# The why Bill Clinton may or may not be the antichrist thread



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Per 32's excellent suggestion, let's keep any OLD Bill or Hillary Clinton topics in here.



32rollandrock said:


> I think we should establish a Clinton thread. In my opinion, the only reason Republicans hate him, and his wife, so much is that he, with his wife at his side, was an extremely good president, regardless of his personal predilections, and they just can't stand it. They hate, hate, hate that he was able to stand up at his final state of the union address and point to how much better he left the country than he found it. Here's the beginning:
> 
> Mr. Speaker, Mr. Vice President, members of Congress, honored guests, my fellow Americans:
> We are fortunate to be alive at this moment in history. (Applause.) Never before has our nation enjoyed, at once, so much prosperity and social progress with so little internal crisis and so few external threats. Never before have we had such a blessed opportunity -- and, therefore, such a profound obligation -- to build the more perfect union of our founders' dreams.
> ...


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

So, I'll start - why do you think he was an extremely good president?

What specific policies did he push and get passed and what were their effects?


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

vpkozel said:


> So, I'll start - why do you think he was an extremely good president?
> 
> What specific policies did he push and get passed and what were their effects?


Excellent question.

I think that he deserves credit for welfare reform. Was it perfect? No. Considering the inertia built up over the years, I think that it is unrealistic to expect that a culture of welfare/dependency could be changed overnight. Personal anecdotes are always dangerous, but I know of at least two cases where people I knew got up off their butts and got jobs who had been on the dole for years once the government set limits on how long a person could collect benefits. One was the sibling of a former girlfriend. She'd been pumping out babies with regularity and collecting checks and watching soap operas. Prodded by limits on how long benefits would be paid, she got a job at Goodwill, then went on to get a job at Costco, which offers pretty good pay and benefits. At last report--it's admittedly been awhile--she owned a home. And unemployment rates, particularly among minorities, fell considerably after the reform law took effect.

In his push for welfare reform, Clinton went against the wishes and customs of the traditional Democratic base. His ability to work with Newt Gingrich and other Republicans on this is an excellent example of Clinton's political skills. He was remarkably talented at taking what the defense gave instead of digging his heels in with resulting quagmire. Couldn't accomplish health care reform? OK, let's move on to something we can get done.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

*The Perjury Question*

Even the most ardent defenders of Clinton acknowledge that he screwed up, and royally, by lying while under oath. There is no excuse. So, what should he have done? On the one hand, he could have told the truth, which would have been preferable to what he did. I would argue, however, that he should have refused to answer the question and made an impassioned statement, told the questioners that they were a pack of scuzz ball low-life $400-per-hour rats interested only in scoring political points, which was the truth. He should have made his case with a court reporter present that this was little more than a political witch hunt--go from being the hunted to the hunter, so to speak. He surely would have ended up in a show-cause proceeding (I think that's the term) if he had done that, and once he was hauled before a judge, he could admit the truth. But not before he called out the opposition in eloquent terms (he could be pretty eloquent). If he had done this, I think it would have nullified the attack and rallied the public in his favor.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> *The Perjury Question*
> 
> Even the most ardent defenders of Clinton acknowledge that he screwed up, and royally, by lying while under oath. There is no excuse. So, what should he have done? On the one hand, he could have told the truth, which would have been preferable to what he did. I would argue, however, that he should have refused to answer the question and made an impassioned statement, told the questioners that they were a pack of scuzz ball low-life $400-per-hour rats interested only in scoring political points, which was the truth. He should have made his case with a court reporter present that this was little more than a political witch hunt--go from being the hunted to the hunter, so to speak. He surely would have ended up in a show-cause proceeding (I think that's the term) if he had done that, and once he was hauled before a judge, he could admit the truth. But not before he called out the opposition in eloquent terms (he could be pretty eloquent). If he had done this, I think it would have nullified the attack and rallied the public in his favor.


He had already been compelled to be deposed by a federal judge, and since he was under oath, he had no choice but to answer the question. He had already tried every legal dodge that HIS pack of scuzz ball low-life $400-per-hour rats interested only in scoring political points could come up with and even taken it to the highest court in the land and failed.

