I feel that each new president chisels away at the previous restraints that were established by the Constitution. Each new president secures more power for the next president. In effect, any current president is the worst president ever. President Clinton was a bad president and President Bush is worse for continuing in Clinton's footsteps.
Couldn't you just picture how outraged the Neocons would be if President Hillary Clinton starts using torture to punish insider traders?
2006-08-22 05:56:08
·
answer #1
·
answered by WildPointer 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
Clinton was a decent president-- great economy, inflation was not that bad, unemployment was ok, ended up with a budget surplus. His monica debacle was a mess and he was stuipd for doing al that. Even that though, is not even close to the errors W has made.
But, you're wrong about some R presidents. For all his faults, Reagan can be credited for some good things-- diplomacy with Ruskies, End of cold war, return of some national pride. He spend money like it was going out of business though-- and don't tell me that he had a D congress. Most Reagan budgets approved by congress were for less than what he asked for. He cut taxes-- usually a good thing.
Bush I? "Read my lips, no new taxes" What he do? Raised taxes. Good stuff-- kicked Sadaam out of Kuait but his people left the door open for Sadaam to go in though.
Nixon? Ok, he messed up with Wtergate but. Opened door to China
And for those of you who say the Dems want big government in your lives, consider how much THIS administration's government is inserting themselves into people's lives - illegal wire taps, some parts of the Patriot act, flag burning, abortion rights, gay marriage, Medicare drug bill (huge government cost)
2006-08-22 05:58:27
·
answer #2
·
answered by dapixelator 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
You need to learn how to spell the Last names of the Presidents for example Reagan...US History. Demorcats do believe in Big Government, Big Spending, Hand outs and little to know military spending. Look at the canibilization of the military during Carter.
2006-08-26 02:42:19
·
answer #3
·
answered by fire_side_2003 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Clinton wasnt bad, but he wasnt good either. He didnt accomplish anything. The economy was doing so well that people lost focus of the government. He promised alot but nothing ever got done.
As for getting caught with his pants down, the problem was he lied under oath committing perjury, which to everyone other than the president is a felony offense punishable up to 10 years in federal prison.
Clinton also had many shaddy friends that he was involved with, but again slick willie never got caught. All of his friends did jail time or left the country.
2006-08-22 05:50:31
·
answer #4
·
answered by ally 2
·
1⤊
2⤋
Both parties bash each other for the same things, what it really comes down to is that Bill Clinton (overall) was not all that bad of a president, and neither is GW. People think that if the president does something you don't agree with that that means they are a bad president.
2006-08-22 05:54:23
·
answer #5
·
answered by April N 3
·
1⤊
1⤋
ok ok you could be a copykat or you've been ideas studying? purely printed the discovery of our cherished William Jefferson Clinton in this sight a month in the past. purely joking about the copycat section ha ha. even with the undeniable fact that it really is actual they'd a microscope in his socks and could not get diddly on that guy. yet they particular tried to get Hillary for Whitewater, and yet they made a deal and they are making yet another one extremely for her to get into the Democratic well-known she had to play enable's make a deal? Get it? it really is politics, they ought to get in mattress with the enemy and artwork it our.usually they leave the money on the textile cupboard and the secrets and techniques get left less than the sheets? So i'd not be too protect anymore both way it is going. do not believe any politicians any time except they're handcuffed and shackled and tongue tied they lie and scouse borrow. So be careful of all, et al ; are nevertheless the in ordinary words authorities we've so we could carry it mutually and regulate it slowly into the destiny we desire and deserve. yet keep both eyes and ears on them in any respect situations?
2016-12-01 00:08:59
·
answer #6
·
answered by ? 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes , I would like to see some intelligent discussion on that subject . When you mention Clinton to a Conservative Republican , their eyes glaze over , their face turns red and they huff and puff and start spewing all kinds of derogatory things . But they can't comment with any intelligence answer to make a point .
I would say that if Bill Clinton can get the Conservatives that worked up , he must be doing something right
2006-08-22 06:09:28
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
NAFTA.
That's why.
It was the only thing he did in the presidency and it's screwed our nation out of countless jobs.
He was too busy bombing Aspirin factories to draw attention away from his oral office to get anything positive done.
And if you look at it from some of the people above's perspectives...there was a little prosperity in his "residency"--I don't see him as anything more than an occupant--because of what Reagan did the terms before. The crap that's going on now in Iraq and the middle east wouldn't possibly be going on right now if Clinton had payed attention to more than a woman's head in his lap.
2006-08-22 06:11:53
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
Republicans want government out of your everyday life. Democrats want big goverment watching every aspect of your life.
All good attributed to Clinton was started by Reagan. It takes a few years for many things to take effect. The economy may have been good under Clinton but who started the ball rolling? By Clinton ignoring everything he caused a war for the next president to handle.
2006-08-22 05:51:03
·
answer #9
·
answered by Barkley Hound 7
·
2⤊
2⤋
Short answer, he and his wife tried (unsuccessfully) to explode the size and scope of government with universal health care.
Second, with regard to rising Islamofascism and terrorism, he "diddled" while Rome burned.
He also got lucky that the economy was damned robust while he was in office, not that he had much to do with it.
He brags about welfare reform, but the fact is, he vetoed it twice, then had it shoved down his throat.
I won't even get started on his personal failings.
I'll give him credit for this: he had the good sense to ask for Jocelin Elder's resignation as Surgeon General and to reappoint Alan Greenspan chairman of the Fed.
2006-08-22 05:49:51
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