If George W Bush could run for office again, would you vote for him?
Hooray for endless wars, torture and bailouts!
Everything that we hate Obama for, Bush was doing the same thing.
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.
McCain is against torture - for obvious reasons.
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?
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
McCAIN wants a 100 years war with Iraq
What a very very nice man, too bad he can do very bads things
I don't think he could do that without approval from Congress. Oh, wait...
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?
Why, do you want to finish off the middle class faster?
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packa … 29,00.html
In 2012 against Obama? Yes. Against the others in the current Republican field, no.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
No she's just not quite as bad as Perry or Bachmann.
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.
Yeah, like diarrhea is not quite as bad as puking.
People should get comfortable with the idea that Obama will not be re-elected and that, as of now, Rick Perry, may, very well be. I am having trouble figuring out why he is so despised. I am not enthusiastic about him but not repelled either. I can think of nothing more amusing for what it will do to liberals than a Palin/Bachmann victory. I don't think that is a likely ticket but it makes me smile to contemplate.
I think Obama has a good chance of being voted in again, especially if there's an improvement in the economy. I couldn't vote for Bachmann or Palin, and I probably wouldn't vote for Perry, either. I need to do some more research on him. I could probably have supported Pawlenty, and I liked Huckabee. I think I could easily vote for Romney or Huntsman, who are more moderate than the rest of the GOP field.
The is little hope for the economy to improve. In fact, it is far more likely that we will be mired in an even deeper recession as the artificial supports begin to dry up. The market is not poised for a comeback before the distortions forced on it are unwound. So Obama, though not certain of defeat, is not guaranteed a victory.
I would not vote for Huntsman and it is more than likely no one will have the opportunity. As for Romney, Romney care will sink his candidacy, as it should. I guess you will be voting for Obama because the likely Republican candidate is already running and it isn't Bachmann.
I think Palin enjoys the role of gadfly and who could blame her. "Moderates" and liberals soil themselves every time her running is mentioned but they cannot seem to ignore her when she is making them dance to her tune. She makes me laugh and laugh. I hope she keeps teasing and tweaking with her ducks and faints. If she were a boxer it would still be called "rope-a-dope" because there are people who still think that she is the dope while they play the chump.
Oh, I don't think Palin is as dumb as some people think. I'm assuming you think Perry will be the GOP nominee, and the way it's looking, you're probably right. As I said, I'm still on the fence about Perry. I read that he wants to abolish Social Security and Medicare. What do you know about this?
He is on the record as stating that he believes social security and medicare to be unconstitutional. Whether that translates to "wants to abolish," I don't know.
Calling Social Security a "ponzi scheme" may give a clue...
There is a reasonable argument to be had over whether they are unconstitutional. But he still hates old people, just like all Republicans. Oh yeah, and Blacks and women and Hispanics and homosexuals and Venusians and Klingons and ... and....
Who needs a link, the hatred of crazy righties for everyone is well known, after all wasn't Hilter a Republican?
UCV, I must point out that you said nothing about hatred of Righties. You said, speaking of Perry:
"But he still hates old people, just like all Republicans. Oh yeah, and Blacks and women and Hispanics and homosexuals and Venusians and Klingons and ... and...."
Get your hatred straight, man!
Perry is a crazy rightie, hatred is a quality of crazy righties, therefore Perry hates Blacks, old people, women, Jews, Muslims ( forgot those last two first time around) etc.... Hatred of righties as in snobbery of righties, elitism of righties, greed of righties, etc....
Perry is a Republican, Hitler was a Republican, therefore, Perry is Hitler. Can't you follow the logic? He wants to kill old people because he thinks Social Security needs to be reformed. Some people just don't get it. Perry is a Texan, Bush is a Texan, LBJ was a Texan, Charles Whitman was a Texan, therefore, Perry killed JFK from the Tower at U of T. The logic is undeniable.
Sorry, can't follow that "logic" no matter how much easier it makes your stereotyping of me.
Sorry, my universe of mockery does not revolve around any one person - sorry about your ego. It revolves around a mindset that sees everything evil as Republican. One need only listen to or read liberals long enough for these things become obvious.
Yes, everything Republican is evil. I am liberal so OBVIOUSLY I believe that. You said it, so it must be true.
Now, let's see what my Republican husband thinks about that when I inform him of this heretofore unknown fact.
Back atcha on that gravity well thing. I mean, you must hold the record for:
"liberals hate [fill in inaccurate stereotype]" and "liberals believe [fill in another inaccurate stereotype]" and let's not forget "liberals are afraid of [fill in conservative fantasy about liberals' fears]"
Gravity well, indeed.
