Poll: Clinton outperformed Bush

[Ferocious]

click

I will agree with the majority here.

It felt so much more like a time of peace and prosperity than it does now. In general I find myself worrying more today.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Ferocious
click

I will agree with the majority here.

It felt so much more like a time of peace and prosperity than it does now. In general I find myself worrying more today.

It's really not fair comparing a Rhodes Scholar to a Moron. With Clinton you knew he was in charge where as for Bush the general perception is that he's way in over his head.

 

[dguy6789]

If you can get past the whole Monica Lewinsky fiasco, you can see that Clinton was a relatively good president.

 

[Stunt]

Honesty and National Security they ended up even.

I'm not surprised by the "more divisive" leader being Bush; both Clinton and Bush had Republican houses. The allows Bush to pass more republican bills. Clinton was forced to hold a balance when passing legislation; that being said, he was far more moderate than Bush is.

Clinton while he was one of the better presidents, he certainly gets too much credit for what he has done; and these types of polls show this. Fact of the matter is; Clinton is gone, there's nothing anyone can do about it and yes Bush sucks...

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Stunt
Honesty and National Security they ended up even.

I'm not surprised by the "more divisive" leader being Bush; both Clinton and Bush had Republican houses. The allows Bush to pass more republican bills. Clinton was forced to hold a balance when passing legislation; that being said, he was far more moderate than Bush is.

Clinton while he was one of the better presidents, he certainly gets too much credit for what he has done; and these types of polls show this. Fact of the matter is; Clinton is gone, there's nothing anyone can do about it and yes Bush sucks...

Clinton might just have been a mediocre President but compared to Bush he looks like Lincoln, even Jimmy Carter looks good compared to Bush amd we all know that Carter was weak.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Clinton might just have been a mediocre President but compared to Bush he looks like Lincoln, even Jimmy Carter looks good compared to Bush amd we all know that Carter was weak.

Well it is all relative to the challenges that each President faced during his terms in office.

Bush faced the rise of Al Quaida as a threat to American national security, and failed to develop an adequate response and winnable strategy for combating global terrorism...Katrina being another much talked about failure of his Administration.

Clintons failures include Somalia, the Balkans, and defining a role for America in a post Cold War world. His foreign policy approach was one of disengagement, and while I don't necessarily agree with the Republican witch hunt over Monica Lewinsky, I still think it doesn't speak very highly of Clinton's character as a leader.

Comparing Clinton to Bush is a lesser of two evils argument...neither is or was a great President.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Clinton might just have been a mediocre President but compared to Bush he looks like Lincoln, even Jimmy Carter looks good compared to Bush amd we all know that Carter was weak.

Well it is all relative to the challenges that each President faced during his terms in office.

Bush faced the rise of Al Quaida as a threat to American national security, and failed to develop an adequate response and winnable strategy for combating global terrorism...Katrina being another much talked about failure of his Administration.

Clintons failures include Somalia, the Balkans, and defining a role for America in a post Cold War world. His foreign policy approach was one of disengagement, and while I don't necessarily agree with the Republican witch hunt over Monica Lewinsky, I still think it doesn't speak very highly of Clinton's character as a leader.

Comparing Clinton to Bush is a lesser of two evils argument...neither is or was a great President.

I don't think he failed in the Balkans and even though Somalia was a disaster (albeit one he inherited from the Real Bush) he was smart enough to cut our losses and disengaged from that sh!thole with minimal losses.

 

[Thump553]

Clinton lied about his private sex life.

Bush lied, and continues to lie, about just about every substantial issue. Ever notice how Bush NEVER testifies under oath about anything? Even his "testimony" before the 9/11 Commission (about his supposedly most Presidential moment) was not allowed until the Commission agreed that the "testimony" would be unsworn and that Bush could have a handler (Cheney) present. But Clinton got hauled into sworn deposition after deposition in trivial "private" lawsuits.

Bush will go down in history as-at best-a mostly inept leader who had all the cards stacked in his favor. One thing for sure-our kids will curse him everytime they pay the debts that we incurred foolishly.

 

[rickn]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Ferocious
click

I will agree with the majority here.

It felt so much more like a time of peace and prosperity than it does now. In general I find myself worrying more today.

It's really not fair comparing a Rhodes Scholar to a Moron. With Clinton you knew he was in charge where as for Bush the general perception is that he's way in over his head.

if that's not the gods honest truth. he needs laura just to be able to tie his shoe laces.

 

[fitzov]

public debt as % of GDP FTW!

 

[tropic]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
It's really not fair comparing a Rhodes Scholar to a Moron. With Clinton you knew he was in charge where as for Bush the general perception is that he's way in over his head.

Actually, I very much believe Bush is charge. Clinton was a brilliant man who seemed to be become bored with being President.

