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

President Bush at least won 2002 and lost a slim margin last year. Tell me please, Liberals.

2007-07-30 07:10:18 · 14 answers · asked by Samm 6 in Politics & Government Other - Politics & Government

The answer is: Bill Clinton is great simply he is a Democrat and that is why Liberals idolized him.

2007-07-30 07:12:06 · update #1

living in the pass?! are you now on Drug or something?!

2007-07-30 07:14:20 · update #2

Clinton did great thing?! like what??

2007-07-30 07:14:40 · update #3

mix it up? so you meant to tell me millions of people can tell one another that we are going to balance what we vote?! LOL

2007-07-30 07:16:38 · update #4

Bob A: Great! Name calling is what Liberal do best.

2007-07-30 07:17:26 · update #5

jose: that was not Democrats told America last year just before the Elections. they told us GOP lost 2006 was because Bush's policy.

2007-07-30 07:23:18 · update #6

Bob A: Typical Liberal. Picking on little spelling to avoid the real Fact.

LOL

2007-07-30 07:25:11 · update #7

Bob A: if you are a republican then I am a true Hillary Fan.

2007-07-30 07:31:55 · update #8

14 answers

Speaking solely for myself, I do not idolize Democrats. I am a liberal but select the issues over the people. I am also a Christian which is why I try not to idolize anything other than God. Do you identify yourself as "conservative"? If so, does that mean you worship the Republican party? My parents are Conservatives and generally vote Democrat... does that blow your mind?

Why are you trying to divide people and incur more hatred towards your "opposition"? Don't we have better things to worry about like the "war" in Iraq and American jobs being outsourced...? Or what about the obscene amount of debt we've been racking up?

2007-07-30 07:31:46 · answer #1 · answered by Sangria 4 · 2 1

Clinton is considered to have served during the American transition from the political order of the Cold War. Clinton was a New Democrat politician and was mainly responsible for the Third Way philosophy of governance that came to epitomize his two terms as president.
Clinton presided over the longest period of peace-time economic expansion in American history, which included a balanced budget and a federal surplus. His first term saw the passage of economic legislation such as the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993. In 1994, because of several legislative failures, including an unsuccessful attempt at health care reform, Republicans won control of the House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years.

2007-07-30 07:21:52 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 3 1

First things first:

Bill Clinton was not a 'great president'. He was a pretty good president in that he presided over a huge economic expansion and paid off the national dept.

But the best think he did was not do anything HUGELY STUPID like the current occupant. Also, I don't think he was as corrupt as the current occupant.

That being said, the loss of mid-terms show that people were not totally sold on good 'Ol Bill and I think the loss in 98 was predicated almost entirely on the Republican witch hunt and impeachment attempt.

2007-07-30 08:10:57 · answer #3 · answered by spay&neuter-all-republicans 3 · 0 1

Clinton ran as a moderate in 1992. He governed in 1993 and 1994 as a far-left-wing wacko jacking those tax rates sky-high, appointing a lesbian as the Attorney General, and opening the military to gays, while giving the impression of defeat against a wild African warlord against our own Rangers and Special Forces. He changed the role of the CIA from that of gathering intelligence to a mission of diplomacy, severely limiting the amount and quality of intelligence that could be gathered. He also sliced our defense and intelligence spending DRASTICALLY. He was WAY TOO LEFT for anybody's comfort.

In retrospect the policies Billary initiated in the first two years positioned us nicely for 9/11 and cost a lot of American lives on our own home soil. Putting Hillary in to succeed Bush will do the same thing all over again.

Proverbs says: Like a dog returning to his own vomit, so a fool will return to his folly.

Let us not fulfill this proverb in 2008.

2007-07-30 07:29:57 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

one has little to do with the other, normally I believe that there should be checks and balances...and that it is healthy to have the differnent branches of government headed by opposing parties. Much of recent history had a Republican president and a Democratic congress...it is the people, not the parties that decide.

2007-07-30 07:47:44 · answer #5 · answered by Ford Prefect 7 · 0 0

Lets see, 94 and 98, that would be 13 and 9 years ago. Would fall into the category of " who cares? "

2007-07-30 07:33:51 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

There is a simple explanation. Mid term election is to elect members of congress not the president.

2007-07-30 07:20:54 · answer #7 · answered by Jose R 6 · 3 1

The American people have shown again and again they don't want a 1 party government. It allows things to go too far one way or the other. That's why they mix it up.

2007-07-30 07:15:27 · answer #8 · answered by AmigaJoe 3 · 2 2

yet another moronic post infatuated with the imaginary demographic 'liberals'. Might as well call it the devil, so it suits your perspective better.

2007-07-30 08:20:28 · answer #9 · answered by spillmind 4 · 0 1

1994: One word answer: HillaryCare

2007-07-30 07:56:38 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers