jump to last post 1-50 of 61 discussions (368 posts)

If George W Bush could run for office again, would you vote for him?

  1. daskittlez69 profile image78
    daskittlez69posted 5 years ago

    http://s1.hubimg.com/u/5468244.jpg
    If George W Bush could run for office again, would you vote for him?

    1. 0
      Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      In a heartbeat, you betcha.

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
        Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Hooray for endless wars, torture and bailouts!

        Everything that we hate Obama for, Bush was doing the same thing.

        1. PrettyPanther profile image85
          PrettyPantherposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          My hubby knew McCain personally in his line of work.  He won't go into details but he voted for Obama, saying he could never vote for McCain.

        2. habee profile image91
          habeeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          McCain is against torture - for obvious reasons.

          1. Ron Montgomery profile image59
            Ron Montgomeryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Then how could he stand listening to the shrill voice of his VP wannabe?  Did they run out of bamboo splinters to shove under his finger nails?

            1. habee profile image91
              habeeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Lucky for John, he's deaf in his left ear, so he always positioned Sarah to be on his left side. I'm surprised you didn't figure that out on your own!

          2. Evan G Rogers profile image83
            Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            ... we're talking about Bush?

            1. habee profile image91
              habeeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              You were saying that both Bush and Obama don't have a problem with torture. I was pointing out that if McCain had been elected, maybe he would have stopped torture. Gee, can't you read my mind?? lol

              1. Castlepaloma profile image22
                Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                McCAIN wants a 100 years war with Iraq

                What a very very nice man, too bad he can do very bads things

                1. habee profile image91
                  habeeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I don't think he could do that without approval from Congress. Oh, wait...

                  1. uncorrectedvision profile image60
                    uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Aren't there American troops still in Iraq, dieing and killing?  Aren't there even more troops in Afghanistan dieing and killing?  Aren't there American troops in Libya, Pakistan, Yemen?  There are more military actions taking place now than when GWB was POTUS.

                    Wasn't there a Congressional authorization for military action against Iraq and Afghanistan unlike Libya?

    2. Moderndayslave profile image60
      Moderndayslaveposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Why, do you want to finish  off  the middle class faster?
      http://www.time.com/time/specials/packa … 29,00.html

    3. uncorrectedvision profile image60
      uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      In 2012 against Obama?  Yes.  Against the others in the current Republican field, no.

      1. habee profile image91
        habeeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        What do you think of the Republican field, UV? I think the only one who has a chance against Obama is Romney because he has support from Independents and moderates. If the far right gets a TP candidate nominated, they're going to lose the election. Mitt certainly has his flaws, and he's not exactly "exciting," but he looks very much like a moderate compared to Perry and Bachmann. He also seems to be a lot smarter.

        1. uncorrectedvision profile image60
          uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Romney is flawed and damaged.  There is a reason why there is no collegiality between Romney and the other Republican candidates from the 2008 primary race.  There is a distance and chill emanating from him and don't we have a belly full of that after four years of the Vulcan-in-Chief.

        2. Jeff Berndt profile image91
          Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          "Mitt certainly has his flaws, and he's not exactly "exciting," but he looks very much like a moderate compared to Perry and Bachmann."

          Everyone looks like a moderate compared to Perry and Bachmann.

          "He also seems to be a lot smarter."
          There's a reason for that.

          "There is a reason why there is no collegiality between Romney and the other Republican candidates from the 2008 primary race. "
          Yeah, it's that Romney isn't b@ts#!t insane. (Neither is Tim Pawlenty, but he bowed out.)

          "If the far right gets a TP candidate nominated, they're going to lose the election."
          Lord, I hope you're right. I shudder to think what a Perry/Bachmann (or a Bachmann/Perry) Whitehouse would do to the country. My only hope would be that people would elect sane candidates to congress.

          1. habee profile image91
            habeeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I hear ya, Jeff. I DEF would not vote for Bachmann. Even my hubby, who is further right than I am, doesn't care for her. So far, we don't like Perry, either. Mitt has never warmed the cockles of my heart, exactly, but he's smart, rational, and has a strong business background. If the GOP doesn't give the nod to him or Huntsman, I think they're going to be in trouble. Moderates, in general, are not going to support anyone from the extreme right.

            1. uncorrectedvision profile image60
              uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              So Palin looks better than ever?

              1. Jeff Berndt profile image91
                Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                No she's just not quite as bad as Perry or Bachmann.

                1. uncorrectedvision profile image60
                  uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  It will be interesting to see how it all plays out.  Palin as the "kingmaker" and Perry as POTUS.  To quote a great man,  "That will make heads explode all over Washington." 

                  I don't make predictions about elections.  The caprice of nature makes predicting things like that a fool's game.  However, as it stands right now, I would not bank on Barry.

                2. PrettyPanther profile image85
                  PrettyPantherposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Yeah, like diarrhea is not quite as bad as puking.

                  1. rebekahELLE profile image92
                    rebekahELLEposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    +

    4. Danny R Hand profile image60
      Danny R Handposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      NO! NO! NO! NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      1. Mighty Mom profile image91
        Mighty Momposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Only if Cheney runs as his Veep again!

    5. AEvans profile image72
      AEvansposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Nope. Absolutely not and I wouldn't vote for Obama either. I believe we need a woman in the White House! big_smile We need Estrogen not Testosterone! big_smile lololo! Women think with there minds and not with there? I will leave it at that. smile

    6. SheriKeat profile image61
      SheriKeatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      No, a thousand times no.  Obama? Maybe, since I can't vote for Hillary and I don't think the Republicans are smart enough to put Huntsman up.

      1. Mighty Mom profile image91
        Mighty Momposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Exactly my sentiments, SheriKeat!

    7. Naomi's Banner profile image76
      Naomi's Bannerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Undeniably YES!  The only President since I've been born that actually cared.  Yes I would vote yes again and again.

    8. 61
      carolhubbartposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Absolutely,  Yes and you are right I believe that he was the only president since I have been born who actually cared and I would vote again and again for him most assuredly.

      1. Mighty Mom profile image91
        Mighty Momposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Hmmmm. Second hubber to mention Bush and being born within the same thread.
        What was it PT Barnum said about suckers? Oh yes, there's one born every minute. In this case, double jackpot! smile

    9. Deni Edwards profile image91
      Deni Edwardsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I would most certainly vote for him again...maybe he could finally pass that legislation where ob-gyns could be sure to practice their love with women...such smart legislation!

      1. Mighty Mom profile image91
        Mighty Momposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Right. Practice their love...
        Just as long as they don't use any Nuc-U-lar Medicine, eh?

    10. GNelson profile image84
      GNelsonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Never did, never would.  We don't need another war or another bill where we pay drug companies full price.

    11. hinton1966 profile image59
      hinton1966posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Nope can say I would...and I supported him his last two elections.....I think he has some blame in the mess we are in currently....he made it hard...as Obama is making it worse every day.

      1. Danny R Hand profile image60
        Danny R Handposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        YEAH! So lets elect Rick Perry with his Texas A&M 2.1 grade average and his George W. on steroids mentality, and he will fix everything. NOT!

    12. RebuildingJobs profile image60
      RebuildingJobsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Hell NO, not Hello.

    13. 0
      Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Just bringin' this pic back up.   He's lookin' better all the time, even if this is an old picture and even (so far) considering the choices of nominees.
      Although Bachmann and Perry are possibly worthy contenders....

    14. daskittlez69 profile image78
      daskittlez69posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      For all of you Bachmann fans out there.  Here is a great hub of her most famous quotes.  http://daskittlez69.hubpages.com/hub/Mi … ann-Quotes

  2. Jonathan Janco profile image80
    Jonathan Jancoposted 5 years ago

    I would sooner vote for a sock puppet made to look like GW.

    1. 0
      Longhunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      That's a good one but you did get your puppet. When you voted for Obama, you got a Soros Sock Puppet.

      1. Jonathan Janco profile image80
        Jonathan Jancoposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Wow! That's so original. Did you make that one up all by yourself or did you get a golden retriever to write it for you?

        1. 0
          Longhunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          As if yours was any better. And, no, the only animal involved was the jackass that first mentioned a sock puppet.

          Your turn, Johnny Boy.

    2. TMMason profile image75
      TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      That would be Rick Perry.

    3. LiamBean profile image90
      LiamBeanposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Sorry. I'm confused. What's the difference again?

    4. 2besure profile image82
      2besureposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      LOL!  There ya go!

  3. Barbara Kay profile image84
    Barbara Kayposted 5 years ago

    NO!!!!! I couldn't even stand to look at the man by his last year.

  4. PaulaHenry1 profile image69
    PaulaHenry1posted 5 years ago

    In a word- NO!

  5. Paul Wingert profile image81
    Paul Wingertposted 5 years ago

    NO!!! And that would go for any candidate like him in any way, shape, or form!

  6. 0
    Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago

    daskittlez69, have you figured out yet that liberalism predominates in these forums?  smile

    1. Ron Montgomery profile image59
      Ron Montgomeryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      lol lol  lol

      Who says you don't have a sense of humor.

  7. JherusiaLhean profile image61
    JherusiaLheanposted 5 years ago

    I guess that take a review and on how he do have help the states by the way. If who is more deserving in the that will be the best one. But for me he's deserves a vote then.

  8. Ralph Deeds profile image70
    Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago

    Only if Cheney were his running mate.

  9. Kathleen Cochran profile image85
    Kathleen Cochranposted 5 years ago

    An old man approaches the gate at the White House.  He asks tells the guard he'd like to see President George W. Bush.  The guard tells him Bush is no longer the President.  The man leaves.
    He comes back the next day.  Same exchange.
    He comes back the next day.  Same exchange.
    He comes back the next day.  The guard asks him why he keeps coming back asking the same question.  "I just like hearing that he's no longer the President," says the old man with a smile.

    Need I say more?  And if the country thinks we are willing to give the country back to the party that produced and supported him a mere four years later just because the mess couldn't be cleamed up in four years, they are delusionary.

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
      Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Ha! That's a good one.

    2. Repairguy47 profile image60
      Repairguy47posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Anybody who thinks a republican wont be president in 2013 is delusionary, or Canadian.

      1. Ron Montgomery profile image59
        Ron Montgomeryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Or living in the real world.  The only R with a remote chance is Romney (Obama Light).  We tried nitwit Texas governor once, not going down that road again.

        1. Jeff Berndt profile image91
          Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Don't count out the power of the Diebold voting machines to elect Republican candidates. It might just happen. It'd be fraudulent (like last time) but it might happen.

    3. KeithTax profile image80
      KeithTaxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      W and his wife are flying home from vacation. W looks out the window and says, "I should throw a $100 bill out the window and make an American happy."

      His wife replies, "You should throw 5 $100 bills out the window and make 5 Americans happy."

      The man in the seat across the isle leans over and says, "Why don't you throw yourself out the window and make all Americans happy."

      1. American View profile image59
        American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Kieth, good joke, except it was an Obama and Michelle joke first.

  10. habee profile image91
    habeeposted 5 years ago

    Would I vote for W again? Depends on who was running against him and who Bush's VP was. I do not like Cheney. I blame a lot of W's mistakes on Tricky Dickie.

    Bush was in a meeting, and an aide comes in and whispers, "Mr. President, a terrorist has just killed three Brazillian tourists at Disney World."

    Bush puts his head in his hands and sobs uncontrollably. The aide is taken aback, knowing the POTUS would be upset, but he didn't think W would take the news this hard. The aide puts his arm around W's shoulder and asks, "Sir, are you okay?"

    Bush responds, "A brazillion tourists dead!! OMG, how many is a brazillion, anyway?"

  11. PrettyPanther profile image85
    PrettyPantherposted 5 years ago

    http://youcallthatart.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/miss_me_yet_george_bush_poster-p228657359035907784trma_4001.jpg?w=371&h=250

    Hell, NO!

    1. habee profile image91
      habeeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Not really, but I miss who could have been President McCain...without Palin! lol

      1. Jeff Berndt profile image91
        Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        McCain got Roved in the Y2K election. If he'd have been president instead of W....well, we all have our dreams....

        1. habee profile image91
          habeeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Jeff, you don't know how many times I've said the same thing! That's just ONE reason I don't care at all for Rove, although I do admit he's smart and savvy. What he did to McCain was awful! McCain should have gotten the GOP nod in 2000. Oh well, spilt milk...

          1. uncorrectedvision profile image60
            uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Then this thread would be "Would you vote for President Gore again if he was eligible to run?"

            1. habee profile image91
              habeeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Why? Don't you think McCain was more qualified than W?

              1. uncorrectedvision profile image60
                uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Qualified versus electable.  Who is qualified to be POTUS but someone already POTUS?  The chief executive of a state versus a member of the nations most elite fraternity?  What do Senators run except their staff and their mouths?

                1. Mighty Mom profile image91
                  Mighty Momposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  So are you saying, UCV, that all governors are more qualified to be POTUS than any senators?

                  1. uncorrectedvision profile image60
                    uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    I reread what I had written. I am pretty sure there were no absolutes there.  I am reticent to use the word qualified when referring to running for the Presidency since there is no other job in the world like the POTUS.  However, since we are talking about qualifications, Senators and the presidency I cannot help but be struck by the absurdity that Barrack Hussein Obama, a man who has done so little with his life, was thought to be so well qualified to run the government with out having run anything else, ever, that liberals elected him and still think he is competent.

    2. Evan G Rogers profile image83
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      agreed

  12. bonnebartron profile image76
    bonnebartronposted 5 years ago

    Um Hell no?

  13. 0
    Emile Rposted 5 years ago

    Never.

    1. Debby Bruck profile image85
      Debby Bruckposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I'm with you. "NEVER"

  14. 0
    Longhunterposted 5 years ago

    I would vote for Bush again if for no other reason than to get rid of Michelle.

    1. habee profile image91
      habeeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I really liked Laura!

  15. jakesully profile image59
    jakesullyposted 5 years ago

    Hell to the no!

    1. Castlepaloma profile image22
      Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Bush was a good thing; it showed us, how evil American can get.

      I vote No, Two trips to hell on earth is enough suffering. I happen to love America and believe Bush needs all the love he can get.

      It would be better to give him his own comedy show

  16. iQwest profile image70
    iQwestposted 5 years ago

    No!  For those who'd like to, don't fret, Rick Perry can take care of you.

    1. Castlepaloma profile image22
      Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Rick Perry haass yeahh prueetty mouth tooo.

      1. Ron Montgomery profile image59
        Ron Montgomeryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-O35ws8Lz9HY/TiGkqil7ttI/AAAAAAAABZ8/FO2RGCjgaNE/s1600/teeth-deliverance1.jpg

        Yer gonna do some prayin' boy...

        1. Castlepaloma profile image22
          Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          You found my worst nightmare,

          A Bush voter

          1. habee profile image91
            habeeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I voted for Bush, and I don't look like that. I can't even play a banjo. In fact, I even has me one a dem der collij edumacations!

            1. Castlepaloma profile image22
              Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              You mush beee one of dem interior back woods white fellers daahat voted hem in.

              Because nooo majority of the red, brrown, yeller or black fellers would vote dat Bush in.

              1. habee profile image91
                habeeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I'm white (mostly, with a little Native American), but I ain't no feller. If it helps any, I did vote for Clinton!

                1. Castlepaloma profile image22
                  Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  OH! I thought i read Bush.

  17. 70
    logic,commonsenseposted 5 years ago

    There's already a Democrat in the White House.

    1. 0
      Longhunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I do believe the guy in the White House is no Dem but rather a Socialist in sheep's clothing. Hmmmm, wait. Socialist? Dem? My bad! He is a Dem because a Dem and a Socialist are the same thing.

  18. gmwilliams profile image86
    gmwilliamsposted 5 years ago

    No way.   America suffered immensely under this administration.   George W. Bush was a warmonger who bankrupted this beautiful country and placed it in millions of dollars in debt.    George W. Bush started the war in Iraq because of oil interests and money, not to "make Iraq more democratic."    I would rather burn in the lowest rungs of Hell than to vote for George W. Bush if he "elected" to run again.   In fact, I would leave the country.

    1. Rastamermaid profile image71
      Rastamermaidposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Feelin you on that gmwilliams.

      1. uncorrectedvision profile image60
        uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        If only he could run again.  It would be so nice to clear out the liberals.

    2. American View profile image59
      American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Yea I go swimming every night in my pool of oil that we took from Iraq.

      1. John Holden profile image60
        John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        That isn't a very healthy thing to do, it could even give you delusions.

        1. American View profile image59
          American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          No more than the delusion we went there to take all the oil. That's what you all say,as we pay $4 for gas. So if we did, where is it, where is all the oil? Must be in all our swimming pools.

          1. John Holden profile image60
            John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Iraq is the sixth largest supplier of crude to the US.

            1. Repairguy47 profile image60
              Repairguy47posted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Did we invade the other 5?

              1. John Holden profile image60
                John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                What has that got to do with anything?

                1. Repairguy47 profile image60
                  Repairguy47posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Aren't you trying to draw a connection with war and Iraq being our 6th largest oil supplier? The answer is yes and the question is have we invaded the other top 5? Don't worry I don't really expect an answer other than the one you provided.

                  1. John Holden profile image60
                    John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    So your implication is that because you have not invaded your largest supplier (Canada) you can't possibly have invaded anybody else!

                    Are you a politician by any chance?

  19. Richieb799 profile image63
    Richieb799posted 5 years ago

    I didn't see the need to post a photo at the beginning of the thread, we all know what he looks like..no need to make us more nauseous.

  20. VENUGOPAL SIVAGNA profile image61
    VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 5 years ago

    I cannot vote in USA, as an Indian, and if allowed, I will not only vote for him but canvas for him and make him the President again. He was the boldest President of all in US history.... more than Roosevelt and Truman.

    Law-breakers, illegal auditors' and cheating American banks and loan-receivers damaged his reputation. If he get a chance, he will pounce on those criminals like he did on Iraq and Afganistan and bring about a change for the American economy.

    Why dont the present President take his advice in settling the economic mess? The President should be harsh enough with law-breakers and criminals and treat them like enemies of USA.

    1. couturepopcafe profile image61
      couturepopcafeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Venu - thanks for bringing a fresh eye to the debate.  Our current president is a Socialist and believes all people should share what they have earned, regardless of race, persuasion, or willingness to obey the law.

      1. lovemychris profile image79
        lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        What?

        1. couturepopcafe profile image61
          couturepopcafeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Hey LMC!  Long time no talk!  I was referring to Venu's comment about the president being harsh with lawbreakers.  Ok, so I stretched the socialism thing a bit to criminals.  But he is a socialist.  That doesn't make him a bad person, just one I disagree with.

          1. lovemychris profile image79
            lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Since when are socialists pro-business?

            And don't people on the left complain that he is a "corporate sell-out"?

            Thumbody is getting it really wrong here.

            He can't be both a socialist and a corporate sell out.

  21. lovemychris profile image79
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    "If he get a chance, he will pounce on those criminals like he did on Iraq and Afganistan and bring about a change for the American economy"

    It was his SEC that was supposed to be "pouncing" on them WHILE they were law-breaking and cheating.

    How come he never stopped them in 8 years?

    1. Moderndayslave profile image60
      Moderndayslaveposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Oil ,banking,war business and Wall St are all connected, think about it

      1. Castlepaloma profile image22
        Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Bush was a puppet for another band of criminals. At least Obama tells the people, we will only change from the bottom up, not from the top down.

        The vast majority of change throughout human history has been done from mainly grass root groups of people when they get so sick and tired of abuse. These small groups grow abd move on towards changing 80% consciousness of the people. Then real change happens, most often for the better when it happens...

        1. uncorrectedvision profile image60
          uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Given the electoral results of the 2010 midterm election the bottom up is being vilified, daily, by Obama allies.  The "bottom up" in America tends to be no bottom up but a cross section of America.  The American Revolution was not a bottom up revolt but an American revolt with small land holders, merchants, street bullies, sailors, journeymen, tradesmen, artisans and the wealthiest men in the colonies rebelling against a distant, insulated and willful government(that would be the one in London not the one in Washington D.C.)

          That revolutionary fervor has been moribund in America.  The worst nightmare for liberals is its resurrection.

          1. Castlepaloma profile image22
            Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Yes America is land of the extreme

            They are employed by the human race and American does work hard, I trust they will find a way to get better after it gets worst.

          2. Jeff Berndt profile image91
            Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            "That revolutionary fervor has been moribund in America.  The worst nightmare for liberals is its resurrection."

            Everyone wants to co-opt the Revolution for their own ends. The truth is that, like scripture, anyone can quote a founder and make it look like that founder supports his pet issue. The problem with cherry-picking the founders is that someone else can always find something they wrote that seems to support the other side.

            Maybe we should try thinking for ourselves for a change. Or would that be too revolutionary? smile

            1. Ron Montgomery profile image59
              Ron Montgomeryposted 5 years ago in reply to this



              A frickin men. Wearing a three cornered hat with tea bags dangling from it doesn't mean you're in agreement with the founding fathers.

              1. couturepopcafe profile image61
                couturepopcafeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I think that's sort of what's it's supposed to symbolize.

                1. Jeff Berndt profile image91
                  Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  The problem with that is that tea-partiers treat the founders like software license agreements. They just scroll down to the end and click "agree." Most of them only know the founders' writings via edited highlights.

    2. VENUGOPAL SIVAGNA profile image61
      VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Before he came to power, the US economy was not so bad. It was only in 2001 that America was challenged by terrorists and war was inevitable. After every war, there will be recession, economic downfall, etc.

  22. Mikeydoes profile image79
    Mikeydoesposted 5 years ago

    I'm not going to vote for anyone.. Unless they talk about bringing real change, and I know they are going to do it.

    GWB did his part to put us in the position we are in, along with everyone. Reagan really was the start of it, I'm coming to find out.

  23. Mighty Mom profile image91
    Mighty Momposted 5 years ago

    Instead of a chicken in every pot we'd have a fundamentalist church on every block. sad

    1. Kathleen Cochran profile image85
      Kathleen Cochranposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Mikeydoes:  You're doing your homework and couldn't be more right.  Reagan was all deregulation and cutting off the country's revenue stream, which Bush the first continued and Bush the second turned into an art form.  If folks think Obama can turn it all around in 3 years, they don't understand we've been operating on a credit card for 30 years and have essentially cut our own salary, trying to operate this country on less and less..  I'm not near ready to put the Republicans back in the White House to do more of the same.

