The Clinton years were good years for me economically. They were good years for most Americans. In addition, Bill has charisma. I like what I see on television. Finally, the Clinton haters are so thoroughly unlikable.

 

I can understand why Harvey Weinstein used his power to get sex. No beautiful starlet will go to bed with a fat blob like that unless she has to.

 

No one should make excuses for sexual abusers and harassers. I do not care if they are Republicans or Democrats.

 

No one should make excuses for sexual abusers and harassers. I do not care if they are Republicans or Democrats.

 

Worth repeating twice.

 

Harvey Weinstein needed to use coercion to get sex with desirable women. Bill Clinton did not. That is why I doubt Bill abused and harassed any one. He certainly did not abuse and harass Monica Lewinsky. She was past the age of consent and took the initiative.

 

Well, but that isn't what some of Bill's accusers have said in the past. They've called it rape, and Hillary jumped right on that now, didn't she? Bill has had many accusers step up.

 

Everybody knows that Bill Clinton was a womanizer. Womanizers leave behind a trail of angry cast off mistresses. That is what I think those accusers were. Neither of us knows.

A woman or a girl who is abused, especially if she is raped, needs to report the incident to the police immediately. I am not condemning those who don't. Sometimes they are embarrassed. Sometimes they feel intimidated. Nevertheless, they owe it to past and potential victims to report it.

If Bill ever raped a woman that is a serious matter. His dalliance with Monica Lewinsky was not. Ken Starr should have minded his own business.

 

Bill Clinton and ‘revitalizing’ the U.S. economy The most enduring and destructive superstition about American politics is that the president is “in charge of” the economy, and so it was no surprise to hear Hillary Rodham Clinton yesterday say that she’d put her husband “in charge of revitalizing the economy.” As my colleague Charles C. W. Cooke points out, this is an example of “talismanic” thinking, that what makes the world go ’round is having the tribal chieftain do that voodoo that he does so well. There are some obvious problems with this line of thinking, the main one being that it is complete and utter undiluted poppycock. It is true that the U.S. economy performed to general satisfaction during Bill Clinton’s presidency. But most of the big economic news of the 1990s had little or nothing to do with Bill Clinton, with government policies that were uniquely or mainly the work of Bill Clinton, or with the day-to-day management of public resources by the Clinton administration. The Clinton-era boom was in no small part a continuation of the Reagan-era boom, which was, like the performance of the economy under previous and subsequent presidents, only partly a product of the president’s economic philosophy and policies. Two of the great economic-policy successes of the Reagan era — the taming of inflation and the bundle of reforms generally described as “deregulation” — were rooted in Carter-era policies. Ronald Reagan knew enough to understand that enduring the recession engineered by Paul Volcker and the Fed was necessary to wring inflation out of the economy, but he wasn’t terribly happy about it, and neither were voters: Reagan’s approval ratings were at 41 percent at the end of 1982, and his unpopularity cost Republicans a couple seats in the House. At the beginning of 1983, Reagan’s job-approval number was down to 35 percent. But in May of 1980, inflation had been 14.4 percent; in May of 1986, it was 1.5 percent, and Reagan’s approval number roughly doubled. RELATED: Hillary’s Sad Promise: Bill Is Her Talisman That Will Magically ‘Revitalize the Economy’ Was taming inflation Reagan’s doing? Volcker’s doing? Do we give Carter credit for choosing Volcker, or do we penalize him, knowing that he hadn’t wanted to do so but was pressured into it? Robert J. Samuelson and Paul Krugman have argued that out at some length, and the answer is inconclusive. The performance of the economy is only partly a product of the president’s economic philosophy and policies. “Inconclusive” is the conclusion more often than not in these kinds of debates. The federal budget was in surplus (“primary surplus”) toward the end of the Clinton administration, as Mrs. Clinton points out. Why? Partly because of tax increases that Republicans fought vigorously against; partly because of spending controls that Democrats fought vigorously against; partly because of a stock-market bubble that liberated both the Clinton administration and congressional Republicans from making some really tough decisions. Mere coincidence doesn’t actually tell a very good story for the Clinton administration: During the last quarter of his predecessor’s presidency, real GDP growth was 4.33 percent; during the last quarter of Clinton’s presidency, it was down to 2.89 percent and plunging. By September 2001, U.S. GDP growth was down to less than one-half of one percent and by the end of the year growth was only 0.21 percent. Maybe you think that was the lingering effect of Clinton policies; maybe you think Bush policies took an immediate effect; maybe you think it was other events (there was some economic disruption in September of 2001). In general, the people who know the most about these issues have the least certain opinions on that. SHARE ARTICLE ON FACEBOOKSHARE TWEET ARTICLETWEETThere were two big economic events during the Clinton administration that had profound effects on the world economy. One was the emergence of the web as an important cultural and economic phenomenon, a blessing for which we may thank, among others, Tim Berners-Lee and Marc Andreessen (and a whole lot of taxpayers from around the world) and which the Clinton administration had effectively nothing to do with. The other, which seems to be largely forgotten in the English-speaking world, was the 1997 Asian financial crisis, which was a catastrophe but one that spurred important corporate and banking reforms (especially in the Republic of Korea) that helped lay the foundations for much of the prosperity of developed Asia today. That has profound effects on the U.S. economy, too, which are not mainly the result of policies pursued by the Clinton administration or any other administration. Mrs. Clinton insists that when it comes to revitalizing a national economy, her husband is the man who “knows how to do it.” Still, Mrs. Clinton insists that when it comes to revitalizing a national economy, her husband is the man who “knows how to do it.” Certainty in these matters is always suspect: It wasn’t long ago that David Sirota and the geniuses at Salon were hailing “Hugo Chavez’s economic miracle” in Venezuela, which has been reduced to utter primitivism by socialism. And the Right is vulnerable to this kind of thinking, too: When challenged about the difficulty of achieving sustained real GDP growth comparable to that of the Reagan era, my friend Larry Kudlow declared: “I did it before, and I’ll do it again.” He was being funny — a little bit funny — but he and others who share his views do assume a rather more linear and immediate connection between policy changes and broad economic outcomes than seems to be warranted by the facts. RELATED: The Facts About Venezuela: No, It Is Not a Victim of Its Own Economic Success Those ideological positions may be unnecessarily narrow and oversimplified, but they are magnificent intellectual achievements compared with the magic-fetish view put forward by Mrs. Clinton and other practitioners of her simpleton politics. And there are more of them than you’d think: Those who obsess over marginal tax rates point to top income-tax brackets during the Eisenhower administration (91 percent!) and declare that that was the key to the golden postwar era. (Which looks a good deal less golden the more you know about it.) Their opposite numbers point to the fact that while theoretical top marginal rates were higher, actual taxes collected were lower and spending as a share of GDP was lower, too — a-ha! It wasn’t big taxes, it was small government! Some of my hawkish friends will note that between 1950 and 1957 we doubled military spending (from 4.9 percent of GDP to 9.8 percent of GDP) and ran a budget surplus. So maybe the key to national happiness is doubling military spending to the exclusion of most everything else in the federal budget — or, maybe, 2016 isn’t very much like 1957. Maybe you think that Bill Clinton can turn around the U.S. economy because, as Mrs. Clinton insists, “he knows how to do it.” If he does, why didn’t he tell President Obama?

