Is George W. Bush more harmful to the U.S. than Hillary Clinton ?

Question

George W. Bush wants a North American Union ,free trade ,
and no funding for the SCHIP program .

Both of the aforementioned politicians
are harmful to our nation .

Hillary Clinton has taken illegal
contributions,has supported free trade
in certain cases ,and said she would
leave 50,000 troops in Iraq .

Answer 1

Without a doubt George Bush has done more harm to the US than anyone else could. The only way to go from here is up.

Answer 2

Bush and Hillary Clinton are not in the same league whatsoever. Bush is not educated while Hillary is a smart independent thinker. Bush is a war monger that has spent trillions of dollars on a senseless war. Hillary wants money to help our citizens in our own country and make insurance available to those that need it. Bush spends money in foreign countries to make himself and buddies rich. Bush is a convicted drunk with a sealed record. Hillary does not have a criminal record. Bush has made the US a laughing stock worldwide. Hillary will have to go in and clean up the worldwide perception of the US. Bush made it where he is today by his family's political status and pulling strings. Hillary's success is self made . There is no question who is the danger-George W Bush the worst president in US history.

Answer 3

I hope the opportunity doesn't happen that we will
see the harm Sen. Clinton will cause this country.
She was for the war. Then she was against the war.
Now she says we have to keep 50,000 over there.
She pulled Bill's strings so she's been president
once. While they were in office, there was Whitewater,
Travelgate, Charlie Trie, Vince Foster, James Riate,
and Craig LIvingstone issues that came up that they
tried to ignore and get off the front pages. Maybe some
of you are too young to remember all that happened
while they were in the White House. Oh yes, when they
left the White House, they took all the B's off all the
computers and they took stuff with them that wasn't
theirs ,but belonged in the White House. So, they seem
to have no sense of right or wrong. Don't need someone
like her in the White House again - once was enough.

Answer 4

How can you make the comparision? Hilllery isn't in a position of power yet, hopefully she will never get the chance to show you just how harmful she can be. Oh and by the way, Bush wanted an increase in SCHIP funding. He just wasn't spending as much as the libs wanted him to.

Answer 5

I need to imagine them as job applicants at an interview. Let's also imagine their resumes are blank and we interviewers have no idea who they 'really' are. Now what would we say about them after they would leave the room? George: He seems to be a down-to-earth guy, likeable, easy to get along with, a team player. If our company would be in a no-brainer business (e.g. FMCG, raw materials, automotive) and the overwhelming majority of our buyers males, we would hire him for sales. If he proves himself, he would have the potential to become head of sales someday. Hilary: She is goal-orientated, knows what she wants and is working hard to get there. A convincing talker, demands respect. Upper management material, probably strategic development, HR (or given her actual background, legal dept). If she proves herself she could become CEO. *** George has already proven his sales skills, hasn't he? The question now is if Hilary has proven herself enough to be promoted to CEO, or if there isn't a better candidate for that position.

Answer 6

And Marshald
IF in office what shall you say when HRC
wants the North American Union, more
trade with China and funding requiring
billions for her Hillcare policies .
All probable if you research her history
in these area.
PLUS she wants to be aggressive in world
wide arenas yet still shows no nads to prove
her intentions. Not pretty considering the names
Putin. AMJ (i'madinnajacket of Iran) Hugo Chavez
Saudi Arabian's who? women are stand behind me
if even near me.

Hillary Rodham Clinton hands down worse.

Answer 7

Actually Bush has been harmful to the whole world. Hillary really hasn't harmed anyone but the pride of the neocons who are frustrated because they know they can't beat her. Her husband bested Newton Leroy Gingrich and they have been out to get the Clintons ever since then.

Answer 8

I assume Hitlery would just be a continuation of her husbands impotent terrorism policies. That means if your a branch davidian she'll send a tank. If you're a terrorist she'll send an attorney.
She wants to give people $5000 to have babies.
Redefine poverty at $82000 a year
Redefine child as 25 years old
We are living a great economy
No attacks on US soil
They both suck regarding illegals

Answer 9

Hillary Clinton is definitely more harmful to the U.S. With her tactics, she'll get rid of Capitalism and replace it with Socialism. The SCHIP program give insurance to children who don't otherwise need government provided healthcare. 25-50% of the children that would be covered would have parents with incomes of over $80,000. That means that a person with an income of $30,000 a year could end up paying for the healthcare of a child whose parent has an income of $80,000. The SCHIP program is too socialist for me, and if Hillary Clinton becomes president I think that capitalism will be replaced with socialism, and that gives people a lot less freedom with how they want to spend their money.

Answer 10

I still have not heard any reasons why Hilary would be bad for America. Even if she gave health care to the poor, she might go with the Bush idea of ballooning the deficit without a tax increase. I think the game is who will be the last president when China comes knocking to collect the debt

Answer 11

Why do Democrats lie about Bush?

He makes enough mistakes by himself. He does not want to reduce funding for the SCHIP program He wants to keep it limited to children.

Since you lied about SCHIP funding I will disregard the rest of your statement.