Opinion of Bill Clinton as a president and as a person

[Thunderbird is the word]

I could give two sh**ts about the Lewinsky scandal, that was between consenting adults. I more care about the fact that he was responsible for the death of half a million Iraqis, bombed an aspirin factory which led to widespread shortages, decimated the U.S. manufacturing base while gutting welfare, expanded the police state, firebombed U.S. citizens and executed a mentally retarded man just to appear tough on crime. Bill Clinton is a loathsome human being on multiple levels.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I could give two sh**ts about the Lewinsky scandal, that was between consenting adults.

I mean, if you want to argue that an intern in her early twenties has meaningful powers of consent with the most powerful man in the world, who is twice her age and married to somebody else, sure.

Oh, well. 'Between consenting adults' is so often used as a figleaf to cover for the fact that something can't be considered moral by any more stringent standard, anyway.

[MT Treasurer]

I could give two sh**ts about the Lewinsky scandal, that was between consenting adults. I more care about the fact that he was responsible for the death of half a million Iraqis, bombed an aspirin factory which led to widespread shortages, decimated the U.S. manufacturing base while gutting welfare, expanded the police state, firebombed U.S. citizens and executed a mentally retarded man just to appear tough on crime. Bill Clinton is a loathsome human being on multiple levels.

This is so true, but since he's a Democrat, no one cares about it.

[Thunderbird is the word]

I could give two sh**ts about the Lewinsky scandal, that was between consenting adults. I more care about the fact that he was responsible for the death of half a million Iraqis, bombed an aspirin factory which led to widespread shortages, decimated the U.S. manufacturing base while gutting welfare, expanded the police state, firebombed U.S. citizens and executed a mentally retarded man just to appear tough on crime. Bill Clinton is a loathsome human being on multiple levels.

This is so true, but since he's a Democrat, no one cares about it.

[Thunderbird is the word]

I could give two sh**ts about the Lewinsky scandal, that was between consenting adults.

I mean, if you want to argue that an intern in her early twenties has meaningful powers of consent with the most powerful man in the world, who is twice her age and married to somebody else, sure.

Oh, well. 'Between consenting adults' is so often used as a figleaf to cover for the fact that something can't be considered moral by any more stringent standard, anyway.

You make a fair point, I guess I just don't think about that one as much as other things I get pissed at Clinton about in terms of scope.

[DavidB.]

FF/who care (but probably HP, seeing as he's a politician)

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

'Open marriages' expect less of people. They are 'honest' at the cost of serving any coherent function in personal development or discipline. If you don't want to commit to at least attempting fidelity, don't get married.

Let's dispel the fiction that sexual monogamy is a precondition for having a strong relationship, marital or not. Some people needs monogamy in marriage, others don't. It's a matter of preference and personal morality, not a rule. Marriage is really much complex matter than just this. You may dislike it, I may be open to this, it's a matter of our individual outlooks and it has nothing to do with other people. Also I really think it's much more honest, and less costly, if two married people are open about this between themselves rather than one side proclaiming fidelity and cheating on side. So much for "discipline".

And what "personal development" has to do with this anyway?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I could give two sh**ts about the Lewinsky scandal, that was between consenting adults.

Actually, that was of dubious ethics at best. He was a boss, she was an employee.

[The Last Northerner]

I hope this thread is a preview of the TRUMP-Clinton debate.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

'Open marriages' expect less of people. They are 'honest' at the cost of serving any coherent function in personal development or discipline. If you don't want to commit to at least attempting fidelity, don't get married.

Let's dispel the fiction that sexual monogamy is a precondition for having a strong relationship, marital or not. Some people needs monogamy in marriage, others don't. It's a matter of preference and personal morality, not a rule. Marriage is really much complex matter than just this. You may dislike it, I may be open to this, it's a matter of our individual outlooks and it has nothing to do with other people. Also I really think it's much more honest, and less costly, if two married people are open about this between themselves rather than one side proclaiming fidelity and cheating on side. So much for "discipline".

And what "personal development" has to do with this anyway?

1. Personal morality is about rules.
2. Personal development is significant in that it's, uh, better to try to be good and fail than to not try. Perhaps not better for one's spouse's feelings, and that's a genuine issue to take into consideration (the result of which consideration should be being faithful or not getting married), but better for oneself.

This is, of course, merely my own ~personal morality~, but I happen to not be a moral relativist, and to care kind of a lot about this subject, so.

[RINO Tom]

Mild HP as a President, HP as a person.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

'Open marriages' expect less of people. They are 'honest' at the cost of serving any coherent function in personal development or discipline. If you don't want to commit to at least attempting fidelity, don't get married.

Let's dispel the fiction that sexual monogamy is a precondition for having a strong relationship, marital or not. Some people needs monogamy in marriage, others don't. It's a matter of preference and personal morality, not a rule. Marriage is really much complex matter than just this. You may dislike it, I may be open to this, it's a matter of our individual outlooks and it has nothing to do with other people. Also I really think it's much more honest, and less costly, if two married people are open about this between themselves rather than one side proclaiming fidelity and cheating on side. So much for "discipline".

And what "personal development" has to do with this anyway?

1. Personal morality is about rules.

Yes and you are more than welcome to have your set or rules to follow.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I must strongly disagree with the claim that martial fidelity is some sort of a limitus test when it comes to being a "good person". I'm sorry, but I can't not think of it as a very narrow viewpoint. Also, I can't agree with fidelity being another absolute limitus test to have a good marriage and care about your spouse if the two are honest, for, as I've stated before, marriage is much more of a complex affair than bed issues.

But hey, you are entitled to your views, so am I. The difference between us is that your set or moral rules is utterly rigid, while I prefer to think of it as a matter of personal choice and who the hell am I to judge? Some people can't have a successful marriage or other kind of a relationship without sexual fidelity, others find more things as important in their partnership. That's exactly why I'm not into "not being a moral relativism". I dislike the term anyway, because it implies that people who have more relaxed approach are somewhat "less moral". Like morality was limited to bed matters.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The best Republican we ever had.

[Sir Mohamed]

Good president, but as person not decent.

[Phony Moderate]

Lower than my opinion of Anthony Blair. And that's saying something.

[RFayette]

As a President, miles better than Obama and W.  As a person, terrible.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Like morality was limited to bed matters.

That's not what I'm claiming (the thing about 'trying to be good' was a general principle that I was applying, and I really don't see how that wasn't the obvious reading of what I said). The rest of your post comes from a perspective with which I inherently, fundamentally disagree and I'd thus rather not engage with it because doing so won't lead to further mutual understanding.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Like morality was limited to bed matters.

That's not what I'm claiming (the thing about 'trying to be good' was a general principle that I was applying, and I really don't see how that wasn't the obvious reading of what I said). The rest of your post comes from a perspective with which I inherently, fundamentally disagree and I'd thus rather not engage with it because doing so won't lead to further mutual understanding.

I certainly agree that "trying to be good" is a great general principle. My only point was that what good for some people is not necessarily good to others. It's one thing to have a rigid set of moral values (I'm not implying you are "rigid" in this regard) and other to expect everyone to follow and, if they don't, simply condemn them as somehow worse than oneselves (and I'm not implying this about you either, but given the opportunity I just feel this is a point that should be made more often). The "golden rule" about treating other people like you'd like for them to treat you is a great idea when we assume that it means being good and decent to each other. But it's an awful thing when you get into specifics.

Don't take me wrong: I do respect your position on those particular specifics even if I can't agree with you.

[Blair]

I could give two sh**ts about the Lewinsky scandal, that was between consenting adults. I more care about the fact that he was responsible for the death of half a million Iraqis, bombed an aspirin factory which led to widespread shortages, decimated the U.S. manufacturing base while gutting welfare, expanded the police state, firebombed U.S. citizens and executed a mentally retarded man just to appear tough on crime. Bill Clinton is a loathsome human being on multiple levels.

Out of interest why is he responsible for Iraq? He hardly decimated the US manufacturing base- I mean not only did he create 23 million jobs. Sure NAFTA wasn't perfect but free trade is largely better than having closed off markets. The US manufacturing base, much like the British had been dying for years.

Agree largely on welfare; although again his general approach of getting people into work is better than the standard liberal response.

Firebombed US citizens?

[Oakvale]

I think he was a pretty bad President whose accomplishments were almost entirely just taking credit for Republican initiatives and clearly kind of a sleazebag on a personal level, but the pearl-clutching in this thread is hilarious.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Out of interest why is he responsible for Iraq?

I see at least some responsibility here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I think he was a pretty bad President whose accomplishments were almost entirely just taking credit for Republican initiatives

The welfare reform is a very good example. It was a Republican initiative, but Clinton signed it and started to claim "I reformed the welfare".

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Like morality was limited to bed matters.

That's not what I'm claiming (the thing about 'trying to be good' was a general principle that I was applying, and I really don't see how that wasn't the obvious reading of what I said). The rest of your post comes from a perspective with which I inherently, fundamentally disagree and I'd thus rather not engage with it because doing so won't lead to further mutual understanding.

I certainly agree that "trying to be good" is a great general principle. My only point was that what good for some people is not necessarily good to others. It's one thing to have a rigid set of moral values (I'm not implying you are "rigid" in this regard) and other to expect everyone to follow and, if they don't, simply condemn them as somehow worse than oneselves (and I'm not implying this about you either, but given the opportunity I just feel this is a point that should be made more often). The "golden rule" about treating other people like you'd like for them to treat you is a great idea when we assume that it means being good and decent to each other. But it's an awful thing when you get into specifics.

Don't take me wrong: I do respect your position on those particular specifics even if I can't agree with you.

Fair enough.

I think he was a pretty bad President whose accomplishments were almost entirely just taking credit for Republican initiatives and clearly kind of a sleazebag on a personal level, but the pearl-clutching in this thread is hilarious.

'Rosary-clutching', please; pearls are déclassé.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Pretty average president.  Not a bad one, but extremely overrated.

As a person, he's definitely likeable, but mostly a waste.  Lying, womanizing, draft dodging...does it get much worse?

[Higgs]

Moderate FF/Yuuuuge HP