Which US President do you prefer? Bill Clinton or George W Bush?

[Alexander's Horse]

And why?

[FrustratedPoet]

Bill has nicer hair.

[Proteus_MST]

Not American and I prefer Clinton.

Why?
Because Clinton respected other countries and international treaties,
whereas George W. Bush gives a crap on them.

[Stefu]

Clinton, because he's funner to doodle.

[SlowwHand]

Other than a sex scandal, and NAFTA (which sucks), what will Clinton be remembered for?
Nothing.

Employment was good, but I don't know that was because of him.
Botched foreign policy. IE Iraq and Somalia.

Easy choice here.

[Alexander's Horse]

You voted banana?

[BeBro]

Me

[Guynemer]

It's sort of like asking if I prefer a kick in the crotch with a steel-toed boot or having my eyes gouged out with gravel.

[Alexander's Horse]

Could be an interesting poll this one

[SlowwHand]

No, AH. I voted Bush.

You bonehead.

[BeBro]

What do you have against bananas?

[Alexander's Horse]

Please don't screw up this thread with spam - I'm going to bed now and want to check the results in the morning

[Giancarlo]

I'm not American and I prefer Bush

That is what I voted and I am damn proud of it.

That fool Clinton did nothing for the world... somebody said he respect international treaties and stuff? What about the strikes on Iraq he did in 1998? That was never approved by the UN. So Proteus, you argument is full of fallacies and holes. Infact it is Bush that respects international law more than Clinton.. besides Bush was the one who went through the UN in the first place!

[Lazerus]

I prefer Clinton for the fact he was so much fun and he did a good job on America's economy, however I think Bush has done better on the international front ... hmm

Whats with all the bananas anyways? I prefer apples

[Giancarlo]

Well honestly, I don't think the president makes that much of an impact on the economy. Bush's tax cuts will certainly help in the long run but the economy is mostly left to the investors, producers and consumers (us).

[Aro]

A man who plays saxophone is not bad at all.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Fez


That is what I voted and I am damn proud of it.

That fool Clinton did nothing for the world... somebody said he respect international treaties and stuff? What about the strikes on Iraq he did in 1998? That was never approved by the UN. So Proteus, you argument is full of fallacies and holes. Infact it is Bush that respects international law more than Clinton.. besides Bush was the one who went through the UN in the first place!

Maybe you mistake it with the Strikes on Afghanistan to kill Osama bin Laden?

Yes, that was one thing which he shouldn´t have done.

But after all Bush is the one who got/kept the USA out of many international agreements or plans to do it, be it the Kyoto Protocol, be it the Treaty for the Ban on atomic Tests, be it the ABM-Treaty or the international court.

Bush has the Policy of "America first" implemented and it is obvious that he uses it.

Here is one informative link to read
http://www.unitedstatesgovernment.ne...altreaties.htm

btw. regarding the Kyoto-Protocol there is one other thing which comes into my mind:
Clinton did also do a lot more for the environment, whereas Bush has obviously given the economy the topmost priority

[SlowwHand]

"Bush has the Policy of "America first" implemented and it is obvious that he uses it."

Well, duh. He works for the USA.

Aro. I have life-size standup of Bill, in shades, with sax.
He's like a freaking rock star in Europe.

[Giancarlo]

The strikes on Afghanistan had to happen. To say no, would of been a gross denial of the basic human rights of the Afghan people.

Bush has the Policy of "America first" implemented and it is obvious that he uses it.

Which is the best policy.

Clinton did also do a lot more for the environment, whereas Bush has obviously given the economy the topmost priority

Also in my mind a better policy. But I am not a green. I am to the right.

Edit: Also the site you provided doesn't work.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Fez
The strikes on Afghanistan had to happen. To say no, would of been a gross denial of the basic human rights of the Afghan people.

Oh I don´t talk about Bush strike on Afghanistan, but on Clintons 2 Cruise Missiles on Trainings Camps which solved nothing and failed to kill Osama

As for Bush strike on Afghanistan, I saw it much more justified than his strike on Iraq, because in Afghanistan there was a clear link between Al Quaeda and the Government.
One thing which up to this time couln´t be proven for Iraq, as well as the WMDs Iraq is posed to possess.

Originally posted by Fez
Also in my mind a better policy. But I am not a green. I am to the right.

Yes, that seems to be the difference.
I am more to the left and so prefer a more ecologically oriented policy

Originally posted by Fez

Edit: Also the site you provided doesn't work.

STrange, for me it works fine.
Here is another link, which has obviously the same text as the link before:
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsst...2002/story.htm

Also here a 16 pages long summary of the report:
http://www.ieer.org/reports/treaties/execsumm.pdf

And here another one on the Bush and international treaties:
http://www.clw.org/control/bushunilateral.html

[Giancarlo]

Oh I don´t talk about Bush strike on Afghanistan, but on Clintons 2 Cruise Missiles on Trainings Camps which solved nothing and failed to kill Osama

We finally agree on something.

As for Bush strike on Afghanistan, I saw it much more justified than his strike on Iraq, because in Afghanistan there was a clear link between Al Quaeda and the Government.