 

Weinstein and everybody like him is a fucking pathetic loser. Period.

 

And the world will be a lot better off when people like Trump are nothing more than a footnote, like he should be right now.

He came to power in dishonest ways, doing business with the mob and using those connections at a time when the mob ran everything. He is a product of those times and one that needs to go away. If you don't know what I'm talking about, you'll probably never understand just how bad him having any power is. He's a sleazeball and the stereotypical big shot of that era.

 

Safe space is down the hall on the left. We lost the keys temporarily, thankfully, they were returned.

 

If Mr Smith 36 had written this himself I would have read it in order to write "[sic]" after every error of spelling, grammar, capitalization, and punctuation.

It seems to have been written by someone named "Kevin D. Williamson." Williamson, unlike Mr Smith 36, knew enough to break it up into paragraphs. Mr Smith 36 did not even have the integrity to attribute it to its author.

After saying that the president is not in charge of the economy, Williamson claimed that Ronald Reagan deserves the credit for the good economic numbers of the Clinton administration.

If Mr Smith 36 handed this essay into me I would give it a D. Then I would have him expelled for plagiarism.

 

Isn't it strange that some people will jump all over some one who has been accused of molesting a woman but piss all over themselves defending a proven molester?

 

It is strange all right. I was disappointed with the way Christian conservatives make excuses for Roy Moore and Donald Trump.

 

I think there was one liberal that condemned ole Harvy's actions . Then the other Liberals got all over that her and she took it back. If I remember right

 

And on the subject of things like "safe space", etc..


You all stole the whole "special snowflake" thing from the anti-hipster movement and its members, plenty of whom are liberals.

They were saying it for a decade to describe the people who had moved into their neighborhoods before any of you were using it. It was never political, and they would in fact apply it to a lot of you, as it's your kids they use it in reference to.

 

Isn't it strange that some people would like to believe another person is not guilty of molesting a woman, even though courts found different, just because they would like to give that person a blow job?

 

If the Hollywood casting couch is banned how can an attractive woman with no acting talent like Salma Hayek make lots of money?

YouTuber Turd Flinging Monkey flings some truth bombs....



(Skip to the 4:55 mark.)

 

Name some women that have an acting talent.