      1. HattieMattieMae profile image70
        HattieMattieMaeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I have to say I felt more secure about the government back than, right now no! I would vote him back in I believe! smile

      2. couturepopcafe profile image61
        couturepopcafeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Kath -the problem with this train of thought is that those who believe Republicans should not have been borrowing do not want to sacrifice anything to balance the budget.  They tend to want no cuts anywhere.  So how does a Congress not borrow, continue to spend, not raise taxes, not make cuts to programs, and still keep jobs here?

        1. lovemychris profile image79
          lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          End the tax cuts, end the loop-holes, cut the subsidies to rich people/corporations. and, what jobs?

          Jobs have been sacrificed in the name of greed.

          1. couturepopcafe profile image61
            couturepopcafeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I'm not saying I'm on the side of Congress, not by a long shot.  I think the system needs a complete overhaul.  I'm not willing, however, to give more in taxes to a government that can't handle money properly.  Yes, end the loop holes., cut the subsidies.  And I believe it's not the job of government to create jobs.

            1. lovemychris profile image79
              lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              "I'm not willing, however, to give more in taxes to a government that can't handle money properly."

              And I'm sick to death of giving money to businesses that are higher cost, but lesser value. Machines that break down within months. Lights that go out in a second. Banks that charge me to take my money out!

              and my car mechanic told me it is all true....they make things shabby so you will have to buy more replacement parts, spend more on repairs, so they can make more money off of you.

              Repubs can't handle money properly...they give it to those who already have more than enough.
              Get them out, and we have a shot. IMO

        2. Kathleen Cochran profile image85
          Kathleen Cochranposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          couturepopcafe: We wouldn't have to borrow so much if we hadn't cut taxes so heavily (for those who were suppose to create jobs in their businesses - what happened there?) and if we hadn't blown the Clinton surplus.  Or if we hadn't launched two wars that each lasted a decade with no way to pay for it except expecting Iraq to pay us back in oil.  Has that happened?  There are two schools of thought in this country about how to handle our economy.  We're feeling the effects of one of those schools (two Reagan terms and three Bush's in 30 years.)  The only change I'm looking for is to give the other school of thought a fair chance for more than 4 years.  That school of thought had us in pretty good shape by 2000.

          1. Rastamermaid profile image71
            Rastamermaidposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I concur with Kathleen! Clinton had us sitting pretty,now look at us. This didn't happen over night,it's been a long time coming.

            Now it's here.

    2. 0
      Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      You say that like it's a bad thing.

      1. uncorrectedvision profile image60
        uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        She says it as if it is a certainty but we had born again Jimmy Carter and overt Christian GWB and all I see on every corner is a Starbucks.  It is the typical absurdity that liberals use to keep Jews worried about Republicans.  It is the typical emotional and vacuous fear mongering.  As if a fundamentalist church should be frightening.  Have you ever been in a Black Church - many of them are rather fundamentalist and bible loving.

        I have a little trouble understanding why liberals want to restrict Christian worship.  Why do liberals hate Christians so much they want to deny them their faith and their worship?

        1. Castlepaloma profile image22
          Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          uncorrectedvision

          I had no idea that liberals were anti Christian

          Liberal and conservative are alike to me, much like front and back, yin and yang and so on.

          Who is the big bully that keeps separating everyone and keeps  threating to take freedom of religion out of the constitution and all their free tax breaks, nobody else gets.

          For God help me, LET ME AT HIM!!!!

          1. 0
            Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Mr. Obama and half of Congress might consider them thar fightin' words.  wink lol

            1. Mighty Mom profile image91
              Mighty Momposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Half of Congress, yes.
              Mr. Obama, not so much.

      2. Jeff Berndt profile image91
        Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Isn't it?

        1. uncorrectedvision profile image60
          uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Why? Why do liberals hate people who worship differently then they do?  Why do liberals hate a minority Christian group so much that every time it is brought up they talk bad about them?  Why do liberals hate fundamentalist Christians?  Would liberals outlaw their worship and gathering?  Should fundamentalist Christians worry about their safety in liberal communities?

          1. Mighty Mom profile image91
            Mighty Momposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Not at all.
            They have a protected right to worship as they wish. As do other denominations of Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, druids, even atheists.
            The problem comes when you have a minority segment of bible-(mis)quoting creationists who believe they also have the right to run everyone else's lives.
            They are the ones out to deny the rest of us OUR rights to not only worship as we please, but our right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

            America is the great melting pot.
            Blend or die.

            1. uncorrectedvision profile image60
              uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              The problem comes when you have a minority segment... who believe they also have the right to run everyone else's lives.
              They are the ones out to deny the rest of us OUR rights to not only worship as we please, but our right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

              Sounds like liberals to me.  As does the following.


              "Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good
              of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live
              under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.
              The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may
              at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good
              will torment us without end for they do so with the approval
              of their own conscience."
              C.S.Lewsi

              1. Mighty Mom profile image91
                Mighty Momposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                "...omnipotent moral busybodies."
                That sounds like right-wing "Christians" to me.

                1. uncorrectedvision profile image60
                  uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Really, I would think liberals can easily see themselves in every image of moral superiority.  I wonder if liberals hate fundamentalist Christians(not so much trouble with fundamentalist Muslims) is because of the certainty that liberalism is the ultimate moral superiority and they simply cannot countenance any competition for that coveted position.

                  1. Mighty Mom profile image91
                    Mighty Momposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    The word "morality" is not in the liberal lexicon.
                    You know that old saying "The Moral Majority is neither" right?
                    Our problem with "fundamentalist" anything or anybody is the stubborn refusal to adapt one's way of thinking based on new evidence.
                    It's all well and good to live by the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule.
                    But the global community of 2011 is not so black and white.
                    There are many, many constantly evolving shades of gray....

          2. Jeff Berndt profile image91
            Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            "Why do liberals hate fundamentalist Christians?"
            Liberals don't hate fundamentalist Christians.

            What we have a problem with it their ongoing efforts to marginalize everyone who doesn't worship the way they do and to force their version of Biblical values on the rest of America, all why trying to pretend that it's Christians who are being discriminated against.

            "Should fundamentalist Christians worry about their safety in liberal communities?" Of course not. But certain doctors have to worry about their safety in the presence of fundamentalist Christians.

            1. Repairguy47 profile image60
              Repairguy47posted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Maybe doctors need to worry in the presence of crazy people who use a warped view of religion to condone their actions. That does not automatically include fundamentalist Christians. But saying it that way would not be in keeping with the rhetoric of the left.

            2. uncorrectedvision profile image60
              uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              So what you have a problem with most is Christin's freedom of speech?

              1. Jeff Berndt profile image91
                Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Nope, not a bit, but I can see you're determined to pretend that I do.

                What I have a problem with is not their freedom of speech but their efforts to curtail the free speech of others.

          3. couturepopcafe profile image61
            couturepopcafeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            uncorrectedvision - liberals hate people of worship because there can only be one god, and they thought Nancy was it.

            1. lovemychris profile image79
              lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              No, we just reject your god...Ronald Reagan.

    3. habee profile image91
      habeeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      It would be their right to build as many churches as they wanted, right? Doesn't mean you'd have to attend. I wouldn't.

      1. Mighty Mom profile image91
        Mighty Momposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Sure, they can build as many churches as they want -- as long as they don't use government money to do so.
        Freedom of choice is the key here, Habee. I agree. I wouldn't attend no matter how many they built -- so long as other religious alternatives were still allowed.
        Under the Constitution, we all have the right to worship as we see fit.
        The United States is NOT a Christian state!

        1. 0
          Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          It won't be for long, if people keep believing you.

