Who do you find more amusing:
1) Biased, jealous Liberals who pretend that Reagan was one of our worst presidents
or
2) Biased, jealous Republicans who pretend that Clinton was one of our worst presidents?
2007-05-08 09:17:30 · 13 answers · asked by Time to Shrug, Atlas 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Only someone that is either ignorant or blinded by their bias would list either among our worst presidents.
2007-05-08 09:18:34 · update #1
What I find amusing is that people aren't knowledgable about history and our presidents. Neither Clinton nor Reagan can claim to be the best president, but they aren't the worst. In matters of foreign policy, both allowed genocides to occur and invaded countries for U.S. economic interests. Reagan with Grenada and Clinton with Kosovo.
2007-05-08 09:26:49 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Liberals should like Reagan for proposing the zero-option for nuclear weapons (even though the military-industrial complex made him take it back the next day). I like him because he made great inspirational speeches. Also because he kept us out of major wars. And he had the courage to admit a mistake and get us out of Lebanon. Also he gave amnesty to illegal aliens. Bienvenidos, mis compadres!
True conservatives (who believe in the free market) should like Clinton because he was a great free trader. Also Clinton looks good because he's sandwiched between the two Bushes, both very bad presidents.
2007-05-08 20:04:28 · answer #2 · answered by Ray Eston Smith Jr 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Both are amusing, but I'll take #2. Just because we see more of that on this site, and it's become a game of misdirection to point to Clinton when anyone makes a valid point about our problems with George Bush. I voted for both Reagan and Clinton and don't regret my votes at all.
2007-05-08 16:29:20 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋
Delphi is a delusional con who believes a right wing whack job before scientists. And, I find it more amusing that anyone thinks that either one of those clowns were great presidents. They were both bad. Both sold out our country to the corporate, oil industry, pharmaceutical industry, insurance industry, military industrial complex and the telecom business as soon as they got into office.
2007-05-08 16:41:25 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
#1.
Because Reagan actually accomplished something.
Clinton accomplished almost nothing, except that he kicked a whole lot of people off welfare, which usually liberals would go nuts over, but since he did it, not a peep.
Clinton had charisma. That's the only reason he was/is liked so much. I ask lefties why they like him so much, and they stand there with a blank stare.
They don't even realize they've fallen for a cult of personality.
They're like teenage girls who have crushes on empty-headed teen hearthrobs on TV.
2007-05-08 16:25:36 · answer #5 · answered by dork 7 · 5⤊ 3⤋
Biased, insane Republicans who claim that Dumbya is one of the best presidents.
It's pretty much like saying that it's great the Eart is so flat.
BrhamBoy, what economic interest could anyone possibly find in Kosovo?? R O F L
2007-05-08 16:28:21 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 4⤋
Although both Reagan and Clinton made mistakes during their presidency, neither will go down in history as an incompetent president. However, Dubya will no doubt win the worst-president-award by leaps and bounds.
2007-05-08 16:25:45 · answer #7 · answered by Hemingway 4 · 5⤊ 5⤋
your right all presidents have some thing in there pasted so why pick on just two
2007-05-08 16:43:00 · answer #8 · answered by sandyjean 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There aren't any rational thinkers around here.
2007-05-08 16:43:58 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
They are equally amusing.
2007-05-08 16:32:28 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