (a right-wing conservative think tank) as a means by which to institute "personal responsibility."

originally posted by: randomtangentsrme
Should we not be looking at ways to make things better, or should we just toe party lines and go along with whatever our elected leaders tell us?

Yes we should, but therein lies the next hurdle to overcome. Which is the fact that the two political parties have opposite views of what that "fix" should look like.

I think that democrats, (myself included) have felt all along that the ultimate goal is to institute a not-for-profit, "single payer" healthcare system and that the original compromise to include the "personal mandate" was an unfortunate but necessary step towards accomplishing that goal.

If republicans had their way, they would have already repealed the ACA, in totality, on too many occasions to count. Most republican controlled states are still refusing to set up state healthcare exchanges, choosing to file endless legal challenges as opposed to making any attempt to "fix" the legislation.

And that's just with respect to healthcare. I won't even go into blocked presidential appointments, shutting down the govt. etc..

While they may not have "wanted to see America fail," they sure as hell haven't done one thing to help her succeed.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: greencmp

The phenomenon is called cognitive dissonance.

Denial of reality might also be appropriate.

TO BE OVERT: Denying reality or not being able to accept obvious facts in front of you.

Wow, you are a true believer with obviously no objectivity.

There's nothing at all wrong with our Government.

Wow again, you are a true believer with obviously much to learn.

It would be sad if you weren't throwing everyone else under the bus with you.

a reply to: greencmp

Honestly, you have no idea what I believe in. Your posts, on the other hand, have only two categories for all other ATS members: those who you think agree with you and those who don't.

I'm not interested in personal comments. Did you have something factual to comment on?

FACT: Our system of Government has lasted longer in the modern world than virtually any other. There is nothing wrong with the Government, there is something wrong with the people we elect to be in it.

Step aside from your preconceptions and your desire to make everything personal.

In the comment of yours that I responded to, you had been presented with facts. You even acknowledged those facts. And yet, you ask for some economist ... or anyone else ... who can explain to you why those facts are NOT true, NOT correct because your expressed political ideology won't permit it.

Thus cognitive dissonance and denial of reality ... in your post.

I have no idea of who you are as a person. I am only commenting on your post(s).

Would you do me the same courtesy?

a reply to: Gryphon66

I started by making a concession that buster made a valid point and it should be investigated.

You made an attack on me for some unknown reason that I suppose you will explain below:

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: greencmp

The phenomenon is called cognitive dissonance.

Denial of reality might also be appropriate.

TO BE OVERT: Denying reality or not being able to accept obvious facts in front of you.

You say that there is nothing wrong with our government, it is only the office holders du jour.

I think I have a pretty good idea what kind of person you are.

a reply to: greencmp

Why is that an attack on you? I critiqued your post.

Your post exhibited what I described; you were presented with facts and you want to find a reason not to accept them.

Do you understand the difference between a system of government and those that currently occupy the government?

Perhaps you're missing that point. When I say Government I am referring to our SYSTEM of GOVERNMENT, as outlined in the US Constitution and over 200 years of component laws.

Again, I don't care what you think you know about me. It's not relevant. Stick to the facts and stick to the evidence.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Thanks for backing off, would you like to have a polite conversation now?

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: randomtangentsrme
The GOP is not begging for America to fail, they see the failure of the health care bill as it stands right now.
As do some democrats.

While I'm not a huge Bill Clinton fan, I have to admit that he's mostly right on this one.

While I wouldn't go so far as to say they "wanted America to fail," they sure as hell wanted our President to fail and at one time, they even stated that was "their number one goal."

Once they made that declaration, they chose obstructionism as the primary tool in their attempt to accomplish that goal.

Furthermore, most of what's wrong with the ACA today, are policies that were put there in a futile attempt to break the obstructionism and appease republicans.

Namely, "the individual mandate" which originated from the Heritage Foundation, (a right-wing conservative think tank) as a means by which to institute "personal responsibility."

originally posted by: randomtangentsrme
Should we not be looking at ways to make things better, or should we just toe party lines and go along with whatever our elected leaders tell us?

Yes we should, but therein lies the next hurdle to overcome. Which is the fact that the two political parties have opposite views of what that "fix" should look like.

I think that democrats, (myself included) have felt all along that the ultimate goal is to institute a not-for-profit, "single payer" healthcare system and that the original compromise to include the "personal mandate" was an unfortunate but necessary step towards accomplishing that goal.

If republicans had their way, they would have already repealed the ACA, in totality, on too many occasions to count. Most republican controlled states are still refusing to set up state healthcare exchanges, choosing to file endless legal challenges as opposed to making any attempt to "fix" the legislation.

And that's just with respect to healthcare. I won't even go into blocked presidential appointments, shutting down the govt. etc..

While they may not have "wanted to see America fail," they sure as hell haven't done one thing to help her succeed.

Nope,the ACA is all Democrat,they own it,now they can reap the whirlwind.

a reply to: greencmp

I haven't backed off of anything, and further I haven't been impolite in any way. Report my posts if you still feel slighted. I still maintain that your post trying to ignore the facts that Buster linked exhibits both cognitive dissonance and denial of reality.

Why not dig down into evidence and counter-claims with backup? If you don't believe what was presented, do some research and discover other EVIDENCE for what you believe to be true.

That's what we're doing here at ATS; our best to ferret out the truth. Remember? "Deny Ignorance."

