Former President Clinton is a liberal icon. He was morally bankrupt, without conscience, and I would add a mediocre president at best, but he was quite the politician. I think questions like yours are valid, but the response was quite predictable, they will always defend him. If you notice, most liberals on this venue cannot ask or answer a question without a Bush slur attached. I have just chosen to ignore them. Thanks, and I am sure I will receive many thumbs down for this answer, thank you in advance for those also.
2007-01-26 11:01:33
·
answer #1
·
answered by rosi l 5
·
2⤊
5⤋
Clinton was a risk taker. People like risk takers. People do not want someone in office who is not willing to take any risks.
Unfortunately, Clinton's risk taking spilled over into his personal life and resulted in some exceptionally bad decision-making. He was a serial risk-taker who got carried away.
I do not think liberals consider him either (1) morally bankrupt or (2) without any conscience. And I think many people, both liberal and conservative have very different views regarding cheating on their spouses and lying. Now sure, people will say they don't believe in cheating or lying, but their actions speak differently.
2007-01-26 17:58:53
·
answer #2
·
answered by Jeremy B 2
·
2⤊
0⤋
Judge not lest ye be judged dear heart.
Why is it your business, anyway, what the presidnet is doing behind closed doors?
Do you think that being involved in a sex scandal is as bad as getting more than 3,000 young Americans killed in an illegal and immoral war that has now cost billions of U.S. dollars and has stolen the food out of American children's mouths?
What about Bush and his total lack of repsonse to Hurricaine Katrina victims?
When Clinton lied, at least nobody died.
And I doubt that ANYBODY idolizes Clinton, as some people idolize the current resident of the White House.
.
2007-01-26 17:51:23
·
answer #3
·
answered by Brotherhood 7
·
5⤊
2⤋
Look, you don't like to be reminded of Bush because he is currently the 2nd most unpopular president in our nation's history. Second, Clinton was one of the most popular presidents in our nation's history when he left office. I know it pisses you off but really the things you harp on are such nonissues and full of crap, it's really difficult not pointing out the lies and corruption of the Bush administration because they outway what ever Clinton did by a phenomenal amount. Just grow up and face it please.
Did Clinton's affair really effect you that much? Bush's actions caused over 3025 American deaths and 650,000 Iraqie deaths.
BTW, I never voted for Clinton in any of the 2 elections he ran for. So, I wasn't a huge fan. But you still haven't dealt with the REALITY of what a lying and corrupt GOP you idolize.
2007-01-26 18:03:10
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
3⤋
Because it is not about the truth, but about politicking. No one can dispute the fact Clinton lied under oath, albeit about rediculous things. It is also pretty clear he had little moral compass (and bad taste on top of that). There were plenty of good things he did, but there is no need to divert us from what really happened.
I agree, I can't stand when people don't just answer the question.
P.S. I did vote for Clinton both times, but am straight up about him.
2007-01-26 17:47:49
·
answer #5
·
answered by straightup 5
·
5⤊
2⤋
I think it is typical behavior of Democrats where dishonesty doesn’t seem that big of a deal to them. For instance they made a big deal about Mark Foley talking dirty over the Internet to a teenage page. The second the story broke he was out the door.
However, their own Democrat Gerry Studds had sex with a teenage page on taxpayer expense (he flew him to another country). His Party gave him a standing ovation when he was reprimanded in the House. Then the Democrats reelected him 3 more times. I mean you have a 36 year old male Democrat actually buggering a teenage boy and they have no shame.
To me it isn’t about someone talking dirty to a teen or having sex with a teen but to endorse such behavior and put him back into office where he is exposed to more teen males seems almost criminal.
What do you think would have happened to a teacher that had sex with a teenage boy in his class?
Unbelievable. And about as shocking the news media has kept it quite.
2007-01-26 18:24:36
·
answer #6
·
answered by Raylene G. 4
·
2⤊
4⤋
I could care less about Bill's personal sex life (Monica consented) or any lies he told about his personal sex life. Bosnia wasn't a lie. Rape? They were cleared of any wrongdoing on the land deals.
I care very much about the lies W is telling about reasons for going to war, how we're 'winning' the war, how we're 'going to' win the war and how he's made the country a better place over the last six years for people like you and me.
Get over yourself or put the computer down before you hurt yourself. Baaaaa. Baaaaaa.
2007-01-26 17:51:47
·
answer #7
·
answered by Makakio 3
·
5⤊
2⤋
You are aware Bill Clinton is no longer President? You've been reading too much Ann Coulter because I see lots of accusations, hyperbole and no proof to back them up. Clinton left office as one of the most popular Presidents in history. Get over it and move on silly cons.
2007-01-26 18:12:11
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
3⤋
Clinton did a pretty good job. The economy was good, and we didn't have any (major) wars.
Sure he fooled around, and that's despicable, but that wasn't the most important part of his presidency.
I don't idolize him, by the way. To draw a quote from one of your heroes, I just think he did a "heckuva job"
2007-01-27 04:53:23
·
answer #9
·
answered by Richardson '08 3
·
2⤊
2⤋
Why do I care if he got side action if he grew the economy in a way that it would be sustainable over the long run while also helping America's image in the world through cooperative diplomacy? Why should I care about his daliances? I'm not electing a president to read me scripture, i'm electing my president to look after my better interests and judging him solely on that.
2007-01-26 18:08:09
·
answer #10
·
answered by Dark Helmet 2
·
3⤊
2⤋