 

[Kappo]

While I dont think Bush has filled all of the needs in my opinion, he has done quite a few good things. Do the good things outweigh the bad? That's a matter of opinion. I make 70% more than I did when Clinton was in office. So my time of prosperity is now.

If you get your news from any major media outlet, then of course your opinion of him will be low (excluding Fox, which swings the other way). By only looking at what our media tells you, you let someone else make up your mind. Learn to think critically, and perhaps you will see there are good and bad from all of our presidents instead of rolling onto the "let's see if we can scrutinize everything conservatives do in order to use it against them so we can gain power and have the poor people rely completely on us" bandwagon.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Kappo
While I dont think Bush has filled all of the needs in my opinion, he has done quite a few good things. Do the good things outweigh the bad? That's a matter of opinion. I make 70% more than I did when Clinton was in office. So my time of prosperity is now.

If you get your news from any major media outlet, then of course your opinion of him will be low (excluding Fox, which swings the other way). By only looking at what our media tells you, you let someone else make up your mind. Learn to think critically, and perhaps you will see there are good and bad from all of our presidents instead of rolling onto the "let's see if we can scrutinize everything conservatives do in order to use it against them so we can gain power and have the poor people rely completely on us" bandwagon.

Or at least that's the Bush Apologists line.

 

[daveymark]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Clinton might just have been a mediocre President but compared to Bush he looks like Lincoln, even Jimmy Carter looks good compared to Bush amd we all know that Carter was weak.

Well it is all relative to the challenges that each President faced during his terms in office.

Bush faced the rise of Al Quaida as a threat to American national security, and failed to develop an adequate response and winnable strategy for combating global terrorism...Katrina being another much talked about failure of his Administration.

Clintons failures include Somalia, the Balkans, and defining a role for America in a post Cold War world. His foreign policy approach was one of disengagement, and while I don't necessarily agree with the Republican witch hunt over Monica Lewinsky, I still think it doesn't speak very highly of Clinton's character as a leader.

Comparing Clinton to Bush is a lesser of two evils argument...neither is or was a great President.

:thumbsup:

/thread

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Stunt
Honesty and National Security they ended up even.

I'm not surprised by the "more divisive" leader being Bush; both Clinton and Bush had Republican houses. The allows Bush to pass more republican bills. Clinton was forced to hold a balance when passing legislation; that being said, he was far more moderate than Bush is.

Clinton while he was one of the better presidents, he certainly gets too much credit for what he has done; and these types of polls show this. Fact of the matter is; Clinton is gone, there's nothing anyone can do about it and yes Bush sucks...

Now you say your God sucks??? :roll:

Had to bail eh? :laugh:

 

[dmcowen674]

That's hysterical.

Poll is who do you feel was most honest President.

Guess people prefer lying about some extra nooky and stains in the Oval Office than false wars and the Country stained. :laugh:

 

[BarneyFife]

I thought Bush was going to bring back honor and dignity to the white house LOL. Remember, he never enters the oval office without wearing a tie.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: Kappo
While I dont think Bush has filled all of the needs in my opinion, he has done quite a few good things. Do the good things outweigh the bad? That's a matter of opinion. I make 70% more than I did when Clinton was in office. So my time of prosperity is now.

Yeah, I'm making 10 times what I was making when Clinton was in office.

Of course, when Clinton was in office was when I was ages 12-20.

 

[rickn]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Kappo
While I dont think Bush has filled all of the needs in my opinion, he has done quite a few good things. Do the good things outweigh the bad? That's a matter of opinion. I make 70% more than I did when Clinton was in office. So my time of prosperity is now.

If you get your news from any major media outlet, then of course your opinion of him will be low (excluding Fox, which swings the other way). By only looking at what our media tells you, you let someone else make up your mind. Learn to think critically, and perhaps you will see there are good and bad from all of our presidents instead of rolling onto the "let's see if we can scrutinize everything conservatives do in order to use it against them so we can gain power and have the poor people rely completely on us" bandwagon.

Or at least that's the Bush Apologists line.

I guess if you can afford find some small island to buy it will all work out while the rest of the world goes to hell in a hand basket.

 

[AAjax]

They are both a$$hats, both serve the same agenda, and both are a disgrace.

I would have to call it a draw.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Stunt
Honesty and National Security they ended up even.

I'm not surprised by the "more divisive" leader being Bush; both Clinton and Bush had Republican houses. The allows Bush to pass more republican bills. Clinton was forced to hold a balance when passing legislation; that being said, he was far more moderate than Bush is.

Clinton while he was one of the better presidents, he certainly gets too much credit for what he has done; and these types of polls show this. Fact of the matter is; Clinton is gone, there's nothing anyone can do about it and yes Bush sucks...