          1. Mighty Mom profile image91
            Mighty Momposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            How do you explain your position to the many non-Christians in our country?

            If I'm a Japanese-American Buddhist or a Jewish-American or a legal immigrant from Lebanon or Iran or wherever and a practicing Muslim, am I supposed to convert?
            I don't think so!

            1. habee profile image91
              habeeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              No! Everyone should worship or not worship, as he sees fit. People should not be "required" to follow Chistianity or any other religion. America was founded on freedom of religion, after all.

              1. Mighty Mom profile image91
                Mighty Momposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Habee,
                You are entirely too reasonable, fair and open-minded for this forum! lol

                1. habee profile image91
                  habeeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  LOL!! I love you, too!

          2. Jeff Berndt profile image91
            Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            "It won't be for long, if people keep believing you."

            It never was, Brenda, and no amount of pretending will retroactively change the past. There's a difference between a nation with a Christian majority and a "Christian Nation."

        2. American View profile image59
          American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          MM

          - as long as they don't use government money to do so.

          Are you aware of how many grants were approved to build Mosques?

          1. SheriKeat profile image61
            SheriKeatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            No, how many?  Do you know how many very profitable companies pay no taxes, because a church owns them? As in  grocery chains? So tax dollars run the gamit, not that it should, but it does. Liberals have nothing against Fundamentalist Christians, until they start imposing their beliefs on us.   Reconstructionist Christians scare me however.

            1. Jeff Berndt profile image91
              Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              "No, how many?"
              None at all.

              1. SheriKeat profile image61
                SheriKeatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Exactly, Jeff exactly

            2. Barbara Kay profile image84
              Barbara Kayposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I'd like to know which churches you are talking about. I don't know of any.

  24. Rastamermaid profile image71
    Rastamermaidposted 5 years ago

    Hell to the naw!

    That's a NO and a no brainer.

    I would put Bill Clinton back in office,before we were bushwhacked Clinton had us sitting pretty.

    1. Repairguy47 profile image60
      Repairguy47posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I'm sorry you don't know history.

      1. Moderndayslave profile image60
        Moderndayslaveposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Give us a lesson

  25. daskittlez69 profile image78
    daskittlez69posted 5 years ago

    I would love to hear this history lesson as well.

    1. Barbara Kay profile image84
      Barbara Kayposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I"d like to hear it too.

  26. Mighty Mom profile image91
    Mighty Momposted 5 years ago

    You're joking, right?
    Israelis aren't worried about Republicans! They're waiting for their Zionist princess President Palin lol

    1. uncorrectedvision profile image60
      uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I am sorry -  I thought we lived in the United States.  I should have made it easier to understand -American Jews, besides, you do understand that there are non-Jewish Israelis?  And they even get to vote and sit in the Israeli Parliament.

      1. Mighty Mom profile image91
        Mighty Momposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Lighten up, UCV. It was a deliberate joke.
        You know, like in banter?

      2. Jeff Berndt profile image91
        Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Sure, but just let them try to buy land....

        1. uncorrectedvision profile image60
          uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          80.4 percent of Israeli land is owned by the government and leased to Jews and non-Jews.  !3.1 percent is owned by a private fund established for purchasing land for Jewish resettlement that began in 1901.  The remaining 6.5 percent is owned by Jews and non-Jews - citizenship is not required to own land.

          How ever Palestinians in the Palestinian lands have been murdered when they have sold land to Jews.

          http://www.meforum.org/370/can-arabs-buy-land-in-israel

          1. Jeff Berndt profile image91
            Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            On paper, there's land equality. In practice, however, it's very different. Palestinean/Arab landowners get their property "appropriated" by the government for "public purposes", leased to third parties (usually Jews) and then the appropriated land gets sold to the lease holder. Here's one case:
            http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/ne … s-1.261151

            Here's a story about an Arab town that's being systemically denied amenities that Jewish towns get:
            Dar ElHanoun is an old Arab village in Israel that dates back to the 1920s. The residents of Dar ElHanoun are all Israeli citizens who legally own their lands. However, the State of Israel does not recognize Dar ElHanoun as a legal dwelling place and denies all facilities from the residents. As a result, the village has no paved road leading to it, no electricity, no sanitation facilities or telephone connection, no health, education or post services. ... The ministry is ignoring the fact that Dar ElHanoun predates the State of Israel, and that new, exclusively Jewish settlements are being continuously established in the same area. Recent declarations of the minister of the interior indicate that the ministry aims to evict Dar ElHanoun. This 80 years old village and all that it symbolizes for peace seeking people in Israel is in imminent danger.
            http://dar-elhanoun.org/dh-article.html

            Here's a brief rundown on how the transfer happens, and why (the author has a bit of an axe to grind, so take this one with a grain of salt)
            http://www.ceia-sc.org/page3/page4/page4.html

            Here's a more unbiased article about how Israeli land policy works in practice from a Canadian organization (the writer is American, or at least, lives here).
            http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? … ;aid=14579
            This article disagrees with your numbers about who owns/controls how much land in Israel.

            1. uncorrectedvision profile image60
              uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              That is pretty awful.  There are legal "takings" here also and those are troubling as well.  I wonder what land rights are like for Jews in Muslim countries?

              1. Mighty Mom profile image91
                Mighty Momposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                ... or for that matter, for Muslims in Muslim countries.

                1. uncorrectedvision profile image60
                  uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  That sounds a little ethnocentric to me MM.  You mean Muslims in the Muslim world are living in paradise?  I thought our President fixed that with his bold vision of Muslim outreach.  Well at least women in the Muslim world have it better than oppressed women in the United States.

              2. lovemychris profile image79
                lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Here's how it is for Arabs in the Zionist world:

                Systematic Israeli State Terror

                http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/09/08 … te-terror/

                1. uncorrectedvision profile image60
                  uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Well you won't have to be concerned about that much longer.  Iran will be nuking Tel Aviv any day now thus ending all concerns about Jews and Muslims resulting in world wide peace.

                2. 0
                  Longhunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  LMC, What would you have the Israelis do, lay down their arms and let the Arabs kill them?

                  1. uncorrectedvision profile image60
                    uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Yes - that is the only way to bring peace to the Muslim world - destroy Israel.  How about one of my favorite mental exercises. 

                    If the Muslims all laid down their arms what would Israel do?  What would the US do?

                    If Israel laid down its arms what would the Muslims do? If the US laid down its arms what would China, Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, Pakistan, the Muslims, etc...do?

              3. Jeff Berndt profile image91
                Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                "There are legal "takings" here also and those are troubling as well."

                Yes, that's one of the worst decisions that the SCOTUS has made in a while: the ruling that it's okay for a town to eminent domain someone out of their home so they can sell it to a different private owner. Luckily, several states and localities have outlawed the practice in response, so there is some sense left in the US.

                1. uncorrectedvision profile image60
                  uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Stop being agreeable, it is annoying. Just goes to show that the SCOTUS is not populated by angels.

                  1. Jeff Berndt profile image91
                    Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    LOL, I know, who'd have thought we'd find common ground, right? smile

  27. Kathleen Cochran profile image85
    Kathleen Cochranposted 5 years ago

    "I have a little trouble understanding why liberals want to restrict Christian worship.  Why do liberals hate Christians so much they want to deny them their faith and their worship?"

    Who do you think "liberals" are?  My tendencies lean to the liberal side.  I am from a military family, have gone to evangelical churches all my life (as a believer), and have voted Republican more than once.  Do I fit the mold?

    1. Castlepaloma profile image22
      Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Christian Right v Godless Liberalism: Why Do Christians Attack Godless Liberals.