Basically, he was SOL but he still thought he could lie his way out of it.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

MaxBuck said:


> Was Clinton convicted of perjury? No. "At least get the facts straight."
> 
> I rest my case.


Where have I said anything about conviction of perjury? And you are aware that he admitted to false statements as part of a plea, correct?


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

vpkozel said:


> He had already been compelled to be deposed by a federal judge, and since he was under oath, he had no choice but to answer the question. He had already tried every legal dodge that HIS pack of scuzz ball low-life $400-per-hour rats interested only in scoring political points could come up with and even taken it to the highest court in the land and failed.
> 
> Basically, he was SOL but he still thought he could lie his way out of it.


Disagree.

No one can force anyone to open their mouth and say anything, and no one ever hung for something they didn't say. What I am suggesting is, there are courts and there are courts. In this case, there was a court of law and a court of public opinion. When the president is involved, the latter can be of equal, or even greater, importance. Ask Andrew Jackson.

What would they have done if he had refused to answer the question, thrown him in jail? Put him on the rack? Waterboarded him? Not hardly. Now, it may be argued that the president is not above the law, and I would agree with that. However, as president, like it or not, he had certain latitude not available to the ordinary Joe. We have to remember here, this wasn't Watergate. It was about a flimsy lawsuit brought by someone who never would have gotten in the courthouse but for her target's name and position and the willingness of the target's enemies to pay for a bunch of $400-per-hour scuzz balls who did a disservice to the term good German. If he had refused to answer the question during deposition, he would have been hauled before a judge, sure, and he eventually would have lost and been forced to answer the question. But he could have prolonged it for a pretty fair stretch, I would imagine. My guess is, given his position, the judge would have hit him with a fine, likely a per-day one that would have been pretty steep. Fine. He had access to money, and he knew that he would command a pretty fair speaking fee post presidency. And he had no hard assets. Go ahead, get a judgment. There was nothing to seize. Garnish his wages--it wasn't like he didn't have a place to sleep or food to eat or transportation. My point is, he could have, I think, chosen his time and place for an And Justice For All moment a la Al Pacino that could have turned him, at least in the eyes of the public, which was critical, into the victim, which is exactly what he was. Instead, he did the indefensible and lied. The only thing the Supremes did was rule that the lawsuit could go forward, and so he had to be deposed. They never ruled that he had to answer questions submitted during deposition. Not even close, although, as I say, he would, eventually, have had to do that. But he could have done it more on his own terms, I think, and blunted the attack. C'mon--anyone with half a brain already knew that he couldn't keep his pants zipped, and most folks, I suspect, would think it's a matter between himself and Mrs. Clinton. He didn't drive that point home as hard as he could or should have, I think. Instead, he lied.

As for his attorneys, why do you call them rats?


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Also, I think that it is instructive here that the perjury question has been latched onto before the policy question. That's the way it is with Clinton haters. They never want to talk about his accomplishments. All they want to talk about is Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky and how Clinton lied under oath. OK, you're right: He lied under oath. We get it. Not to diminish the wrongness of doing that, but let's move on. Or we can keep rehashing it to death.


----------



## Brio1 (May 13, 2010)

I recommend this book by my late friend Christopher Hitchens : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_One_Left_to_Lie_To


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Bill Clinton just happened to govern during a time of relative peace and prosperity. There were certainly problems brewing and under currents and hints of things to come post 9/11 but otherwise we were all fat and happy and we didn't care that we had a sexual pervert in the white house. 

Was he a good president? I'm not sure he was really tested. I don't think he took the threat of Islamic radicalism and terrorism seriously enough but then again we are a country generally slow to action.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

32rollandrock said:


> Also, I think that it is instructive here that the perjury question has been latched onto before the policy question. That's the way it is with Clinton haters. They never want to talk about his accomplishments. All they want to talk about is Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky and how Clinton lied under oath. OK, you're right: He lied under oath. We get it. Not to diminish the wrongness of doing that, but let's move on. Or we can keep rehashing it to death.


But we have to establish facts and put to rest myths.

Was he disbarred for lying to the American people while wagging his finger about not having sex with that woman?? (No)

He was disbarred for lying under oath during a deposition regarding a civil sexual harassment case.