Now you say your God sucks??? :roll:

Had to bail eh? :laugh:

He was never my god...
I judge the man on an issue by issue basis...unlike you and your blind hatred for anything un-liberal

 

[Starbuck1975]

I don't think he failed in the Balkans and even though Somalia was a disaster (albeit one he inherited from the Real Bush) he was smart enough to cut our losses and disengaged from that sh!thole with minimal losses.

My criticism of Clinton is a bit harsh as I was in the military during his Administration, and his handling of foreign policy is largely what motivated me to retire my boots.

The Balkans was a failure in that we did not respond quick enough to prevent the worst of the genocide from happening, and over 10 years later, we still have forces committed to the region. When we deployed to Bosnia, Clinton failed to devise an exit strategy...granted, as we have not lost soldiers in Bosnia, perhaps an exit strategy was not critical...but it did commit the Army to a resource draining peacekeeping mission that detracted from our warfighter training focus, and multiple rotations to the Balkans has damaged force readiness, morale and focus for our commanders.

It also begs the question of why America or the UN for that matter has not intervened in other parts of the world where worst atrocities have and continue to occur...given the justifications for our Balkans engagement, we should have stayed the course in Somalia and also sent aid to the Sudan and other parts of Africa devastated by ethnic conflict. Recent headlines as early as last week show that an endless cycle of death continues to grip Somalia, the Sudan and other regions of Africa.

The plight of the Third World is the responsibility of those developed nations that engaged in imperialism, and then abandoned their former colonies to plunge into a downward spiral of ethnic conflict, civil war and genocide. If ever there was a mandate for the UN to prove its worth, it is in this arena...yet the world sits back and does nothing.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

I don't think he failed in the Balkans and even though Somalia was a disaster (albeit one he inherited from the Real Bush) he was smart enough to cut our losses and disengaged from that sh!thole with minimal losses.

My criticism of Clinton is a bit harsh as I was in the military during his Administration, and his handling of foreign policy is largely what motivated me to retire my boots.

The Balkans was a failure in that we did not respond quick enough to prevent the worst of the genocide from happening, and over 10 years later, we still have forces committed to the region. When we deployed to Bosnia, Clinton failed to devise an exit strategy...granted, as we have not lost soldiers in Bosnia, perhaps an exit strategy was not critical...but it did commit the Army to a resource draining peacekeeping mission that detracted from our warfighter training focus, and multiple rotations to the Balkans has damaged force readiness, morale and focus for our commanders.

It also begs the question of why America or the UN for that matter has not intervened in other parts of the world where worst atrocities have and continue to occur...given the justifications for our Balkans engagement, we should have stayed the course in Somalia and also sent aid to the Sudan and other parts of Africa devastated by ethnic conflict. Recent headlines as early as last week show that an endless cycle of death continues to grip Somalia, the Sudan and other regions of Africa.

The plight of the Third World is the responsibility of those developed nations that engaged in imperialism, and then abandoned their former colonies to plunge into a downward spiral of ethnic conflict, civil war and genocide. If ever there was a mandate for the UN to prove its worth, it is in this arena...yet the world sits back and does nothing.

Well I'm a bit calloused, if those assholes want to rub each other out so be it. The reason I considered it successful is that his/our actions prevented a larger conflict in which that whole area could have exploded involving greece, Russia, Turkey, Bulgaria, Italy and all of the other nations that had interests in that area.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Thump553
Clinton lied about his private sex life.

Bush lied, and continues to lie, about just about every substantial issue. Ever notice how Bush NEVER testifies under oath about anything? Even his "testimony" before the 9/11 Commission (about his supposedly most Presidential moment) was not allowed until the Commission agreed that the "testimony" would be unsworn and that Bush could have a handler (Cheney) present. But Clinton got hauled into sworn deposition after deposition in trivial "private" lawsuits.

Bush will go down in history as-at best-a mostly inept leader who had all the cards stacked in his favor. One thing for sure-our kids will curse him everytime they pay the debts that we incurred foolishly.

No, they'll be cursing the people who push Social Security and the immense tax burden liberals like to dump down.

 

[Eos]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Thump553
Clinton lied about his private sex life.

Bush lied, and continues to lie, about just about every substantial issue. Ever notice how Bush NEVER testifies under oath about anything? Even his "testimony" before the 9/11 Commission (about his supposedly most Presidential moment) was not allowed until the Commission agreed that the "testimony" would be unsworn and that Bush could have a handler (Cheney) present. But Clinton got hauled into sworn deposition after deposition in trivial "private" lawsuits.

Bush will go down in history as-at best-a mostly inept leader who had all the cards stacked in his favor. One thing for sure-our kids will curse him everytime they pay the debts that we incurred foolishly.

No, they'll be cursing the people who push Social Security and the immense tax burden liberals like to dump down.

< sing song > "Fantasy one sentence answer! </ sing song>