George Bush Or Clinton

@gaurav78 (118)
India
November 4, 2006 3:27pm CST
Who do u think was better
3 people like this
29 responses
• United States
6 Nov 06
Bush - The truth!
CLINTON! Just because he did what most men would have done-- so what! He was good for this country and he had the economy going in the right direction. BUSH SUCKS! He is doing nothing but lining his own pockets with oil money.. and he's loving it! He can't even speak clearly at any given time, I think he's just illiterate! My husband has had his own small contractor business for almost 8 years now.. and he is selling it! The economy is so bad here that no one has the money to do repairs and such on the homes they live in! They can't afford the improvements and such AND continue to heat their homes and pay for the increase on gas and every other increase Bush has caused.
• United States
6 Nov 06
ok people you seriously should do some homework before you say theings like this. 1. The economy was already getting better when CLinton took office he had nothing to do with it. 2. When W. took office there was a recession he turned that around despite 9/11 the economy is doing actually pretty well and there have been tax cuts. 3. Where Clinton hurt the military financially and moral wise Bush has brought it up despite a war on two fronts. Clinton allowed our service members to be murder by terrorist and did nothing while Bush to action when terrorist attacked this country.
@suzieque (2343)
• Canada
4 Nov 06
Clinton for sure. I saw a report on Clinton, it shows he helped the economy in The United States, it increase when he was in office. As for Bush, it is decreasing and still is. Plus I think Bush is a war monger.
1 person likes this
• United States
5 Aug 07
Actually, if you look at the stock market figures (steadily growing higher over Bush's presidency), and the unemployment figures (at the same rate as it was when Clinton was in office, and sometimes lower), and figure in that we are in a war right now, I would say Bush has a pretty good economy. Where is all this evidence of a bad economy?
• United States
31 Jul 07
I believe that Bill Clinton singlehandedly brought the office of President of the United States into ill-repute. His whole saga was disgusting, and I believe it caused young people to lose respect for the office of the President. I voted for Bush in both elections, although he was not my first choice. He seemed to do a pretty good job the first term, but I'm not crazy about some of his recent political decisions. If I had been the only one voting and the choice was either Bush or Clinton and other miscellaneous candidates, I'd probably have to look for one of the other candidates and vote for them. Morally speaking, however, there is absolutely no contest--I would definitely pick Bush. I have a feeling that both Clintons (are they still married?) are amoral.
@sfigatto (1848)
• Italy
5 Nov 06
I'm italian but I prefer Clinton
1 person likes this
@macubx (11433)
• Philippines
5 Nov 06
neither, i choose this guy:
• Indonesia
5 Nov 06
hi - hi
Clinton. bush only war in his head
1 person likes this
@moneymind (10524)
• Philippines
5 Nov 06
nice - clinton
i say bill clinton is better than bush, either of the two bushes. greetings. : )
1 person likes this
@KrauseHome (31303)
• United States
4 Nov 06
Clinton. He was for the people, and for the Economy. So the thing with Monica may have been wrong, but he was a Go Getter and not afraid to take charge when he needed too.
• Netherlands Antilles
4 Nov 06
Difficult to say, everybody has there good and bad side
1 person likes this
• United States
4 Nov 06
Bush...the economy was already getting better when Clinton got into office. Bush inherited a recession and has turned it around despite 9/11. Bush did not sit idly by as terrorist killed American citizens unlike Clinton
1 person likes this
• United States
4 Nov 06
Clinton
1 person likes this
• Netherlands
4 Nov 06
CLINTON !!! Bush just sux .
1 person likes this
• United States
5 Aug 07
Clinton wasn't a horrible president, but Bush is far better. He is a leader, not just a poll-watcher. He will take charge, and show terrorists around the world that America is not the weak nation that is afraid of conflict. Clinton pulled out of Somalia after losing 18 soldiers. This gave bin Laden and others a pretty good idea that America would not do anything substantial to hunt them down- and indeed, they did not do anything after the USS Cole was bombed. The economy is great under Bush, and Bush has supported our military and confronted terror- something Clinton did not do. (In Clinton's defense, he did not have anything as large as 9-11 to spur him to action. Without 9-11 attacks, I am not sure Bush would have willingly taken such a bold stand.)
• Canada
1 Aug 07
I really didn't like Bill Clinton but he still wasn't half as evil as George W. Bush. Clinton was definitely the lesser of two evils, but I still didn't like him. I don't like either of them!!! I would love to see George Bush get out of the whitehouse tonight!!!
17 Jan 07
Clinton was better. I don't care what he did in his private life, that is between him and his wife. He had a good foreign policy, people respected the country. Citizens had more privacy, no big brother sticking their noses in our business. he cared about the economy, and especially the environment. Bush doesn't care about anything except himself and trying to out do daddy. Bush certainly doesn't care about the environment or wildlife, or the elderly........
@stailgate (2364)
• United States
15 Dec 06
honestly I don't like either one. I think they both made bad decisions over the good that hurt us as a whole. Bush made harsh judgement on the war sending troops where we have no right to be. My husband was a faithful military man till lately. He was sent over seas to fight in a place that we had no place in being in in the first place. I don't like how Bush talks, yet the people do the walk. when a election comes it is not who is the best one, it is who is the least looser of the two we have to choose from. One of these day we will get someone in the office that is for the people and not for show.
@camaroz28 (326)
• Italy
7 Nov 06
I am Italian, so I won't answer which one is better. I would only say that I think economy is not strictly dependant on what a government does, it depends on many factors, national and international. And if there was a man who was able to move the economy up or down, he would be the president of Fed, not the president of US.
• India
7 Nov 06
NOne... no USA
@alamzaib (1288)
• Pakistan
6 Nov 06
off course CLINTON. i like him. i would like to say that BUSH is terririst of humanity.
@alamzaib (1288)
• Pakistan
6 Nov 06
off course clinton.i like him. i want to say that bush is the terririst of humanity.