Former President Bill Clinton addresses AIU’s Graduating Class http://courses.aiu-online.com/temp/clinton/clinton.htm
If you're going to take a gratuitous slap at the guy who was our President for two full terms, at least make it funny.
Former elected officials seldom speak for free - reports are that Clinton is getting $50-$250,000 per engagement. I'm wondering what AIU's strategy is concerning this speech – if this is a marketing based strategy are we to see distance schools scrambling to have a former head of state for their next graduation?
From what I understand, Clinton addressed graduates of the American University in Dubai -- i.e. AIU's campus in Dubai. Not the DL campus.
Mr. Douglas, as a learned person I am sure you realize that like value, humor is subjective. So while you may not find humor in it my posting implies that I did so your reply to my posting is then an application of your subjective valuation upon me, which, of course, is illogical as so stated. Now if you stated, if you are going to....at least try to make it funny to ME. And since this is board is viewed by others than you and I it is most likely impossible to do so. So taken to its logical ends, if you require jokes to be found humorous by all readers and it is virtually impossible for such an occurance to happen then no jokes would be posted. And since opinions are also subjective valuations, no comments or opinions would also be posted.
Too bad for AIU. The former "president", lacking any credibility himself, could hardly add any to this institution.
I seem to recall that Jones Intl. had Mexican President Vicente Fox speak at their virtual graduation. Does a former US prez equal a sitting Mexican prez? I still think JIU comes out ahead of AIU. But landing Clinton ain't bad. All my old college got was Hillary one time... But state-approved schools aren't forgotten. Al Gore appeared at Hsi Lai in LA (and soon wished he hadn't accepted all those big fat envelopes that they handed him), while G.W. was punchin' Bibles as if they were Texas cows down at Bob Jones.
UP: Peace Prosperity Booming Economy Balanced Budget DOWN: Lewinsky Pardons Would anyone really trade what we've experienced under Bush--not that I'm blaming him, any more than I'm giving credit to Clinton--for the previous 8 years? If you blame Clinton, you gotta blame Bush, too.
You are correct, Rich. It took Reagan/Bush 12 years to correct what Carter fouled up economically. Just about the time the nation was experiencing a comeback, the Democrats duped the nation into voting for Clinton--who then rode the wave for 8 years. We are now reaping economically what Clinton/Gore sowed. As far as the 9/11 crisis, I am so very pleased that it was an adult, George Walker Bush, in the White House and not Slick Willie, ooops, sorry, I mean Bubba Billy. The Democrats and the media have been wrong. Reagan wasn't the actor , Clinton was.
Very good Mr. Morriss. You are much more correct than Mr. Douglas but still not totally correct. Mr. Douglas asserted that leftist socialist Bill Clinton produced: Peace Prosperity Booming Economy Balanced Budget and Mr. Morriss correctly stated that the Dems road the wave put in place by Reagan/Bush but Reagan/Bush did not "create" prosperity and/or a good economy. What Reagan/Bush did was to remove impediments to the operation of the economy. The state is not able to do anything positive to an economy (except removing previously imposed impediments) it is people that create a good or bad economy and prosperity or lack of it. As for Peace...I do remember a thing called Haiti, others called Somalia, Ruiby Ridge, Waco, Bosnia...that is NOT peace. As for the balanced budget....a balanced budget means practically nothing. If you spend what the budget is it is balanced. but what if you previously increase the budget superfluously to enabling subsequent balancing? then it is for naut. And why is balancing the budget so good when they can come in UNDER budget? So while Clington (leftist socialist) was/is horrible and Reagan/Bush (rightist socialists) were much better, there is still a far way to go.
DL not politics While a board such as this may seem like the natural place to post your (by most accounts) delusional rants about democrat "socialists" and such, I prefer to see educated discussions about subjects, especially if they are DL related. Would it be so hard to keep on topic? As for those of you who wish to disagree with me...fine, I am aware of your beliefs so please spare us all the diatribes, rants and frothing at the mouth. Let's talk about DL!!!
Re: DL not politics I do agree with autodidact that the topic should have been basically limited to degrees or DL and for straying from that I apologize. Not for the reason that others continuously do the same makes it correct but it is instructive to note the fact that it does happen. Such is the case when someone lacking in economic education comments upon "delusional rants about democratic 'socialists' when their comment in and of itself is a delusional rant being that is goes against over 250 years of continuous economic empiracle evidence. By the way, yes Dems TEND to be leftist socialists while Repubs TEND to rightest socialists. For the definition of socialism is political interference/intervention into the economy which all parties of the world currently do. Again my apologies for going off topic. Best of luck to all in the forum, it can be quite informative but when threads go off topic and all do not agree with the current topic of the thread people tend not to debate with the goal to inform or persuade but offer hostile unsupported or ignorant (ignorant in its correct usage) assertions or comments. For this reason I will not be returning to this forum.
I was a little harsh I was a little harsh by calling Menger's comments on Socialism "a delusional rant." I apologize if I have hurt anyone's feelings. But I do disagree with his position that Socialism is government "interference" of the economy. Socialism: n 1: a political theory advocating state ownership of industry 2: an economic system based on state ownership of capital <from Dictionary.com> The U.S. Government does not own industry. (Although there is compelling evidence of the opposite (Industry owning the Government!!)) Under Menger's definition ANY state or nation ever to exist would be a socialist one, since the very act of minting coinage or establishing any sort of economic system or activity would in turn be influencing and interfering with it. I realize that this post is exactly what I had complained about earlier, sorry. I hope that this excellent forum does not descend into squabbling political chatter. So let us drop it, and agree to disagree!
