Given a choice between a surplus of funds, peace, and good times, and what we have now with BUSH, give me a sexually overcharged junk food eater any day!
I miss the days when the president could actually speak without screwing up most words.
2006-08-08 06:53:51
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
0⤋
I have nothing against Ex-President Clinton but..
Absolutely nothing wrong with liking music.
Absolutely nothing wrong with liking cheeseburgers.
Only thing wrong with liking women is that he was already married.
Really really big problem with lieing in court.
As far as the 8 years of peace and prosperity...
There are those that would argue that conditions for peace and prosperity were created by the previous administrations actions.
Also Clinton could have done more about Afganistan and Sadam but didn't.
Instead he spent a huge amount of time trying to hide the fact that he was sleeping around.
Sure other presidents got away with it but they were descrete and you didn't know about it until years later. Clinton on the other hand was a public embarassment.
2006-08-08 06:53:55
·
answer #2
·
answered by John 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes, no and yes. Liking women is not a problem as long as you know where the boundaries are and can abide by them. The heart problems he has experienced the past few years are directly attributable to a high fat diet. Nothing wrong with a cheesburger unless you have too many. Then it is wrong.
IQ rating aside, being able to effectively implement and apply that intelligence and education is another matter. You've heard of the ol phrase 'common sense', right?
Much of life is a balancing act. Everything in moderation. Nothing to excess. Is that common sense or intelligence?
Some of the most violent ciminals in our society, serial killers etc. have had very high IQ's. That alone does not make them good people. It's what you do with what you got that makes you who you are. And establishes your legacy.
2006-08-08 07:04:33
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Before I am accused of being a whack job conservative, let me state that I am a very liberal independent.
I don't respect any human being that gives into their weakness like Clinton did. It was a shame. He was a glutton and a womanizer (although he did have taste in music). There is no IQ that can make up for shameful behavior. I like my presidents to have a little bit of self dicipline and self control.
As for our economy, you really can't give Clinton the credit for that. The president has very little influence on our economy. With every boom comes a crash. It's inevidible. In fact, I think the prosperity that we experienced under Clinton was destructive to our society. It made us even more greedy, even more selfish, and made us consume even MORE resources. The fact that anyone would complain about our economy now when people all over the world are starving or living in vast poverty is disgusting.
As for peace, well of course you can have peace if you IGNORE what's going on in the rest of the world. Go ask the Serbs if they think Clinton brought them peace. Ask the families of the seamen who died in Yemen if Clinton brought them peace. Finally, ask the families of WTC victims if Clinton ignoring the prospect of ANOTHER attack on American soil brought them peace. He sat back and did NOTHING just so you could live an unaffected life. And to think people take pride in that.
If you think my condemnation of Clinton is bad, don't ask me about Bush. He's even worse.
2006-08-08 06:58:17
·
answer #4
·
answered by Minion26 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
I've always been an Independent who votes for the more Moderate person possible. I personally think, all in all, Clinton was a damn good president. Not a great president but a damn good one.
It is hard for me to forgive the man for what he let happen in the White House. Yes, men are horny bastards! But why, for God's sake, couldn't he have kept it in his pants for a few years.?Yes, I know it was an issue that should have stayed between Bill and his wife. But it didn't. And it opened a floodgate of resentment that swept a greedy, heartless man into office after him.
Clinton's little sexual indiscretion will cost middle class taxpayers for years to come.
2006-08-08 06:56:25
·
answer #5
·
answered by Doc Watson 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
No, but he was wrong for banging his intern in the oval office and then for committing perjury while under oath to a grand jury.
BTW, a big part of that "peace and prosperity" you mention happened because his administration turned a blind eye to the growing world threat of terrorism. He is as much or more responsible than our current administration for the state of the world today because he failed to act to when the problem was manageable. Instead he dropped the terrorism "tar baby" directly in the lap of his successor.
2006-08-08 06:52:52
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
You mean peace like Somalia, and at the cost of having to appease KimJong Il? Il threatened to persue nuclear weapons, and Clinton sent him food and money, begging him to stop. Il went right on getting nukes.And by prosperity do you mean a huge recesion?
No, nothing wron with burger and women, but you have to do more than that to be a good presient.
2006-08-08 06:51:02
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Bill Clinton sent the US Army more times to more places than any other president ever. Get your facts right.
BTW if he had not had his attorney general go in with a swat team to take a little kid back to Cuba, then Bush would never have been president. Think about it.
2006-08-08 06:49:01
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
No there is nothing wrong with those things but I say again but as the leader of the free world you don't need to confirm to world that you are a f_king nut by molesting a teenage girl in the Oval Office. That you will not, should not and can not defend.
2006-08-08 06:52:51
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
No in the liberal politically correct mind addictive behavior is BAD
Sex is addictive how many people do you know that are saying I kicked the sex habit. Or they joined sex anonymous.
Clinton is no different than any other person he is addicted to sex.
But the liberal media slammed him for getting a little afternoon delight.
What about George Bush do you think he ever had sex? Or Chaney or Rumsfeld. Face it people are addicted to sex.
I do sometimes think that Rice lady has managed to kick the habit.
Go big Red Go
2006-08-08 07:06:05
·
answer #10
·
answered by 43 5
·
0⤊
0⤋