Why abolish that which is going to collapse in a catastrophic heap if left unreformed. If one was set on eliminating Social Security, than the least troublesome way of doing so is to do what liberals have been doing since the early 80s, fight its reform. The liberal loves frightening the dependent and the oldest tool in the chest is "he wants to take away your social security."
GWB proposed a real and viable reform but liberals would have none of it. Marco Rubio is proposing a real and viable reform and liberals are accusing him of hating old people and wanting them to starve. Paul Ryan's proposed reform of Medicare may be the only way to keep it afloat but he is a heartless monster, or haven't you heard.
The outrage comes from a fear among liberals that once liberated from dependence on a collapsing government ponzi scheme old people may actually stop supporting them. Social Security is about maintain support for liberals not about serving the old.
The brutality of the charges leveled against Republican reformers should enlighten one to the actual purpose of those charges - stifle debt, demonize the reformer, sabotage change and maintain the status quo. The status quo will lead to a collapse - that is a certainty.
So my question is, Why do liberals hate the American people so much that they want Social Security to collapse and squander all that hard earned tax money that has been going into the non-existent trust fund?
"Why abolish that which is going to collapse in a catastrophic heap if [we keep borrowing from it to pay for other stuff and not paying back the loans?]"
There, fixed it for you.
"GWB proposed a [way to hasten the destruction of Social Security] but liberals would have none of it."
There you go.
"So my question is, Why do [right wingers] hate the American people so much that they want Social Security [and the economy] to collapse and squander all that hard earned tax money that has been going into the non-existent trust fund [on subsidies for the already-wealthy]?"
This would be fun if it weren't so sad.
You can't figure out why he is despised? He is the republican currently leading the other republicans. If it were Mitt Romney it would be his turn to be put through the hate ringer.
If you recall, John McCain was the Republican Senator that Democrats loved because he was "a maverick" - which means he was critical of other Republicans. Once nominated he fell into disfavor. Romney is not as well loved as pre-2008 McCain but he is squishy enough to marginally acceptable - for now. Huntsman is even more acceptable because he is an even bigger squish.
hmm, do you live in America? Palin/Bachmann would be a cartoon, not political leadership for our country. It won't happen.
This thread always reminds me of the song Capital G by NIN.
"Palin/Bachmann would be a cartoon, not political leadership for our country."
That is the reaction that makes me laugh most. The idea of the automatic inferiority of Palin/Bachmann as opposed to the spastic flailings of Barrack Obama and the bone headed, foot in mouth utterances of the stupidest man to ever be vice president.
I guess if you want women who would take the country backwards into the 1800's, they may be your cup of tea. No thanks!
"I guess if you want women who would take the country backwards into the 1800's, they may be your cup of tea."
I just love the visceral reaction that is embodied in this and the other emotion laced opinions regarding Palin and Bachmann.
It is so fun to watch the hackles rise and the willies creep over people. The anxiety and anger - it is delicious.
Another brilliant post.
Have you ever gotten anything right?
People are afraid of these two nitwits? You actually think that?
As usual, in your desperate attempt to legitimize Bachmann/Palin as serious political candidates, you are dead wrong about the reaction they evoke in thinking people, er, I mean, liberals and rational conservatives.
Anxiety and anger? No.
Incredulity and ridicule? Yes.
Really, incredulity and ridicule - do you think the press chasing her around, getting their undies in a knot when she doesn't talk to them or publish her schedule, reflects incredulity and ridicule. They take her quite seriously.
Sarah Palin should be a non-factor but liberals keep their unfounded anxieties alive with the constant flogging. People through out history tend to ridicule that which they fear. The fear of Palin is the possibility of her being effective. All the liberal bogeymen are heaped on Palin as if she were the bastard child of Pol Pot and Ronald Reagan.
It is hilarious!
Liberals talk about what an idiot she is but wring their hands like she was an all powerful deity. Kind of like they still see GWB. What an idiot, that got the world dancing to his tune. Got Congress, both Republican led and Democrat led, supporting vast amounts of his agenda.
What an idiot he was, she is. Such idiots that liberals treat them as significant.
It is hilarious, in the extreme, that the primary tool of liberal argument is ridicule and incredulity. Every Republican since the 1930s has been ridiculed by liberals - it is the only arrow in the quiver. The weight of history proves liberalism wrong at every turn, so, the hyperbole, the ridicule is all that is left.
Second-stupidest. You forgot about Quayle.
But about the Palin/Bachmann thing, and fear: It's not fear of them that's important.
It's fear of Obama.
Fear is a powerful motivator, and the Right has shown that they're masters of manipulating fear when it exists (witness the swing to the Right after 9/11), sustaining fear when it wanes (color-coded threat levels, the whole W 2004 campaign), and conjuring fear when it's needless (the abject terror of Health Care reform; death panels, keep your government hands off my Medicare).
If the Right can generate enough fear, people can be scared into voting for the Right's candidate, and it might just be Bachmann. And having witnessed her stunning level of willful ignorance and consistent unwillingness to admit that she misspoke when she clearly did (John Wayne instead of John Wayne Gacy, the Founders fought to abolish slavery), I can only conclude that a Bachmann presidency will help to turn America away from science (and therefore scientific advancement and cutting edge technology) and toward a national attitude of stubborn, willful ignorance.
NO! NO! NO! NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Nope. Absolutely not and I wouldn't vote for Obama either. I believe we need a woman in the White House! We need Estrogen not Testosterone! lololo! Women think with there minds and not with there? I will leave it at that.
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.
Undeniably YES! The only President since I've been born that actually cared. Yes I would vote yes again and again.
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.
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!
Never did, never would. We don't need another war or another bill where we pay drug companies full price.
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.
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....
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
I would sooner vote for a sock puppet made to look like GW.
That's a good one but you did get your puppet. When you voted for Obama, you got a Soros Sock Puppet.
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?
Sorry. I'm confused. What's the difference again?
NO!!!!! I couldn't even stand to look at the man by his last year.
NO!!! And that would go for any candidate like him in any way, shape, or form!
daskittlez69, have you figured out yet that liberalism predominates in these forums?
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.
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.
Anybody who thinks a republican wont be president in 2013 is delusionary, or Canadian.
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.
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."
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?"
Not really, but I miss who could have been President McCain...without Palin! lol
McCain got Roved in the Y2K election. If he'd have been president instead of W....well, we all have our dreams....
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...
Then this thread would be "Would you vote for President Gore again if he was eligible to run?"
Why? Don't you think McCain was more qualified than W?
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?
So are you saying, UCV, that all governors are more qualified to be POTUS than any senators?
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.
I know your post didn't include absolutes.
I interpreted your post to mean that governors, by way of their executive experience running states, are better qualified than senators.
The list of POTUSes and their prior experience is quite interesting.
Some of (in my opinion) our very best presidents were formerly governors.
But some of our very best presidents also trained for the position in the Veep spot....
http://www.ask.com/wiki/List_of_Preside … fices_held
What were they before they were vice-Presidents? Some were governors, some Representatives, some Senators and some were not in government - like Dick Cheney. More misses than hits among the VPs. Most Vps served in other capacities in government before becoming VP. More often than not Presidents served in many different elective and appointed offices. Governor is the training ground most likely to produce a competent President. One that understands how things work and how things get done. One need only look at the current lead from behind, spastic flailer and the previous occupant. Love him, hate him or be indifferent to him GWB got much of what he wanted from a combative Democrat Congress during his first two and last two years.
I would vote for Bush again if for no other reason than to get rid of Michelle.
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
No! For those who'd like to, don't fret, Rick Perry can take care of you.
Rick Perry haass yeahh prueetty mouth tooo.
You found my worst nightmare,
A Bush voter
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!
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.
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.
Yea I go swimming every night in my pool of oil that we took from Iraq.
That isn't a very healthy thing to do, it could even give you delusions.
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.
Iraq is the sixth largest supplier of crude to the US.
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.
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?
They probably do. Most modern militaries have some kind of bio-logical or chemical warfare capabilities. If they do not have they certainly possesses the capabilities to produce WMDs and a neighbor willing to aid them if necessary.
The flow of oil from Iraq is important to the Global Economy but it was not the primary cause of the invasion of Iraq. It was considerably more complex than that.
Indeed. There was Iraq's oil, the opportunism of the W administration, laxity/dereliction of duty/borderline cowardice by the loyal opposition, the false (misleading?) intelligence about WMDs, and a bunch of other stuff. Plenty of blame to go around, and it'd be intellectually dishonest to lay it all at W and his staff.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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?
Oil ,banking,war business and Wall St are all connected, think about it
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...
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.
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.
"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?
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.
I think that's sort of what's it's supposed to symbolize.
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.
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.
Instead of a chicken in every pot we'd have a fundamentalist church on every block.
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.
