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

Which would you choose?
Not based on your political conviction, just on your ability to feed your family and to wake up feeling good about life in the morning.

2007-05-03 08:26:12 · 39 answers · asked by Robert 2 in Politics & Government Civic Participation

39 answers

Under Clinton, we had peace. Of course, during that peace, a few missiles were ineffectually lobbed at the same people that we're fighting for real now, but we had peace.

Under Clinton, we had no fear of terrorists. Of course, they did try to destroy the WTC, and were busy planning the second attempt, but we weren't worried about it.

Under Clinton, we had a booming economy. Of course, the larger part of that was due to executives inflating stock prices for their stock options due to the attempts to control how much they were paid, and partly due to investors being eager to throw money at anything followed by "dot-com", but it was booming. Clinton made it okay to want to be rich.

Under Clinton, we had an attorney general that knew her job. Rather than taking six years to fire prosecutors, she had them all fired right away, so she could get right down to business in Waco and with Elian Gonzalez.

Under Clinton, the whole country was behind the President, right or wrong, and he could do no wrong. The impeachment was all blown out of proportion by a few firebrands in the House, trying to make lying about sex into Perjury. So what if he was under oath, it was about sex. Come on.

I think my choice is pretty clear.

2007-05-03 08:49:25 · answer #1 · answered by open4one 7 · 4 3

I´d choose Clinton. Out of the two I consider him , and Candidates who think like him, to be the one or ones to face up to the very real problems that confront the World. If these problems, such as the pending disasters awaiting us as a consequence of the Climatic Change and Global Warming are ignored then we are in for some very big trouble. These problems must be faced up to now, or else we shall regret it sorely later, and sooner than we imagine, I fear. Therefore, in my view we need the Politician in power who is prepared to TRY to find an answer to them, thus allowing us the hope that perhaps we might be able to continue feeding our family and wake up each day with a good feeling about life and the future.

2007-05-04 22:54:34 · answer #2 · answered by Sue 3 · 0 0

yeah let's bring Clinton so if another genocide occurs in Rwanda we can simply turn around and squeeze our pimples..... or you can always keep on "supporting your troops" with Bush so he can get more people killed for his own sake. If those two are the only choices you guys have, i strongly doubt you'll ever wake up feeling good about life in the morning........sorry

2007-05-04 05:42:57 · answer #3 · answered by Heart-Shapped Poe 3 · 0 0

Bring Clinton baaaaack! To h*ll with Bush. Just a wish because neither is possible.

2007-05-04 11:34:29 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I would choose Bush.

Even with the 'circus' he has in Iraq, he's a much more moral President than was Clinton. I sleep easier knowing that my children have a GREAT role model in President Bush.

If more people would choose their leaders based on morality, integrity, selfless service, I think the world would be in a better place.

2007-05-04 01:54:26 · answer #5 · answered by mysticgraystar 3 · 0 1

when I first examine your question i presumed it develop into fairly rediculous. although i'm embarrased to admit that once a speedy search for about the problem i found that i develop into unaware of the surely # of protection force deaths in the course of the Clinton administration. a million,245 in 1993; a million,109 in 1994; a million,0.5 in 1995;a million,008 in 1996. it really is 4,417 protection force deaths in the time of Clinton's non-conflict administration. So thanks for making me examine the info, i'm suprised at what i found. to respond to your question although, if ( and easily as a very last motel) I had to pick Bush or Clinton i'd pick Clinton, because he develop into searching to get us out of debt fairly than performing like an 18yr old that purely were given their first mastercard. I opt to chew my tongue although because both way, president of the United stated is a job that advantages respect. Reserve judgement for at the same time as that is honestly necessary. operating example, who to pick as our next president. lets no longer cloud the destiny taking under consideration the unfavorable issues contained in the previous that can't get replaced.

2016-11-24 23:41:21 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

The longer Bush is in office, the better Clinton begins to look.

2007-05-03 11:49:02 · answer #7 · answered by skip742 6 · 2 2

clinton was one of the best presidents we ever had. he helped the lower class people. bush did nothing but hurt the working poor.

clinton without a doubt

2007-05-03 15:44:20 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

Cliton without a doubt. All Bush has done is kill soldiers and destroy families.

2007-05-04 08:25:27 · answer #9 · answered by dot dot dot 3 · 0 0

Bush all the way. The White House can't handle the Clintons stealing much more furniture.

2007-05-03 08:50:49 · answer #10 · answered by Kevin A 3 · 3 5

fedest.com, questions and answers