Not part of a Congressional witch hunt.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

32rollandrock said:


> In his push for welfare reform, Clinton went against the wishes and customs of the traditional Democratic base. His ability to work with Newt Gingrich and other Republicans on this is an excellent example of Clinton's political skills. He was remarkably talented at taking what the defense gave instead of digging his heels in with resulting quagmire. Couldn't accomplish health care reform? OK, let's move on to something we can get done.


Good point.

"The days of Big Government are over"

Those were the days!!


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> Also, I think that it is instructive here that the perjury question has been latched onto before the policy question. That's the way it is with Clinton haters. They never want to talk about his accomplishments. All they want to talk about is Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky and how Clinton lied under oath. OK, you're right: He lied under oath. We get it. Not to diminish the wrongness of doing that, but let's move on. Or we can keep rehashing it to death.


Or it was late and the facts of the timeline of the perjury and Jones case are clearly and definitively established, so it was just easier to respond to than the other one.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

vpkozel said:


> Where have I said anything about conviction of perjury? And you are aware that he admitted to false statements as part of a plea, correct?


You *accused* him of committing perjury. I corrected your misperception. And yes, I'm aware of what he admitted to. Doesn't trouble me in the least.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

MaxBuck said:


> You *accused* him of committing perjury. I corrected your misperception. And yes, I'm aware of what he admitted to. Doesn't trouble me in the least.


Indeed.

Is there is a man amongst us who has not tried to wriggle out of admitting to a compromising sexual encounter?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Shaver said:


> Indeed.
> 
> Is there is a man amongst us who has not tried to wriggle out of admitting to a compromising sexual encounter?


Under Oath??

No me.

How about you??


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Under Oath??
> 
> No me.
> 
> How about you??


No, never. As God's my witness.

:devil:


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Shaver said:


> Indeed.
> 
> Is there is a man amongst us who has not tried to wriggle out of admitting to a compromising sexual encounter?


I spent most of my youth trying to wriggle *INTO* such encounters!


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> I spent most of my youth trying to wriggle *INTO* such encounters!


^^^This.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

MaxBuck said:


> You *accused* him of committing perjury. I corrected your misperception. And yes, I'm aware of what he admitted to. Doesn't trouble me in the least.


I did not accuse him of anything. He lied. Under oath. And admitted it.

That is perjury, you are welcome to keep spinning it all you want otherwise if you like though. But them's the facts.


----------



## Brio1 (May 13, 2010)

Shaver said:


> No, never. As God's my witness.
> 
> :devil:


Which god ? (I will enquire.) Perhaps Thor ? :icon_viking:


----------



## Brio1 (May 13, 2010)

Should Hillary be placed in the pillory ? :idea: :laughing:


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

I think that someone else might have said it, but it has to be a lie about a material fact. I'm the last one to say that anyone should lie about anything under oath. I'm not defending Clinton for doing it. Does it rise to perjury? Not sure. First off, the underlying lawsuit was BS, as was eventually proved out by the settlement for, in the scheme of things, go-away money. He was accused of sexual harassment, and he opened the door to that accusation by failing to keep his pants zipped in the presence of an underling. He had a habit of doing that, as the Lewinsky affair proved out. However, having sex with underlings isn't necessarily illegal or actionable, although it is incredibly stupid. Stupidity isn't illegal, nor is having sex with consenting underlings. So, lying about Lewinsky would be, it seems to me, a material fact only insofar as proving up a case that Clinton stupidly had sex with consenting underlings.

I don't think that it's debatable that if Paula Jones had visited a lawyer and said "I had a sexual encounter with my boss, who runs the local auto parts store," she would have been shown the door. She had zero case when it came to proving any kind of harassment whatsoever, and a court ruled she had suffered no damages. Clinton's punishment for not telling the truth under oath was tiny--a $1,200 fine and reimbursement to the other side for legal expenses and a suspension of his bar license that was essentially meaningless, given that he wasn't a practicing lawyer and no intention of practicing law. What we're left with is the inescapable conclusion that Clinton's enemies went after him because they could, because they would stop at absolutely nothing to destroy the man. They should be ashamed of themselves.

Let's talk about don't-ask-don't-tell. I think Clinton deserves praise for that. Granted, it sounds silly today, but it wasn't back then, given the tenor of the times. I think that it was an important step toward establishing civil rights and equality for gay people, however imperfect it admittedly was. It was, I think, an example of Clinton as a pragmatist, understanding the political/societal restraints, understanding that something is better than nothing and taking as much as the defense would give to move forward.



vpkozel said:


> I did not accuse him of anything. He lied. Under oath. And admitted it.
> 
> That is perjury, you are welcome to keep spinning it all you want otherwise if you like though. But them's the facts.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Shaver said:


> Indeed.
> 
> Is there is a man amongst us who has not tried to wriggle out of admitting to a compromising sexual encounter?


I did NOT have sexual relations with my pug.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> I think that someone else might have said it, but it has to be a lie about a material fact. I'm the last one to say that anyone should lie about anything under oath. I'm not defending Clinton for doing it. Does it rise to perjury? Not sure. First off, the underlying lawsuit was BS, as was eventually proved out by the settlement for, in the scheme of things, go-away money. He was accused of sexual harassment, and he opened the door to that accusation by failing to keep his pants zipped in the presence of an underling. He had a habit of doing that, as the Lewinsky affair proved out. However, having sex with underlings isn't necessarily illegal or actionable, although it is incredibly stupid. Stupidity isn't illegal, nor is having sex with consenting underlings. So, lying about Lewinsky would be, it seems to me, a material fact only insofar as proving up a case that Clinton stupidly had sex with consenting underlings.
> 
> I don't think that it's debatable that if Paula Jones had visited a lawyer and said "I had a sexual encounter with my boss, who runs the local auto parts store," she would have been shown the door. She had zero case when it came to proving any kind of harassment whatsoever, and a court ruled she had suffered no damages. Clinton's punishment for not telling the truth under oath was tiny--a $1,200 fine and reimbursement to the other side for legal expenses and a suspension of his bar license that was essentially meaningless, given that he wasn't a practicing lawyer and no intention of practicing law. What we're left with is the inescapable conclusion that Clinton's enemies went after him because they could, because they would stop at absolutely nothing to destroy the man. They should be ashamed of themselves.


Look, I understand that I am tilting at windmills here because those who want to defend Clinton really either don't want to hear the truth or will actively ignore it. But a federal judge compelled him to give the deposition in the Jones case. The same judge held him in contempt for " "false, misleading and evasive answers that were designed to obstruct the judicial process."

As to merit of Jones' claims and the importance of establishing a pattern (emphasis added)

"There is no clear definition of a "hostile work environment." It can occur where jokes, suggestive remarks, physical interference with movement (such as blocking one's path), pictures, cartoons, or sexually derogatory comments alter the circumstances of the workplace. *Generally, repeated conduct is required to prove a hostile work environment, *and a "stray comment" has been held not to alter the working conditions sufficiently to create a cause of action. However, some comments or conduct can be so severe that a single incident can create liability.

It does not matter whether the alleged harasser intended the conduct to be harassing or complimentary. *Rather, the conduct is evaluated from the perspective of the victim. Thus, in Ellison v. Brady (924 F.2d 872 (9th Cir. 1991)), the trial court found that there was no harassment, characterizing the defendant employer as an inept Don Juan rather than a wrongdoer. The Ninth Circuit rejected the "reasonable person" standard utilized by the trial court since it "tends to be male biased and systematically ignores the experiences of women." Rather, the circuit court found that if a "reasonable woman" would find the conduct severe and pervasive enough to alter the terms and conditions of employment such that an offensive environment was created, then sexual harassment can be found."*

Again - none of those are my words. If you disagree with the interpretation, then that is fine, but I venture to say that a federal judge and the ABA know more about these things than anyone on this board.



> Let's talk about don't-ask-don't-tell. I think Clinton deserves praise for that. Granted, it sounds silly today, but it wasn't back then, given the tenor of the times. I think that it was an important step toward establishing civil rights and equality for gay people, however imperfect it admittedly was. It was, I think, an example of Clinton as a pragmatist, understanding the political/societal restraints, understanding that something is better than nothing and taking as much as the defense would give to move forward.


This is a very good one and I don't think that it has caused nearly as many issues as its detractors initially claimed it would. I also think that this was another case of using the armed forces as an agent for positive societal change (desegregation being another one).

Also, it may surprise you, but I don't think Clinton was a particularly bad person or a bad president. But he was the first remotely effective Dem president in a generation and people are so desperate for him to be seen as a success that they are willing to ignore any shortcomings.

Personally, I don't think that you can really being to gauge a president until 2 or more generations after his death when people no longer have a self interest in defending or propping him up. The 2 most glaring examples of this in recent history are Truman and Kennedy.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

The facts is the facts. What you say about what the judge said may be true, but what, ultimately, was the punishment? A $1,200 fine, plus he had to pay something like 75 grand to the other side to compensate them for legal expenses. Peanuts, really, and it doesn't change the fact that the underlying lawsuit was flimsy, filed only to "get" Clinton. As I have said multiple times, lying under oath is inexcusable, even if it doesn't amount to perjury. I am absolutely not defending Clinton for doing that.

I'm not impressed by Ellison v. Brady. I'm much more interested in the fact that the court in the Clinton case found that Jones suffered no damages. I repeat: The court, in the instant case, said that she suffered no damages. And lawyers don't take cases if there are no damages because if there are no damages, then lawyers don't get paid, and it should not have been difficult for lawyers of this caliber to evaluate the case early on and see that there were no damages. So why'd they do it? You and I both know the answer to that.

It wasn't exactly a witch hunt, at least in the classic sense of witch hunt, but it wasn't far off. History is going to hold Clinton in much higher regard than the paid hounds who went after him, as well as the sleaze balls who paid the bills. Look how it divided the country. Look at the ridiculous soap opera disguised as impeachment proceedings, with the end result known before the silliness even started. What did that accomplish except further dirty up and embarrass Clinton while also embarrassing the entire nation in the eyes of a world that, understandably, couldn't figure out what all the fuss was about? Impeachment proceedings are for guys like Nixon who should have gone to jail, not for someone who screws up while in the crosshairs of stop-at-nothing Republicans who couldn't spell "class" if you spotted them everything except the "c" and "l"--which is exactly what they collectively were. Government has important things to do, and they wasted time and resources and political capital on this. Inexcusable. We'll never know, of course, but perhaps if Clinton hadn't been distracted by the Paula Jones/Lewinsky silliness, he might have had more time to devote to stuff that matters like foreign policy and the economy and turned out to be an even better president than he was, and, as I've said before, I think that he was a pretty darn good president. I'd much rather have a president who lied about oral sex than a war-monger president who lied to start a needless conflict that cost tens of thousands of lives, helped destabilize the Middle East and cost us an untold amount of prestige and trust in the world. No way--no way--that Clinton would have done that. I think that's a safe statement.

I'm much more disappointed in Clinton for the "I didn't inhale" line than just about anything else he ever did or said during the Paula Jones/Lewinsky affair. That says more, I think, about his admittedly flawed character than anything he said or did in the PJ case.



vpkozel said:


> Look, I understand that I am tilting at windmills here because those who want to defend Clinton really either don't want to hear the truth or will actively ignore it. But a federal judge compelled him to give the deposition in the Jones case. The same judge held him in contempt for " "false, misleading and evasive answers that were designed to obstruct the judicial process."
> 
> As to merit of Jones' claims and the importance of establishing a pattern (emphasis added)
> 
> ...


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

vpkozel said:


> He lied. Under oath. ... That is perjury ... them's the facts.


No, those aren't the facts. Perjury requires materiality, a subtlety you refuse to acknowledge.

I trust you are not a judge. I certainly hope that if you are, you'll study this further until you understand it.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

vpkozel said:


> ... I don't think Clinton was a particularly bad person or a bad president. But he was the first remotely effective Dem president in a generation and people are so desperate for him to be seen as a success that they are willing to ignore any shortcomings.


Just a clarification: I certainly don't ignore Clinton's shortcomings. I just don't think they're particularly germane in evaluating his performance as POTUS. Similarly, the fact that Hitler was a charming watercolorist with a particular subtlety of line doesn't affect the fact that he was a monster who was personally responsible for mass murder of millions.