There is also links being found between the Iraqi Government and Al Qaeda, through an organization called Ansar-Al-Islam. Recently Saddam has used religion for his own purposes... despite being secular in the past. He started to help Al Qaeda out financially. He also funds suicide bombers in Palestine.

One thing which up to this time couln´t be proven for Iraq, as well as the WMDs Iraq is posed to possess.

The WMDs will be found in my opinion. There have been more officials captured and they will give some clues.

I criticize the crediblity of those links you provided. The first one is that of an radical environmentalist organization.

By the way that third link is wrong. Bush isn't being unilateral. He had a coaltion of 52 countries in the strikes against Iraq. So what does that tell you? That stupid unilateral excuse the left uses is phony.

[oedo]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST Bush has the Policy of "America first" implemented and it is obvious that he uses it.

American Economy has suffered, American reputation has suffered, the dollar has suffered, freedom has suffered.
is there anything good Bush did to the USA lately, anyway?

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by oedo


American Economy has suffered, American reputation has suffered, the dollar has suffered, freedom has suffered.
is there anything good Bush did to the USA lately, anyway?

Oh really? And Bush is at fault for the American economy? Give me a break man. The dollar has suffered? You know what.. in this case a weaker dollar is better because exports will be better. That is what is wrong with Europe.. and its strong Euro. Exports are weaker. Freedom has suffered? Wrong.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Fez

There is also links being found between the Iraqi Government and Al Qaeda, through an organization called Ansar-Al-Islam. Recently Saddam has used religion for his own purposes... despite being secular in the past. He started to help Al Qaeda out financially. He also funds suicide bombers in Palestine.

As for Ansar al Islam there was an emnity between them and the Iraqi Government.
But Saddam couldn´t get rid of them, because their camps where within the northen no fly zone which was intended to protect the Kurds from Saddam.
So I doubt that there was a Link between Saddam and them.
As for the funding of Terrorist bombers:
He did pay money to the relatives of suicide bombers, yes.
I have no information about Saddam funding Al Quaeda however.

Originally posted by Fez
By the way that third link is wrong. Bush isn't being unilateral. He had a coaltion of 52 countries in the strikes against Iraq. So what does that tell you? That stupid unilateral excuse the left uses is phony.

Many of whom oviously didn´t even know that they were in the coalition
And many small countries in it which could use the money, the US economy has to give (or, of course, any lucrative deals in the reconstruction of Iraq)

And of course we could discuss the question if 1441 was enough to get the USA a casus belli for a long time, without getting a result (as you would insist, it does and I wouldn´t agree on this)

[oedo]

Originally posted by Fez
Oh really? And Bush is at fault for the American economy?

if not Bush, then who else? Clinton? Chirac? Castro?

Originally posted by Fez
The dollar has suffered? You know what.. in this case a weaker dollar is better because exports will be better. That is what is wrong with Europe.. and its strong Euro. Exports are weaker.

wow! some people really seem to belive that a weak currency is best for a country and a strong currency should be prevented.

Originally posted by Fez
Freedom has suffered? Wrong.

ok, convinced. freedom did NOT suffer under W. how could I miss that?

but once again. what exactly did Bush do to serve the American people (not only those managers from Enron, Worldcom, Halliburton etc.)?

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Fez

I criticize the crediblity of those links you provided. The first one is that of an radical environmentalist organization.

As for a credible Link:
Is the Guardian credible enough four you?

Here is a very critical Article of the Guardian on Bush international Policy

http://www.guardian.co.uk/bush/story...689142,00.html

BBC sees also Isolationism in the Policies of the USA
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1971680.stm

Also the Businessweek sees Isolationism in Bushs past actions, but in the events since the beginning of the year it sees hope that Bush may turn away from it
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine...3/b3816053.htm

[Giancarlo]

I had enough of these excuses and lies... obviously, none of you can respect my beliefs. And I shall not do so in the end.

[Giancarlo]

wow! some people really seem to belive that a weak currency is best for a country and a strong currency should be prevented.

For somebody illiterate in economics as you, a weaker currency is good in times of recession. Ask Japan that.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST

Many of whom oviously didn´t even know that they were in the coalition

Incorrect.

And many small countries in it which could use the money, the US economy has to give (or, of course, any lucrative deals in the reconstruction of Iraq)

Yes and what is the problem with that?

And of course we could discuss the question if 1441 was enough to get the USA a casus belli for a long time, without getting a result (as you would insist, it does and I wouldn´t agree on this)

Don't bring up the UN. It screwed up in the end. And should of never been used in the first place.

Edit: By the way, the Guardian is one of the least credible sources you could used. They are famous for anti-americanism.

[Zkribbler]

Clinton.

Cloiton aimed to help the "little guy," brought unmatched prosperity to the U.S, and balanced the budget. Clinton ended the war in Bosnia, prevented genocide in Kosova, and installed democracy in Haiti.

As compared with Bush, who favors huge corporations, led this country into a years-long economic downturn, and is in the process of giving us the biggest deficient in the history of humanity. He led us into a war with Iraq for the purpose of preventing it from giving WMDs to al Qaeda, but now we can find neither these WMD or any connection between Iraq and al Qaeda. And in doing so, he has diplomatically isolated the US from much of the world.