      That just dose not add up, 85% of American are Christians, you need at least 50% of liberal to win an election, what nerd is playing anti God with computer voting.

      LET ME AT HIM!!!

      1. Mighty Mom profile image91
        Mighty Momposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Castlepaloma -- Why even bother citing statistics?
        Surely you know trying to refute an argument with the CR with FACTS is 100% pointless!
        Once the "G" word gets dropped into the conversation, all rationality and open-mindedness goes out the stained glass window lol

        1. Castlepaloma profile image22
          Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Your right
          Military and magic trumps all

          I am moving into an eco system cave now, wake me up when the abuse stops, if your alive..

  28. Jeff Berndt profile image91
    Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago

    The problem is that he loved America the way Lenny loved rabbits. smile

    1. daskittlez69 profile image78
      daskittlez69posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      lol thanks for the comment Jeff

  29. 0
    klarawieckposted 5 years ago

    Heeeeeeeellll noooooooooo!!!

  30. KarlaMuir512 profile image60
    KarlaMuir512posted 5 years ago

    A big fat no!!! Then again, I didn't vote for hime the first time or the second.

  31. ThoughtSandwiches profile image85
    ThoughtSandwichesposted 5 years ago

    Oh no.  He was a serious problem.  I voted for his dad in 1988...but then...his dad was competent.  I can't abide a leader that doesn't understand history and fears science.

  32. Paul Wingert profile image81
    Paul Wingertposted 5 years ago

    Good point.

  33. Internetwriter62 profile image87
    Internetwriter62posted 5 years ago

    I didn't vote for Obama but I wouldn't vote for Bush again either. I wish we had another alternative.

  34. Paul Wingert profile image81
    Paul Wingertposted 5 years ago

    How about Bill Clinton? He'd get my vote at a drop of a hat!

    1. Kathleen Cochran profile image85
      Kathleen Cochranposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      How about Clinton's wife?  She's been an excellent Secretary of State.  When her husband was in office we had a surplus (remember those $600 checks Bush sent out at the first of his administration?  There went the surplus!)  Do you think he handled the economy without her input?  I doubt it.  Unfortunately, he wasn't the help to her when she ran that she had been to him.  Bob Dole did the same thing to his wife when she was an excellent candidate.

      1. Mighty Mom profile image91
        Mighty Momposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I'm still grieving that Hil lost the primary to Obama!!!
        Timing is everything, isn't it?
        Bill was perceived as a "loose cannon" and somewhat of a liability for his wife in 2008. I wonder how much of that was America's supreme discomfort at the idea of having a First Gentleman instead of a First Lady (or, in SP's case, a "First Dude." roll)

        But all of a sudden (IMHO) that stigma is gone from BC. If she were to run now, I think he WOULD be an asset.
        They would both be huge assets to our economy, that's for dang sure!

        1. Jeff Berndt profile image91
          Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Y'know, back in 2008, I thought HC would be too polarizing a figure to be able to win the general election, or to be effective as president if she did win.

          In hindsight, it looks as though any democrat would have gotten the same treatment from the right. Oh, well.

          My hope is for a Romney-led GOP ticket in 2012. That way even if Obama doesn't get reelected, we'll have someone who isn't nuts in the Whitehouse.

          1. Mighty Mom profile image91
            Mighty Momposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Have we really come to this? Picking our president based on which one is the least nuts???
            Wow.
            I'm with you on that, Jeff (although I don't genuinly "like" Romney I think he's a good executive).

            He's gonna have to arm wrestle Rick Perry, unfortunately.
            And even though she's not in the race, SP is still clocking in with 14% of the GOP candidate vote.
            God help us if it's Perry/Palin. roll

            1. 0
              Longhunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              How about a Romney/Perry ticket?

              1. Mighty Mom profile image91
                Mighty Momposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                That combination would probably do best against Obama.
                Not sure their egos could handle it, tho.
                And Perry/Romney doesn't work at all.

              2. Jeff Berndt profile image91
                Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Romney/Perry might be an electable ticket. I doubt Perry would consent to being number 2 on a ticket with Romney, though. (Romney's a Mormon, you know.)

                But if such a ticket were to win, Perry would serve the same purpose as Dan Quayle and Joe Biden: even the bitterest of haters wouldn't want anyone to shoot the President because look who'd take over if someone did. smile

                1. 0
                  Longhunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  After thinking about it, I'd like to see a Cain/Allen West ticket. Strong business man/strong military man. What do you think about that ticket?

                  1. Jeff Berndt profile image91
                    Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Some combination of Romney and Cain might work. Don't know enough about Allen West to say one way or another.

            2. daskittlez69 profile image78
              daskittlez69posted 5 years ago in reply to this

              If it is Perry/Palin I am going to have to move to Europe!

              1. Mighty Mom profile image91
                Mighty Momposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I can see Europe AND the country of Africa from my house!
                Palin. roll

      2. uncorrectedvision profile image60
        uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Apparently your standards for Secretary of State are very low.

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eP3h9g_TnT4

        I guess leading with the behind has infected the State Department.

    2. daskittlez69 profile image78
      daskittlez69posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I would vote on Clinton in a heartbeat!

      1. Rastamermaid profile image71
        Rastamermaidposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Rastamermaidposted 2 days ago
        Hell to the naw!

        That's a NO and a no brainer.

        I would put Bill Clinton back in office,before we were bushwhacked Clinton had us sitting pretty.
        replymore →reportpermalink
        70Repairguy47posted 2 days ago in reply to this
        I'm sorry you don't know history.




        I stated this days ago and some hubber said I didn't know  .

        I'm still waiting for this lesson.

        The one President that I truly believe can help us is Bill Clinton,I wish Clinton and Obama could run together. That would be my ticket.

        Bill not Hilliary,I'm a woman and many may not get it but I just can't see me voting for Hilliary. This is my own choice and if you want to vote for her wonderful it's your vote,I'm just glad you're excercising your rights.

  35. Ali Raxa profile image59
    Ali Raxaposted 5 years ago

    Never !!

  36. starme77 profile image86
    starme77posted 5 years ago

    oh hell no , no way ,

  37. daskittlez69 profile image78
    daskittlez69posted 5 years ago

    lol, yeah she is pretty special!!!

  38. Dena22 profile image60
    Dena22posted 5 years ago

    Hell to the No!

    1. Castlepaloma profile image22
      Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I have never been against anyone yet gotten rid of only two people in my lifetime, one was Bush. I had my US work permits taken away from me because I refuse to do a war sculpture project for his administration.

      I’ve watched how so many Families, friends and loved ones separated from debating about him. After observing how people either are so strongly against Bush or extremely for Bush domestically NOT Globally. I decided his method of destruction is the work of a  megalomaniac. It also made me realize how many mass amounts of interior white hicks, red necks, hillbillies, trailer trash who mainly voted for him there were. The most popular praise supporter gave Bush was about his consistency and I say, yeah, consistently wrong.

  39. pisean282311 profile image58
    pisean282311posted 5 years ago

    lol then usa would go on wars with iran , north korea and economy would be permanent good bye...already usa is paying price of iraq attack done by bush..he triggered usa's economical issues ...i guess bush would be last thing which usa needs right now...

    1. Castlepaloma profile image22
      Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Bush policy continues to haunt, good thing I did not allow Bush to haunt me in my life’s work. I had so much pressure from friends and Family about working for the President of the United State of America. I don't care who he is, I don't work for hate mongers there are lots of other loving Americans to work for.

      George Bush believes History will vindicate his decision to invade Iraq, Even the aftermath of Saddam's downfall and that has what has come back to haunt Bush, Karma I guess. War criminal, liar, inept leader, sadistic hate monger, etc, etc live on in today’s Bush;s haunting aftermath.

      1. Mighty Mom profile image91
        Mighty Momposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Castlepaloma,
        I admire you for standing up for your convictions, even though it obviously hurt you.
        Your story is chilling but not surprising, really.

        You refuse to create an homage to WAR so they take away your work visa?
        How un-American, anti-freedom is that!!???

  40. Greek One profile image80
    Greek Oneposted 5 years ago

    I think Bush senior is far wiser than his son...

    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_aTig6QfQ1iI/SLh1EHq4SjI/AAAAAAAAEbw/eer6p7e71NI/s400/Bush-funny.jpg

    1. uncorrectedvision profile image60
      uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I think, if he had said screw the UN, and backed the swamp Arab rebellion in the south and took out Saddaam then, there wouldn't have been anywhere near as much trouble out of Iraq.

      1. 0
        Longhunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        That would have only created a power vacuum with Iran and others going in
        to take control.

        Going into Iraq was a GWB's biggest foreign policy mistake.

        1. uncorrectedvision profile image60
          uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          His biggest foreign policy error was not pushing the Iraq invasion to its logical conclusion - sealing the borders and fomenting revolution in Iran - it is ripe for it and would benefit everyone in the Middle East to have free Iran.

          1. 0
            Longhunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            We can't or, more appropriate, won't seal our own borders with Mexico. What makes you think we could do it in Iraq?

            Would a revolution in Iran be a good thing, yes, but that's something the people of Iran should undertake.

            1. uncorrectedvision profile image60
              uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              The collapse of communism in Eastern Europe was facilitated by American help.  Money, computers, satellite phones would all help push Iran into revolution.  There is a role the US can play, guns and boots aren't always necessary.

              1. 0
                Longhunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Now all we need are leaders with the stones to make it happen. Good luck finding  those.

                1. uncorrectedvision profile image60
                  uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  That is the key.  The Iranian people are ready and Barrack Obama ignored 2009/2010 Iranian uprising.  One good hard push would have sent that country tumbling toward freedom.  We save our actions for Libya which posed little threat to anyone outside Libya.

          2. Jeff Berndt profile image91
            Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            "I think, if he had said screw the UN, and backed the swamp Arab rebellion in the south and took out Saddaam then, there wouldn't have been anywhere near as much trouble out of Iraq."
            No, GHWB was smart not to invade and conquer Iraq. It would have been an unmitigated disaster. Heck, even Dick Cheney thought so. He should have listened to himself a few years later.

            "One good hard push would have sent that country tumbling toward freedom."
            And ours tumbling toward bankruptcy. (Oh, but I forgot: deficit spending is okay when it makes foreigners blow up.)

    2. Ron Montgomery profile image59
      Ron Montgomeryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      lol

    3. Castlepaloma profile image22
      Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Greek ONE
      I think Bush senior is far wiser than his son...

      Best laugh I have had yet
      Thanks

      Considing Both having the lowest IQ in presidential history

  41. EpowerGuy profile image61
    EpowerGuyposted 5 years ago

    Sure. Because we haven't done enough damage to our country following his Cheneyisms.

  42. daskittlez69 profile image78
    daskittlez69posted 5 years ago

    I completely agree with that.  It isn't America's job to create and defend their borders.

  43. rachellrobinson profile image85
    rachellrobinsonposted 5 years ago

    Personally I don't understand the fascination with GWB, when Clinton served his two terms I don't remember anyone saying, if Clinton could run again would you vote for him. We still don't ask the question. Will people be wondering about whether or not GWB would be the best candidate in 2016 or will this madness end with the next election?
    We need to move on, Bush served his two terms, and he cannot run again so asking whether or not people would vote for him, or focusing on him rather than the real candidates seems like a waste of time.

    1. uncorrectedvision profile image60
      uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      There was a brief movement to change the constitution to allow Clinton another term.

      1. Jeff Berndt profile image91
        Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        And one to allow Arnold Schwarzenegger to be POTUS.

        1. uncorrectedvision profile image60
          uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I know, what a hideous notion.

    2. daskittlez69 profile image78
      daskittlez69posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Rachell, In honor of your statement I wrote a hub titled "Bring Back Bill Clinton"

      1. 0
        Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Ya gonna bring back Monica Lewinsky and the Rwandan conflict?

        1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
          MelissaBarrettposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I don't care who blows the president, as long as he is balancing the budget sheets on top of her head while she is doing it.

          1. daskittlez69 profile image78
            daskittlez69posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            lol that is what I used to say.  He might have had a cigar in one hand and her head in his lap, but his other hand was holding a telephone and he was running the country!  lol Thankd for the comment Melissa

            1. 0
              Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Please be serious instead of following Melissa's vulgarity.
              I'm actually wondering whether Democrats would nominate someone to run against Obama next year or not.....
              Have any of them (that you know of) learned a lesson from Obama's appalling words and actions?   I...don't think Clinton has.  Last time I saw him speak, he was waaaay out in Left field.

              1. daskittlez69 profile image78
                daskittlez69posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Personally I do not see any Democrats running against Obama.  I do believe that Hillary would have the best chance to take votes away from him though.  As it is now I would leave the Democratic party this next election if Obama is our only choice and vote for Ron Paul, he seems to me, to be the only candidate that sticks to his guns, doesn't flip flop like the others, and seems to me to have the right workings behind him to make a difference in turning this country around.  I wrote a Hub on this if you want to check it out entitled Presidential Election 2012

                1. 0
                  Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I'll check it out.  But Ron Paul doesn't impress me a bit.  He's....only trying to be President, not service the American people.   When I saw him on tv saying we should never have to compromise any of our rights for the sake of national security, he lost me already.  He was talking about airport security and trying to gain followers by making the airports out to be the bad guys.   Making our airlines safer is simple actually---- they need to allow something that the liberals get their underwear in a bunch over------profiling.

              2. rachellrobinson profile image85
                rachellrobinsonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Brenda according to the http://2012.presidential-candidates.org/ Randall Terry is running against Obama, he is a Pro-life Democrat. I don't know what kind of support he is getting. There is also an independent Stewart Alexander who is running as a  PFP & Socialist Presidential Candidate

                1. 0
                  Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Really?   I didn't know there were other Democrats in the running;  I thought that THEY thought Obama had it all tied up from the get-go!

                  Alexander, Socialist candidate?  Wow.  and whoa I think...

                  1. rachellrobinson profile image85
                    rachellrobinsonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Of course there are the rumors that Hillary will run against Obama, but I think those are just rumors. What I wonder is if Obama will want a different VP for his next term.

        2. daskittlez69 profile image78
          daskittlez69posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Nagh Monica Lewinsky is no longer a hand maiden, I mean intern, she lives in London now.  As for the Rwandan conflict the administration did not want to repeat the fiasco of US intervention in Somalia, where US troops became sucked into fighting. Just because some Americans like to think we are the World Police, doesn't mean we have to tell every country out there what to do.  It was and still is a sad state of affairs.  But you cannot blame the American people or out government for the genocide.

          1. 0
            Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I actually agree with you on that.
            But the current "President" is much further Left than Clinton was.  Or at least further Left than Clinton ever dared go at the time.
            So...do you think Clinton would be more conservative than Obama?   Or would he (or Hillary's influence too) take Obama's "progressive" agenda to even more insane lengths?

            1. 0
              Holmes221bposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              As a Brit, I view the USA as one of the most conservative countries in the world, and think that it does every country some good, if its views are challenged, as Obama seems to be doing.  It is a shame that he knows he can't go as far as perhaps he would like to.  It is not good when any country gets stuck in only one way of thinking.  Things do sometimes need to progress, however painful that might be.