I'm not "desperate for Clinton to be seen as a success;" history will judge him better than any of us here can, I think. As a lifelong Republican who never voted for him, I still regard him as perhaps the most effective POTUS of my lifetime overall. (Reagan was incredible in the foreign-policy arena, yet started us down the spend-like-a-drunken-sailor path that we haven't a chance of escaping before I die.)


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

MaxBuck said:


> Just a clarification: I certainly don't ignore Clinton's shortcomings. I just don't think they're particularly germane in evaluating his performance as POTUS. Similarly, the fact that Hitler was a charming watercolorist with a particular subtlety of line doesn't affect the fact that he was a monster who was personally responsible for mass murder of millions.
> 
> I'm not "desperate for Clinton to be seen as a success;" history will judge him better than any of us here can, I think. As a lifelong Republican who never voted for him, I still regard him as perhaps the most effective POTUS of my lifetime overall. (Reagan was incredible in the foreign-policy arena, yet started us down the spend-like-a-drunken-sailor path that we haven't a chance of escaping before I die.)


Invoking Hitler in a discussion such as this is offensive, regardless of which side of the issue you stand on.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

32rollandrock said:


> Invoking Hitler in a discussion such as this is offensive, regardless of which side of the issue you stand on.


Oh, baloney. I didn't compare anyone to Hitler; all I did was point out that a good characteristic of a person doesn't negate their bad ones, and vice versa.

This sort of moralizing is nonsensical. "Thou shalt not invoke the name of an objectionable human in any other discussion." Pfui.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

MaxBuck said:


> Oh, baloney. I didn't compare anyone to Hitler; all I did was point out that a good characteristic of a person doesn't negate their bad ones, and vice versa.
> 
> This sort of moralizing is nonsensical. "Thou shalt not invoke the name of an objectionable human in any other discussion." Pfui.


Still think it's wrong. Sorry.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I'm in between. I see what Max was doing and don't have a problem with it. However, a lot of people will react the way RollandRock did. I can see where a lot of people will miss Max's point because of what RollandRock is referring to.

Max makes a good point. I just hope people's emotions don't keep them from understanding the point.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Agree with Max's point, just that it could be made as strongly without the AH reference. I guess that puts me at risk of being labeled politically correct, which I would not like. And I'm sure that Max didn't intend to offend.


----------



## bernoulli (Mar 21, 2011)

So the only criticism of Clinton is if the lied on a stupid case? Man, he was a good president then!

And I don't believe in the exogenous argument - he was lucky that everything was going alright. Accountability means he takes the blame for the stupid things he did and the nod for presiding over strong prosperity - he even introduced major reforms. All in all, seems like a great president indeed.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

bernoulli said:


> So the only criticism of Clinton is if the lied on a stupid case? Man, he was a good president then!
> 
> And I don't believe in the exogenous argument - he was lucky that everything was going alright. Accountability means he takes the blame for the stupid things he did and the nod for presiding over strong prosperity - he even introduced major reforms. All in all, seems like a great president indeed.


True to a point. We should remember, though, that neither Harding nor Coolidge were great shakes. One of the bigger questions might be, could Clinton have done something to ward off the rise of Islamic fundamentalism? I tend to think not, but have an open mind.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

32rollandrock said:


> True to a point. We should remember, though, that neither Harding nor Coolidge were great shakes. One of the bigger questions might be, could Clinton have done something to ward off the rise of Islamic fundamentalism? I tend to think not, but have an open mind.


Criticizing Clinton for not preventing the rise of Islamic extremism (and some right-wing pundits have done just that) strikes me as being about as reasonable as blaming Reagan for failing to prove Einstein's Unified Field Theory.

BTW, my comment above referencing a certain dead German dictator was not intended to ruffle any feathers.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

MaxBuck said:


> Criticizing Clinton for not preventing the rise of Islamic extremism (and some right-wing pundits have done just that) strikes me as being about as reasonable as blaming Reagan for failing to prove Einstein's Unified Field Theory.
> 
> BTW, my comment above referencing a certain dead German dictator was not intended to ruffle any feathers.


Understood. We're cool, so far as I'm concerned. You have a record of saying stuff that makes sense. But Reagan really should be held accountable for his laughable "grasp" of quantum physics. Inexcusable, really.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

This one will be tough to shake: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/...ackage-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news


----------

