Aren't they all the same... for themselves and screw the American people....
2007-10-23 12:15:35 · 24 answers · asked by Dream Realized 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I always say, Hillary is a female version of Bush. They're even members of the same political party: AIPAC.
2007-10-23 12:54:44 · answer #1 · answered by TJTB 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Your absolutely correct about this. There is a false dichotomy that has been deftly created in the minds of our citizenry concerning Bush and the Clintons, between Democrats and Republicans, as if there was a genuine difference between these two political families or parties. Both are opportunistic at their core, and are willing to sell out their constituency, and their professed political goals, for money, and an opportunity to ascend the political ladder.
The Clintons promised much in terms of bringing about greater social justice and equity, and instead of delivering on these promises; they made facile attempts at putting up appearances. The Bushes promised security, freedom, and greater access to social influence for their religious constituency. In the end the Bushes sold all of this on the altar of greed.
One thing is for certain, BETRAYAL is a bipartisan platform.
2007-10-24 06:57:20 · answer #2 · answered by Lawrence Louis 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think the Clintons are more compassionate then the Bushes.
Bill Clinton grew up in a humble environment, and some of his best friends were African American.
George Bush grew up with a silver spoon in his mouth. A member of a very wealthy family. So they have a very different outlook on poverty.
But I do agree that power is the breeding ground for corruption.
2007-10-23 12:50:43 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
a name
2007-10-23 12:19:13 · answer #4 · answered by Free Radical 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
In politics, what you said is a given and I agree. But you are asking about the difference between the Bushes and the Clintons, and my answer is IQ.
2007-10-23 12:54:15 · answer #5 · answered by Belen 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not much. Clinton was way better educated, and more self reliant. Bush had daddy prop him up in nearly every endeavor he participated ..especially getting out of having to do any real military service and playing oilman/baseball franchise owner. Both were druggies. I personally wish Bush had gotten busted like some poor black guy when he was snorting blow ..but alas its good to be rich! So yeah they are pretty much the same ...LMAO.
2007-10-23 12:33:32 · answer #6 · answered by chemoshbbq 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Mr. Bush seems to have no sense of how to speak properly. Pity him on the lecture circuit.
Mr. Clinton is quite articulate in that medium
Mr. Bush has been screwing the middle class and helping the rich and corporations get richer. Mr. Clinton has just been screwing women and interns.
I think it would be a great cat fight between Laura and Hillary.
2007-10-23 12:26:34 · answer #7 · answered by Dragonmistress 3 · 6⤊ 3⤋
The Bushes raised a couple of party girls, the Clintons raised a girl that has to take rohypnol before she pleasures herself.
2007-10-23 12:34:15 · answer #8 · answered by Bigsky_52 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
The differences are where the Corporate Lobbyists send the money.
2007-10-23 13:45:25 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You are quite right to believe they are quite similar. They are. They support different varieties of the same ideology - statism. Both turn to the power of government to solve problems first caused by the government. In other words they turn to state-sponsored violence to "solve" problems caused by state-sponsored violence. As Americans we need to stop turning to government to solve our problems, what we need is self-government.
2007-10-23 12:32:34 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