no talk radio #@%$#
2007-09-07 14:02:35 · 39 answers · asked by dpope144 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
he balanced the budget (until it was unbalanced by the so called "conservative" who followed him.) But some are more interested in (obsessed by) by fellatio than the well being of the nation
2007-09-07 14:08:25 · answer #1 · answered by mr_fartson 7 · 3⤊ 7⤋
I'll agree to him being productive, but the last 200 years? Anyhow I think too many people were absorbed in the "America the untouchable" bubble of the 90's to realize what was really going on in politics. Life in the US was more than comfortable and not too many could( or wanted) to foresee an event that would unravel that security. And lets face it, Clinton was no dummy. He didn't exactly go around shouting to the people that Bin Ladden posed a major threat. He knew bin ladden did but Clinton knew it would send anxiety through out the country. And that's just one example. So I think alot of what people don't realize was that Clinton was some what sneaky about what he was doing. He kept the people happy, and if he could slide something past the hostile republicans, all the better. And now, unfortunately, the only thing people can remeber is "the scandal." Which I like to remind people that, while it wasn't appropriate, he isn't by far the first president to be caught in an affair in office. Oh well, perhaps the history book will be better to him than our memories, but I doubt it. They seldom are.
2007-09-07 14:21:57 · answer #2 · answered by koolkitty 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Because you would have to be either stoned the entire 8 years or on acid or LSD. Hey right up slick willy's alley.
I wonder if he had any pot smoking moments on the back lawn burning American flags....I hear he turned some Naval, Marine, Army officers into waiters. I would have resigned rather than disgraced my Uniform the historical precedence.
1. He was productive at, perhaps the advancement of islamo fascists, since 3 embassies, 1 U.S. Warship and countless Americans were killed by terrorists and he did nothing.
2. He opened the White House to celebrities, I am sure they all contributed to his library.
3. He disgraced the office of the President of the U.S.
4. He bit hi lip too much, a sign he either was lying or made something up.
5. He bombed Christians from 30,000 feet, killing women and children, took the side of muslims, who started the war by killing police officers. Have any mass burials ever been found.
6. He turned his Atty Gen, FBI on American citizens.
7. Sent a young boy whose Mother died bringing him to freedom back to a communist country.
Yep he was real productive.
2007-09-07 14:15:43 · answer #3 · answered by Rick D 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Because it's wrong to think Clinton was more productive than someone like Thomas Jefferson and a lot of others as well. I think the question has got to be a joke.
2007-09-07 14:30:50 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
while i don't agree with the whole "in the past 200 years" thing, i totally agree that he was undeniably better than bush is. i also think that he would have handled 9-11 a lot better and with more tact that bush did. i also don't think that it's fair that he is looked down upon and judged because of his stint with Monica. heck he wasn't even the first president to cheat on his wife like that. its just because of the media and time that Clinton's was publicized so much.
2007-09-07 14:13:35 · answer #5 · answered by Anastacia E 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
i have a hard time remembering,was that the time he shut down 7000jobs in the military,i do belive that was just b-4 bush took over,or was it the times he was cought with ,how many women,and i'm not sure you been around for 220yrs.,thats the only way you could make that statement
2007-09-07 14:13:14 · answer #6 · answered by THE"IS" 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Be careful. Don't join the politically bigoted in fighting them.
He did his service to our country.
President Bush is doing his now.
I get tired of the rumor mongering, name-calling, etc. in talk radio as well.
I am still a democrat. They have free speech and I'm glad of it. So do you.
Keep speaking up, everyone.
2007-09-07 14:06:52 · answer #7 · answered by mckenziecalhoun 7 · 8⤊ 0⤋
Clinton was the most re-productive president...you mean?
what exactly did he produce besides a semen stained dress??
more productive than Kennedy? than Reagan? than Lincoln?
i think he was more like Harding. A good speaker who never really said anything of substance.
2007-09-07 14:09:59 · answer #8 · answered by Act D 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
He did not produce record gas prices record debt or 3600+
ghosts. The republicans are just jealous he got use of oval office whlile they are relegated to airport bathrooms
2007-09-07 14:12:16 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Yeah... Monica has the same opinion. Maybe I missed something.
It doesn't say much about the other presidents, does it.
.
2007-09-07 14:07:06 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 0⤋
Maybe we would if you could back up your assertion with some hard facts, as well as define the fuzzy phrase 'most productive'.
Maybe he was. Maybe TR was.
2007-09-07 14:07:02 · answer #11 · answered by Ice 6 · 7⤊ 0⤋