English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

IS IT BECAUSE HE WAS A RHODE'S SCHOLAR UNLIKE DUMBYA?

IS IT BECAUSE HE BALANCED THE BUDGET?

IS IT BECAUSE HE CREATED MORE JOBS THAN DUMBYA?

IS IT BECAUSE OF CHEAP ENERGY PRICES DURING HIS 2 TERMS?

IS IT BECAUSE A TERRORIST ATTACK ON LAX WAS PREVENTED?

IS IT BECAUSE HE STARTED A WAR THAT PREVENTED ETHNIC CLEANSING IN BOSNIA WHICH RESULTED IN 0 AMERICAN SOLDIERS KILLED IN ACTION?

IS IT BECAUSE HE BROUGHT TROOPS HOME FROM SOMALIA WHERE BUSH SR HAD SENT 150,000 TROOPS AND PROMISED TO RETURN THEM BY CLINTON'S INAUGURATION AND NEVER DID?

IS IT BECAUSE HE DIDN'T EMBARRASS HIMSELF AND THE COUNTRY EVERYTIME HE WENT SOMEWHERE?

IS IT BECAUSE HE DIDN'T CHOKE ON A PRETZEL LIKE DUMBYA?

IS IT BECAUSE USA WAS ACTUALLY RESPECTED BY THE WORLD WHILE HE WAS PRESIDENT?

IS IT BECAUSE THERE WAS NO RECESSION DURING HIS PRESIDENCY?

IS IT BECAUSE HE WASN'T AN OIL BARON WHO INVADES OIL RICH COUNTRIES TO LINE HIS POCKETS WITH BLOOD MONEY?

2006-08-20 07:21:58 · 26 answers · asked by JUST ME 1 in Politics & Government Government

26 answers

For those reasons, and they lack the intelligence and charisma of someone like Bill Clinton.

2006-08-20 07:28:05 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

Maybe because he was a cnn president. He had over 40 "police actions" under his presidency. That is more than we had in the past 50 years before him. What this did was stem hatred because we would come in and "help" and as soon as the tv crews left we left thus putting those regions right back to wear they started. Although the Bosnia effort was effective most others weren't. He promised to help and then screwed them. The terrorist cells had been planning there violence way before the Bush administration and Clinton did very little about it and Bush took some vacation time so he was no help and now thousands died. I would believe that Clinton was one of our better president because he had business sense to make our country better not his pocket book like our friend "dumbya". The reason the "Neo-Cons" hate Clinton so much is because he was for gun control, leaned more on the pro-choice side and wasn't a puppet for big oil and big business which makes our wonderful world go round.

2006-08-20 07:41:46 · answer #2 · answered by STEVE-0 2 · 0 0

Don't really hate him, just feel better when he's not around.

However, do you really think he balanced the budget? Do you recall the reason the gov't was shut down? There are several reasons we had a balanced budget in 90s.

First, what Bush No. 1 agreed to do at Camp David as part of a compromise with Dems. Namely, he agreed to raise taxes (political suicide in view of his previous "Read my lips. No new taxes." statements) if Dems agreed to close loopholes the caused huge deficits. That's a big part of why we had balanced budget since helped control discretionary spending.

Second, we had a wall street bubble that created huge tax revenues. When the bubble popped, Clinton was no longer around to feel the pain.

Third, the "peace dividend" (I believe we cut the number of divisions in half) in view of cold war ending. We also had a successful commission that suggested "cold war" military bases that could be closed. It ran great and closed many redundant bases until that suggested closings in California and Clinton had an upcoming election and shelved the commission's suggestions and effectively shut it down.

Fourth, the Contract for America guaranteed a vote on a Balanced Budget Amendment, and Clinton pulled out the stops to argue that balancing the budget would require slashing popular programs. And then the ultimate reversal in Gingrich's and Clinton's fortunes came as a result of the budget showdown and government shutdown-- when the Gingrich Republicans were trying to exercise the kind of spending restraint that's Wash can't seem to stomach. Do you really think it was Clinton pushing for controlling spending?

It's my view that we had a budget surplus in the 90s in spite of Clinton not because of him. The only courageous thing I recall him doing was the Mexican bailout, which was admirable.

Jobs - Dumbya inherited a bubble bursting/recession, corp scandals (which mostly occurred during Clinton's bubble) and the resulting wall street fallout and new compliance regulations (Sox etc), 9/11 and additional resulting security measures, Afganistan, Iraq (Do you call what Clinton's Iraq policy was other than "keep it out of the headlines"?, etc.)

Cheap Energy Prices - Whoa, I didn't know Clinton could impact supply & demand and effect oil prices. Did he also hold back China and India's economies to prevent the increased demand during his term? How about the rest of the world economy that was in recession during 90s?

Terrorist attack - You're joking? Google "terrorist timeline embassies" and let me know if you think Clinton was any better than any other president at preventing terrorism. There were numerous, exscalating attacks during the 90s.

While you're at it, google -Loral China Clinton Schwartz. US transferred military technology to China during 90s. Did you agree with that?

Bosnia - Read "A Perfect Failure" in Foreign Affairs Journal and let me know if still agree. Do you recall his repeated statements that no ground troops would be used? I believe he made these statements for political reasons (since polls indicated majority didn't want ground troops) and it prolonged the war. Serbs didn't come to table until there were ground troops.

Somalia - Have you seen any Al Queda recruiting video tapes? Watch one and let us know what you think about Clinton's policy of sending our troops against heavily armed militia's without support and then yanking them out of Somalia shortly after we took losses. Uhh, did you see Black Hawk Down?

Embarrass himself - He was certainly smoother than any recent president.

I'm not in love with Dumbya or hate Clinton. Anyone who doesn't realize that each of the last elections was the equivalent of choosing between drinking spoiled milk or eating rancid meat doesn't see the obvious flaws in every President and candidate we've had to choose from.

2006-08-20 08:27:34 · answer #3 · answered by TTB1966 1 · 0 0

It's sure funny how when a person hates someone they can find anything and everything wrong with that person. Conversely, when they love someone, they can find no wrong. Clinton DEFINITELY had his share of problems during his presidency, and he caused his share of lasting problems also. I think that can be said for EVERY president, king, ruler, dictator, magistrate, etc that has ever walked the earth. I think people on Yahoo Answers ask idiotic questions like these just to stir up strong emotions amongst each other and try to cause divisions and rifts in the country. Way to go!

2006-08-20 07:35:48 · answer #4 · answered by my three boys 2 · 0 0

i love the way you ask questions...here's one...Do you still beat your wife?....Would you like to win a million dollars?...see you are forcing the answer you want by the way you ask you questions. It also demonstrates how much you dislike neo-cons, who happen to be U.S. citizens also. Clintons BJ in the oval office wasnt a little bit embarrassing? Bush's employment numbers are lower than clintons ever were. I pay less taxes now than under clinton, who saw fit to take money from working people and give it to those who didnt work. Clinton didnt choke on a pretzel but did eat Mc Donalds out of house and home. BTW, terrorist really did fly planes into the world trade center...really. And thx to countless soldiers fighting for you over the years, you live in one of the best countries in the world. Count your blessings instead of bitching.

2006-08-20 07:34:22 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

He never completed the Rhode's Scholarship- he was asked to leave because of a females students claim of RAPE.

The House and Senate balanced the budget, Republican majorities in both after Hill's healthcare fiasco-Contract With America??

Jobs at McDonald's- we lost more REAL jobs due to NAFTA

China and India were using HALF as much oil back then...

Terrorists were ENCOURAGED by our chicken-hearted retreat from Somalia...

He was the 2nd leader to bomb Belgrade, the first was Hitler- Clinton acted "unilaterally" and was never criticized by the media

Clinton REFUSED to properly arm a "food-distribution force" with armor when he changed their job to an offensive one- See "Blackhawk Down"

He embarassed the country by getting blow-jobs from an underaged cow in the Whitehouse and lying about it on TV

Never choked on a pretzel, never enhaled and W never "spooged" on an employee's dress

He was respected for escaping rape and bribery charges repeatedly.

He took credit for the Reagan tax-cuts and finally blew it by allowing stock prices to overinflate

Clinton was a wh ore who sold China military technology and to visits to the Lincoln Bedroom, took money from the families of his 11th hr "pardons" and bank fraud during Whitewater.


you are a true revisionist- you must be a public school teacher.

2006-08-20 07:51:52 · answer #6 · answered by R J 7 · 1 0

Sounds like you've already got all the "answers"
although you only look for the answers you want to find. Most likely from sources such as NY Times and Chicago Tribune. By the way Clinton was hardly respected by half the USA.
Go Hillary!!........Give me a fuc***g break!

2006-08-20 07:32:59 · answer #7 · answered by Jeremy 2 · 0 0

NAFTA did not create more jobs and the ones they did create are the ones we ***** about the Mexicans taking anyway. He was a liar and higher taxes aren't the answer. He held no one accountable, like we do teachers now for their actions and responsibility. He let pedophiles get clemency (Roman Polanski) but I mean other than no morals or sense of idea of what America needs he was awesome. Yeah Right!

2006-08-20 07:28:58 · answer #8 · answered by krazymtt 1 · 1 0

properly, they would not be vast followers of his plan to end the conflict or disband the fed, yet on his different factors the Republicans / Neo-cons are in all probability to consider him more desirable than with Hillary. All Hillary gives you them is the flair that she might want to proceed the conflict. yet when she did, might want to you've an excellent form of religion in her skills? i do not. i love Ron Paul, and that i help the conflict. i imagine if Paul gained and became conscious about each and each of the in the back of the scenes intelligence he might want to replace his concepts, per chance causes do exist why the conflict is going on which won't be able to be defined to the inhabitants at tremendous (my theory as to why it keeps chugging alongside, and why Hillary has been replacing her music).

2016-11-26 20:00:27 · answer #9 · answered by springs 4 · 0 0

Because he gave away nuclear secrets, sent our jobs south and gave our market to his bud's the Red Chinese. He broke the law , lied to the public, stole govt documents to make dossiers on his political opponents, emabarassed the office of the President, you know those same things Hillary wanted to impeach Nixon for.

2006-08-20 08:24:14 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Yes. He's opposite of George W. Better relations with the world. Economy was at an all time high. No deficit. Better government. Were you better off 6 years ago that it is today?

2006-08-20 07:54:31 · answer #11 · answered by tyrone b 6 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers