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

he was the worst ever !!!!!!!!!!!

2007-08-04 12:20:33 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Elections

13 answers

Oh thats just funny.
The man liked women, a little too much, but thats it.
Thousand of man hours and millions of dollars spent by dozens of investigations on state and Federal levels, and nope, he didn't do anything but lie about sleeping with someone. No lies about WMDs, or chemical plants, no eliminating habeus corpus, no listening in to citizens without a warrant.
Just good old sex.
Worst ever? Hardly.

2007-08-04 12:32:42 · answer #1 · answered by justa 7 · 6 4

If by worst ever you mean
Delivered the longest economic expansion in the country's history
Prevented genocide in the Balkans leading to long term stability in that region
Balanced the budget
Increased jobs and real average income
Enjoyed the respect and admiration of most of the rest of the world
Never fell below 50% support from the electorate
Saw unemployment and poverty fall every year of his administration

Then yeah he was pretty bad. Most sane people would consider this all good.

2007-08-04 22:09:43 · answer #2 · answered by Sageandscholar 7 · 5 2

I suggest you ask your parents, who may be old enough to remember the Clinton Presidency. The country ran smoothly, the economy was good and people were not crucified for disagreeing with the White House. The budget was balanced and the national debt was being reduced for the first time in a quarter century.

If you knew anything about history you would know that that ranks the Bill Clinton Presidency fairly, but your partisan bias makes you unfit to judge objectively.

How can you call Clinton worse that Warren Gamaliel Harding, whose term saw everything and anything for sale. Harding's right hand man, Secretary Harry Daugherty, was indicted and covicted of accepting bribes from the Rockefellers to sell Esso the national oil reserves at Teapot Dome. Harding himself was involved, and would have been idicted if he had not died under suspicious circumstances.

Clinton also cannot be compared to Richard Nixon, who was incredibly competent in many ways, but was morally blind to the point where he established a dirty tricks squad and covered for it when it got caught. Actual malfeasance in office in both of the above cases.

If your political opinions are driving your truth circuits, they make you a liar. Every administration of any party will accomplish some good and some bad. Ignoring the bad done by others and the good done by those you dislike undermines your entire position.

I will point out that both of my worse examples were 20th century REPUBLICANS. Both of these men were corrupt and venal to the bone. The worst anybody can prove of Clinton, for all the billions that the GOP spent looking, is that he is unfaithful to his wife. Deplorable, perhaps, but not in the same league with selling our national oil reserves off.

Now the current incumbent has a very good chance of joining Nixon and Harding. The evidence suggests that his administration is venal and vengeful in the worst Republican tradition. Pardoning a convicted felon so he will not testify before a Congressional Committee is fairly unprincipled.

Your one sided criticism is unfair. You lie.

2007-08-04 19:39:45 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 7 5

Sir William......with all due respect, you need some spelling lessons, too! Although I agree the question is poorly structured. It amazes me how many people that participate in this forum can't spell, can't punctuate, can't use proper grammar, and can't structure good sentences. I guess it's indicative of our dismal education system in the United States. -RKO- 08/04/07

2007-08-04 20:52:53 · answer #4 · answered by -RKO- 7 · 2 2

I think it's funny how the Democrats talk about blaming the Republicans for the amount of money spent on investigating BIll.

If Bill hadn't lied to the American people and his wife for so long, the investigation would have been over sooner, and he could have saved us all a lot of taxpayer's money.

2007-08-05 00:38:50 · answer #5 · answered by kNOTaLIAwyR 7 · 1 3

Since he was one of the best Presidents ever (8 years of peace, economic prosperity, and a budget surplus), that will be hard to do.

But he'll be a better first lady than George Bush has been to President Cheney.

And his sentence structure is about what you would expect from a typical neo-con.

2007-08-04 19:29:48 · answer #6 · answered by Mitchell . 5 · 6 5

I'm sure he'll be a much better first lady
than Puppet Bushie Boy is to
President Frankenstein Cheney....

President Cheney & VP Bush
are THE WORST EVER IN HISTORY!!!

2007-08-04 19:34:52 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 6 5

Great title for the topic!

A good first lady is faithful to their spouse, and Clinton has already failed that test abundantly.



(Mitchell said: )
" Since he was one of the best Presidents ever (8 years of peace, economic prosperity, and a budget surplus), that will be hard to do. "

(my answer: )
8 years of prosperity, where he did nothing about repeated Al Qaida attacks in 1993 - 2000, setting the stage for 9-11?

Where Clinton gave the North Koreans a billion dollars in free energy per year beginning in 1994, with no nuclear verification inspections required, resulting in their obtaining nuclear weapons about 11 months into W Bush's presidency, after Clinton gave them 8 years to develop nukes?

8 years where Clinton's contempt for national security and not protecting dual-use technology resulted in China developing nuclear ICBM missiles that now can reach the United States?

One thing Clinton gets credit for is economic prosperity, but that is arguably DESPITE Clinton's economic policies, not because of them. The internet boom would have happened regardless, and can more fairly be credited to Bill Gates, windows 95 and faster computers, than to Clinton's policies.

The two best things Clinton did as president were economic bailouts of collapsing economies in Mexico and Indonesia, that otherwise would have had horrible effects on the U.S. and global economies.
That I give him credit for.

Clinton's budget surplus was due to Republican ideas that he adopted, and only because Republican ideas were clearly favored by the American public, as was evident in Republicans seizing control of Congress in the 1994 election. If Clinton didn't become fiscally conservative, he would have been a one-term president.

2007-08-04 20:19:14 · answer #8 · answered by Stiffler 5 · 4 6

Kudos to david l. He took the words right out of my mouth!

2007-08-04 21:35:14 · answer #9 · answered by mstrywmn 7 · 3 2

Sir William: I suggest you learn how to spell .

2007-08-04 19:27:45 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 8 1

fedest.com, questions and answers