              1. 0
                Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Oh, he can go however far he wants to, as long as he doesn't take America down with him.   And as long as he's in Office, that's what he'll do.
                Heck....he can go far far...even to Rwanda for all I care.

                1. Jeff Berndt profile image91
                  Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  He'd be raising America up, if the haters would get out of the way.

  44. 0
    Holmes221bposted 5 years ago

    Although I didn't agree with many of the policies of George W. Bush, and think America did the right thing in voting in Obama, I nevertheless miss the entertainment value of Bush.  This is misunderestimated, and sadly lacking in a president who knows how to spell his own name and can locate foreign nations on a map.

  45. daskittlez69 profile image78
    daskittlez69posted 5 years ago

    I do not see Clinton playing "Patsy" in front of the camera on a daily news show telling us how he is going to fix this country.  I see him getting off of his ass and actually making changes.  I guarantee he would not be handing out band-aids either like Obama does and getting pushed around by the Republicans.  He would lower taxes across the board and make it beneficial for companies in the U.S. to be able to run their own companies, he would give business owners a reason to want to expand their companies by hiring more employees and opening up other locations.  And you have to remember that Clinton was a Southern governor who had defined his political identity in part as an apostle of moving his party to the political middle, while Obama is from the urban north and came to office presenting himself as a pragmatist, but not necessarily a centrist, and has ushered in the most sweeping liberal policy initiatives in years.

    1. 0
      Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Well, it's actually odd to be missing a Democrat's days in Office.  (Well, not those Lewinsky or Rwanda days!)   Just goes to show, as you pointed out, how radical Obama is.
      But I don't think I (or anyone else) could really trust Bill Clinton anymore.

      1. daskittlez69 profile image78
        daskittlez69posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Because of the Lewinsky thing?  No offense but I find that very laughable. Truly I do.  Europe and the rest of the world isn't as Prude as Americans are.  And once again please do not take offense, but you could sleep with 100 women a day and still be a great leader.  If you are referring to something else I would love to hear your take.

        1. 0
          Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I disagree of course.  Even sleeping with any woman except your wife (well, leave Hillary out of that!  lol)  would be both demeaning to a President's personal and public position, and would be a distraction.   I dunno about you, but I don't wanna pay him a salary so he can play footsie or whatever in the Oval Office.   If he wants to do something like that, let him do it while he's on vacation at the very least, and keep it to himself.

          1. daskittlez69 profile image78
            daskittlez69posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I agree with the "Keep it to himself" part.  I do not think he had any control over that though.  I do also want to note that I do not condone a man sleeping with other women.  I am married and would never do it personally, but it definitely is not unheard of throughout history when it comes to leaders.

            1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
              MelissaBarrettposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Exactly.  There are plenty of Church leaders that did it themselves and led their congregations quite admirably (until they were found out and everyone got their panties in a bunch)

              What someone does with their private parts generally doesn't interfere with how they do their jobs.  And I would certainly rather my POTUS be well satisfied then be uptight and overly stressed out.  I think a good afterglow beats a few drinks for reasonable thinking.

              His cheating was between him and his wife... not the american public.

              1. uncorrectedvision profile image60
                uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                His cheating was between him and his wife... not the american public.

                This was true until he committed perjury, suborned perjury, used the mechanisms of his office(as governor first, then as President) to investigate and pressure women that he had assaulted.  Ooops, he assaulted women, I guess that doesn't matter to the sexual predator portion of the population and the excuse makers.

                Bill Clinton wasn't only fooling around with Monica Lewinsky but he assaulted several women.  But that should be over looked because...I just can't come up with a rational reason to excuse him.

                He violated the Violence Against Women law he signed.  He violated the work place rules that would have resulted in his being terminated had he done the same thing as a law school professor.  This was not an affair with someone out side his control.  It was a power play by a boss over a subordinate.

                This list is the ones either assaulted by or intimidated through the mechanism of his office(s) to remain silent when approached by Paula Jones' Lawyers.

                Cristy Zercher, Elizabeth Ward Gracen, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, Nancy Hernreich,  Debra Schiff, Sherrie Densuk, Dolly Kyle Browning, Beth Coulson, Marilyn Jo Jenkins, Juanita Broaddrick, Marsha Scott, Bobbie Ann Williams, Sally Perdue

                It isn't anybodies business how many women the President of the United States has consensual sex unregulated by work place laws.  Presidents are not exempt from the  law.

                1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                  MelissaBarrettposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  LOL, wasn't making excuses for him.  Don't care now, Didn't care then.  Wouldn't care if it was George Bush either. Either of them.  Wouldn't care if they were sleeping with each other. Wouldn't care if Little George, Big George, Clinton and Obama all played naked twister on the oval office floor together. Wouldn't care who they hid it from or how they hid it either.

                  I want the budget balanced, my body left alone, guns only owned by people smart enough to use them, people allowed to marry whoever they want, and my kids safe to walk the street.  I don't care if the POTUS is running a donkey show in mexico as a side income... if he can do all listed above, he has my vote.

                  1. daskittlez69 profile image78
                    daskittlez69posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    roflmao oh I laughed so hard that time that it hurt!

                  2. uncorrectedvision profile image60
                    uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    So you are comfortable with sacrificing some women to his appetite as long as he serves your desires.  Good to know that morality and justice don't matter.

                2. Jeff Berndt profile image91
                  Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  "Ooops, he assaulted women,"
                  He's been convicted of assaulting women, has he?

                  "But that should be over looked because...I just can't come up with a rational reason to excuse him."
                  I can. How about this: he was never convicted of those crimes?

                  "This list is the ones either assaulted by or intimidated through the mechanism of his office(s) to remain silent when approached by Paula Jones' Lawyers."
                  And surely you can produce evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that these women were all intimidated or assaulted, by Clinton or at Clinton's behest? I mean, I assume you have conclusive proof that Clinton is guilty of all of those charges, since he's meant to be considered to be innocent untill proven guilty, right?

                  "Good to know that morality and justice don't matter."
                  No, morality matters. It's just that morally, if the relationship was consensual (and there's no proof otherwise unless you've got some), the only victim was his wife, and it's none of the rest of our dang business.
                  And justice? Sure that matters. If there's evidence to bring a case against Clinton for assault, then let it be brought as It should be. If he's guilty, he should go to friggin' jail.

                  1. uncorrectedvision profile image60
                    uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    What happens to very powerful men who commit crimes.  I thought it was a hall mark of liberal thought that they are all corrupt and manipulate the system to avoid prosecution or is that reserved for non- Democrats?

  46. daskittlez69 profile image78
    daskittlez69posted 5 years ago

    I honestly believe that the airports were safer before 9/11.  There are many websites out there that agree with this statement.  I just did a quick google search and the first one that came up was http://www.concierge.com/cntraveler/art … geNumber=6

  47. EpowerGuy profile image61
    EpowerGuyposted 5 years ago

    Right on Melissa.

  48. HouseSeller profile image59
    HouseSellerposted 5 years ago

    No.. am Scottish so can't vote tongue

  49. 0
    allchatposted 5 years ago

    At this point id vote for mickey mouse i mean after all isn't washington filled with kids fighting with each other? For once id just like to see someone ACT like they work for us instead of addressing the nation telling us crap we already know.

    As my ole man would say **** or get off the pot!!!

    1. Debby Bruck profile image85
      Debby Bruckposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Everyone loves Mickey! Now there's a true iconic character and a cartoon, too. Won't the comedians have a hey-day?

  50. aware profile image70
    awareposted 5 years ago

    yes
    ray

 
working