Contrary to most answers, crime was much higher and has been in a deline. Check the FBI website for statistics.
Unemployment was higher under Clinton.
The tech bubble was built up and started to pop under Clinton.
Clinton never received a simple majority.
Clinton lied.
Clinton had chances to take out Osama, and defend America against the USS Cole, first World Trade Center and US Embassy attacks.
He didn't. He partied and had sex with interns.
2007-06-13 21:28:01
·
answer #1
·
answered by Matthew K 3
·
1⤊
2⤋
there isn't any longer numerous distinction. Our economic equipment has been increasing for the most section because the eighty's. we've not had severe inflation or unemployment considering that Carter's time period. rather of having a conflict on Terror, we had a continual rotation of military vessels out and in of the Persian Gulf and local bases. Israel replaced into struggling with the conflict on my own, easily. Troops died each and every twelve months. rather of 3000 troop casualties, there have been extra like 500-800 or so throughout Clinton's time period from suicides, injuries, helicopters shot down, the united statesCole, and so on. rather of having an fool prosecuter going after Scooter Libby, we had a moron named Ken Starr going after Clinton. the american custom has a tabloid aspect that prefers the taudry over the acute. Clinton made first rate efforts at balancing the funds by reducing spending and closing down the federal authorities for a short time. Bush is making a first rate attempt by significantly elevating tax sales such as his tax cuts. So between both, there have been similar accomplishments and embarrassments, and that's fairly no longer significantly better than own selection which attitude you want extra positive. the biggest criticism that i have heard about the variations between both is that Clinton did not pass after terrorists as aggressively as he must have. that's a honest factor, inspite of the indisputable fact that that's extra clean in hindsight than stay. no one knew 9-11 might want to ensue, and that i do not consider laying it at his ft completely. (The Bush administration has no longer yet had a Sandy Burglar, although.)
2016-11-23 20:05:07
·
answer #2
·
answered by deparvine 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Well, let's see. Clinton used the DOJ to silence more Americans than any president in history (The Montana Siege), used more American taxpayers money to bail out Mexico's economy than any prior president, then there's the Monica Lewinski scandal, then there's the Mena airstrip debacle in which two young boys were gunned down by Clinton's henchmen because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time and witnessed Clinton's drug-running operations in Mena, Arkansas, and let's not forget the infamous wrangling over the definition of the linking-verb "is". I could be here all morning. Now on to Bush. Hmmm... How can can anyone explain his father and Saddam Hussein having joint-checking accounts at Bank Chemical Commerce International in Miami, Florida? How can Bush jr explain the photo's of Osama bin Laden relaxing at the Bush ranch in Crawford, Texas months before 9/11? Can anyone explain why this president orders the secret service to create "free speech" zones miles away from his speeches, and orders the arrest of anyone carrying signs critical of his handling of the war in Iraq? Being a veteran myself, can Bush and side-kick Tricky-Dick ever justify the blood of American, British, Australian and Korean troops in this silly "war on terrorism" in the middle east in which sectarian violence has killed tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women, and children?
I lost one of my very dear friends in the first Gulf War, so as far as Clinton and Bush, democrats or republicans are concerned, both are just as criminal as the other. But, like the 16th Amendment says "And the debt of the United States government shall not be questioned". Code for "Don't question our corruption".
The arrogance that both parties have displayed requires that a new party be formed and the existing two marginalized to the point of laughable insignificance.
Something like a Constitutional Socialist party, if that makes any sense.
2007-06-13 22:04:06
·
answer #3
·
answered by RIFF 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
Absolutely horrible. I used to fill up my gas tank for $6.00.
How can you expect the oil company execs to feed their families on those kind of pennies? I sleep much better at night now that it takes $46.00 to buy the same amount of gas.
2007-06-13 21:22:17
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
You should know human in a weak time, and devil in its instance. Choose devil you never get risen to be a human.To much sauce added into voting, devil after his mask, and you are fool enough to let it catch you.
2007-06-13 21:24:17
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
ole dubya...what an embarrasment to the country!!
he hasnt done one thing right yet.
i wonder if roosevelt read a story to children when pearl harbor was attacked.......NOT!!
the guy's an idiot.
long live clinton!
2007-06-13 21:27:47
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
2⤋
About the same
2007-06-13 21:27:01
·
answer #7
·
answered by Augustine 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
Same bullsh*t with higher taxes.
2007-06-13 21:29:23
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
God, I miss Clinton.
2007-06-13 21:20:09
·
answer #9
·
answered by The Man Comes Around 5
·
2⤊
4⤋
It was terrible - lower crime, an economic boom that was unprecedented in US history - who would want a repeat of that!
2007-06-13 21:19:46
·
answer #10
·
answered by Paul Hxyz 7
·
2⤊
4⤋