Who was the better american president: Clinton or Bush? 173 replies

Please wait...

Sovereign002 VIP Member

Adeptus Moderatus We purge with chain and bolter

105,915 XP

22nd May 2005

0 Uploads

10,044 Posts

0 Threads

#1 13 years ago

Well if you ask me i think Bush junior really f*cked it up but thats just my oppinion. Clinton may have had an affair and stuff but atleast he helped his fellow americans instead of making war against every country he could find. And dont you think it is strange that when Bush senior was president, Irak makes war against koeweit (ok thats Saddam's fault), when clinton is president everything is calm and suddenly when Bush junior is president, Irak starts making trouble again. Dont get me wrong its great that he attacked Afganistan and Irak, Saddam was a very bad president but now that those wars are over he can better start focussing on other things than war, like for instance...better protection against hurricanes, signing the Kyoto pact, ... What do you guys think??


sovereignwarhammer.jpg



Aeroflot

I would die without GF

169,400 XP

2nd May 2003

0 Uploads

15,205 Posts

0 Threads

#2 13 years ago

I dunno about Clinton either, he did authorize that Somalia thing.




Master of Reality

I'm lying when I say trust me

50 XP

8th June 2004

0 Uploads

10,166 Posts

0 Threads

#3 13 years ago

It's a shame about the controversy about Clinton. When people think of Clinton they'll think of that, rather than all the peace plans he helped put in place. He was instrumental in putting peace in with the Israelis and Palestinians, for a short time anyway. Either way Clinton was the more responsible president, and who cares if he got some head on the side.




Dot Com

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

26th June 2000

0 Uploads

6,116 Posts

0 Threads

#4 13 years ago
Master of RealityIt's a shame about the controversy about Clinton. When people think of Clinton they'll think of that, rather than all the peace plans he helped put in place. He was instrumental in putting peace in with the Israelis and Palestinians, for a short time anyway. Either way Clinton was the more responsible president, and who cares if he got some head on the side.

That's what I've been saying. I could care less if he was cheating on his wife, my concern is how he runs the country.




JP(NL)

Flying Dutchman

50 XP

28th April 2003

0 Uploads

8,315 Posts

0 Threads

#5 13 years ago

Clinton is the lesser of evils.

That doesn't make him good or anything, mind you. He's still a politician.




Mihail VIP Member

President of Novistrana

50 XP

19th January 2003

0 Uploads

15,509 Posts

0 Threads

#6 13 years ago

I'v been off duty for what? a month and joke threads are allowed in the pub now? Clinton is the better choice, he was not lining his pockets with money unlike bush with his wars.




Mastershroom VIP Member

Frag Out!

153,685 XP

18th November 2004

0 Uploads

14,196 Posts

0 Threads

#7 13 years ago

Clinton was the best this country's ever seen. All scandals aside, his years in office were some of the best, ever. Besides, it's nice to have the occasional adultery to spice it up a bit, don't you think?




Relander

Ambassador

50 XP

8th April 2005

0 Uploads

2,538 Posts

0 Threads

#8 13 years ago

Weather report: expect some serious Democrat vs. Republican fight (again) and Clinton & Bush bashing.

I say Clinton and I mostly agree with Jeffro: it wasn't that big issue for me that Clinton cheated his wife. What is far more important is how he did his work and I think he did that relatively good.




Big {Daddy}

Get in!

50 XP

2nd October 2003

0 Uploads

1,708 Posts

0 Threads

#9 13 years ago

Slick Willie.




Blood n Guts

Wolverine Starting 9/6/2006

50 XP

22nd March 2005

0 Uploads

758 Posts

0 Threads

#10 13 years ago

[COLOR=black]I really can't see this thread going anywhere. To conservatives as supporters of the war on Iraq, W. Bush will be the best choice because he embodies their ideals. To leftisists and people opposed to the war in Iraq, Clinton would be the embodiment of their ideals, and their choice. For moderates, Bush Sr. as the only moderate president other than Eisenhower in the 20th century would be viewed as the best choice. To be fair, it's too early to judge these presidents because they cannot be judged from a contemporary perspective without bias, nor can they be judged by their lasting contributions. W. Bush still has 3 years left in office. Clinton has only been out of office for 4 years, Bush Senior a little over a decade. Issues then are still very close to issues now. These aren't presidents that fought for, and implemented policies that have long since been accepted, these presidents faced issues that are still as hotly contested today as they were during their terms.[/COLOR] edit: I voted for Bush Sr. W. Bush is still in office, and IMO Clinton is overated, for the most part because he is given too much credit for the prosperity of the 90s. To give him most of the credit without regarding those who came before him and played a significant role in the boom would be the same as to credit Harding with the prosperity of 20s, quite a statement considering the fact that Harding is the most inept, and worst president ever (those of you the cry Bush and quote this, remember this: Bush has not been the president in any major scandals, none of them involving the sale of the oil reserves for the US navy). To consider harding as the source of prosperity would be to ignore the actions of Teddy Roosevelt (brought monopolies under control, strengthening competition and removing corruption, not to mention being a very good leader) and Wilson (the Federal Reserve. Taft was ignored because, despite his action program of dollar diplomacy, making the US gov responcible for spreading buisiness, he didn't accomplish anything). The same applies to the 90s, the policies of Reagan and Bush Sr. created the boom, only this time the policies of Clinton managed to competently deal with the boom (rather than the policies of Harding which may have been a chief cause of the Great Depression).

edit: I voted for Bush Sr. W Bush is still in office, and, IMO, Clinton is overrated, for the most part because he is given too much credit for the prosperity of the 90s. To give him most of the credit without regarding those who came before him and played a significant role in the boom would be the same as to credit Harding with the prosperity of 20s, quite a statement considering the fact that Harding is the most inept, and worst president ever (those of you the cry Bush and quote this, remember this: Bush has not been the president in any major scandals, none of them involving the sale of the oil reserves for the US navy). To consider Harding as the source of prosperity would be to ignore the actions of Teddy Roosevelt (brought monopolies under control, strengthening competition and removing corruption, not to mention being a very good leader) and Wilson (the Federal Reserve. Taft was ignored because, despite his action program of dollar diplomacy, making the US gov responsible for spreading business, he didn't accomplish anything). The same applies to the 90s, the policies of Reagan and Bush Sr. created the boom, only this time the policies of Clinton managed to competently deal with the boom (rather than the policies of Harding which may have been a chief cause of the Great Depression).