I would love to have a fact-based conversation with you. Have at it!

a reply to: Gryphon66

I already referenced the post which I found to be combative.

Now you say uncle but, don't say uncle.

Which is it? Am I a fool for asking why there is some evidence for economic expansion under Democratic administrations or not?

a reply to: Sunwolf

Even though the component parts of ACA that are so repellant (individual mandate, tax penalties, exchanges) began with the conservative Heritage Foundation and have been part and parcel of every Republican healthcare reform plan submitted in the last 20 years?

Yes, believe it or not, Republicans did submit legislation, once upon a time.

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: Gryphon66

I already referenced the post which I found to be combative.

Now you say uncle but, don't say uncle.

Which is it? Am I a fool for asking why there is some evidence for economic expansion under Democratic administrations or not?

You're apparently only interested in personal commentary.

There was economic expansion under Democratic administrations. That is an independent fact. The evidence is provided for you. But you weren't asking for evidence of that fact, were you? Here's what you said:

originally posted by: greencmp

There is some truth to this. I can't explain it completely.

I believe it is partially false due to skewed measurements but, it can't be a complete mistake/coincidence.

Hopefully a resident economist here could help to enlighten us, it deserves explanation.

So, where are the "skewed measurements" you're referring to. Why would you assume that? Because you know that Democrats don't advance the economy?

You're more interested in "scoring points" in some contest I'm not in friend.

I promise to ignore your posts in the future; please do me the same courtesy.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: Gryphon66

I already referenced the post which I found to be combative.

Now you say uncle but, don't say uncle.

Which is it? Am I a fool for asking why there is some evidence for economic expansion under Democratic administrations or not?

You're apparently only interested in personal commentary.

There was economic expansion under Democratic administrations. That is an independent fact. The evidence is provided for you. But you weren't asking for evidence of that fact, were you? Here's what you said:

originally posted by: greencmp

There is some truth to this. I can't explain it completely.

I believe it is partially false due to skewed measurements but, it can't be a complete mistake/coincidence.

Hopefully a resident economist here could help to enlighten us, it deserves explanation.

So, where are the "skewed measurements" you're referring to. Why would you assume that? Because you know that Democrats don't advance the economy?

You're more interested in "scoring points" in some contest I'm not in friend.

I promise to ignore your posts in the future; please do me the same courtesy.

I think that there are many factors which could account for the vast majority of it.

For instance, Keynesian stimulus spending does have an economic effect and will temporarily boost the amount of activity in a market. The increases are accounted for in the context of the contemporary valuation of the currency pre-inflationary devaluation.

Also, no doubt these are carefully manipulated statistics just as our official numbers are (such as unemployment).

Bill Clinton was and is a politician. He did a good job as President by most objective measures, and left with an approval rating higher than anyone who has followed him.

He lied about a very personal matter to his chagrin and embarrassment.

His Administration does mark the relentless partisan politics that now plague our country though; that is a fact.

Is what the President said true or not? Whether you like him or not is irrelevant.

The current crop of Republicans have made it their entire legislative agenda to make certain that Barack Obama and his policies failed. They have offered NOTHING proactive in place of Obama's policies.

Is that true or not? If it is, Mr. Clinton is correct.

Every economic situation is more complex than a few lines can describe.

To pretend otherwise is fallacious. Our economic performance at any given time (or even for a given period) is honestly dependent on thousands if not millions of individual factors.

Supply-side economic policy coupled with gutless deregulation has proven itself to be a failure repeatedly.

Even GHW Bush called supply-side "voodoo."

I think that was the last thing he said that made sense.

a reply to: Chrisfishenstein

Yes you do....The only thing you listed above that is negative toward Clinton is his "failed foreign policy" and that is just your opinion! Clinton would be welcomed by me back in office if this is your "$hit list"....Try that with Obama and Bush, see how much larger and more important to the USA those lists are...

Faild foreign policy, that was reserved for the last nine POTUS'S. As for the negative that is not an opinion white water ring a bell and I guess the hole sexual perversion with a intern or what " is" is. Was it just a bad soap opera i cought on the telly, My bad, and for the list well that was just the cliff notes from the last nine administrations.

originally posted by: hillbilly4rent
a reply to: Chrisfishenstein

Yes you do....The only thing you listed above that is negative toward Clinton is his "failed foreign policy" and that is just your opinion! Clinton would be welcomed by me back in office if this is your "$hit list"....Try that with Obama and Bush, see how much larger and more important to the USA those lists are...

Faild foreign policy, that was reserved for the last nine POTUS'S. As for the negative that is not an opinion white water ring a bell and I guess the hole sexual perversion with a intern or what " is" is. Was it just a bad soap opera i cought on the telly, My bad, and for the list well that was just the cliff notes from the last nine administrations.

So you don't like him because he gets BJ's in the oval office? Wait, name a man in that office who hasn't? Just because he was caught does not make that something I can't live with when he did perfectly fine in office minus a few minor details...If that is what someone is seen as being "negative", I will take that all day compared to the garbage we have had for the last 16 (almost) years....

a reply to: Onslaught2996

Actual conservatism: Small, efficient government. Government only as big or small as is required.

Far right conservatism: Government small enough to drown in the bathtub as Grover Norquist used to say.

The current GOP with it's shift to the right is trying to reconcile this...

There is an apocalyptic streak amongst conservatives that see government failure as victory.

Government needs to lose weight...And while many democrats are blind to that truth, far right conservatives would like to lose the weight by amputating limbs.