I have to say I felt more secure about the government back than, right now no! I would vote him back in I believe!
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?
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.
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.
"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
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.
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?
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!!!!
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?
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.
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."
"...omnipotent moral busybodies."
That sounds like right-wing "Christians" to me.
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.
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....
Morality may not be in the lexicon but moral superiority oozes from liberal attitudes. I find the silence regarding Muslim fundamentalism and its actual crimes (not its free speech based affronts to liberal sensibilities) on the part of liberals to be so entertaining. Liberals cleave to ideas, especially about economics, that are completely repudiated by nature and reality yet blanch at bible fundamentalism.
It is interesting that a political "philosophy" holds Roe v. Wade, the Communist Manifesto and "An Inconvenient Truth" in higher esteem than a book that teaches all kinds of lessons on human equality, accountability of government, the rule of law and establishment of a system of justice. Admittedly, few would choose to live by Old Testament justice but it was a giant leap forward in the 15th century B.C.
Much of western culture is rooted in the Bible and in Greek philosophy. I find it interesting that liberals tend to be so arrogant in the surety of the contemporary they treat all ideas that are not theirs and from the past as inferior and unworthy of consideration. Our culture is built on the shoulders of giants but liberals have deluded themselves into believing in their moral superiority and the inferiority of those giants.
"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.
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.
So what you have a problem with most is Christin's freedom of speech?
uncorrectedvision - liberals hate people of worship because there can only be one god, and they thought Nancy was it.
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.
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!
It won't be for long, if people keep believing you.
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!
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.
"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."
- as long as they don't use government money to do so.
Are you aware of how many grants were approved to build Mosques?
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.
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.
You're joking, right?
Israelis aren't worried about Republicans! They're waiting for their Zionist princess President Palin
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.
Lighten up, UCV. It was a deliberate joke.
You know, like in banter?
Sure, but just let them try to buy land....
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.
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.
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)
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.
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?
... or for that matter, for Muslims in Muslim countries.
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.
Here's how it is for Arabs in the Zionist world:
Systematic Israeli State Terror
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/09/08 … te-terror/
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.
LMC, What would you have the Israelis do, lay down their arms and let the Arabs kill them?
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?
LMC would love for the U.S. and Israel to lay down our arms, thinking she could quell the Muslims' thirst for our blood with a Liberal hug when in actuality Liberals would be the first ones they'd kill.
In answer to your first two questions, If the Muslims all laid down their arms what would Israel do? What would the US do? the answer would be celebrate peace and hope it's a lasting one.
My answer to your second two questions is, in the words of Charlton Heston, "From my cold, dead hands."
Too many people do not understand that evil is real and palpable. Osama Bin Laden summarized the feelings of the Jihadist rather clearly when he said(paraphrasing) that the pain of death was minor compared with the pain of living in a world of infidels.
"Too many people do not understand that evil is real and palpable."
And too many others are too ready to label anyone who disagrees with them as "evil."
Sure, there's evil in the world, but not nearly as much as some people seem to think.
I am not so sure of that, unless you mean the Crusaders are evil or the Republicans are evil. There is genuine evil. It is not a word to throw about. However, I am certain there are people in these forums who think Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Limbaugh, et al are evil. Evil like slash the throat of Daniel Purl, evil.
"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.
"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?
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!!!
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
The problem is that he loved America the way Lenny loved rabbits.
A big fat no!!! Then again, I didn't vote for hime the first time or the second.
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.
I didn't vote for Obama but I wouldn't vote for Bush again either. I wish we had another alternative.
How about Bill Clinton? He'd get my vote at a drop of a hat!
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.
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." )
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!
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.
Have we really come to this? Picking our president based on which one is the least nuts???
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.
That combination would probably do best against Obama.
Not sure their egos could handle it, tho.
And Perry/Romney doesn't work at all.
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.
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?
Some combination of Romney and Cain might work. Don't know enough about Allen West to say one way or another.
Jeff you might want to find out more about Herman Cain - he is not your kind of guy. I love Herman Cain. That should tell you something. He is also a TEA party darling. Herman Cain pulls votes from Bachmann not from Romney or Perry.
If it is Perry/Palin I am going to have to move to Europe!
Apparently your standards for Secretary of State are very low.
I guess leading with the behind has infected the State Department.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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!!???
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Now all we need are leaders with the stones to make it happen. Good luck finding those.
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.
"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.)
I think Bush senior is far wiser than his son...
Best laugh I have had yet
Considing Both having the lowest IQ in presidential history
Sure. Because we haven't done enough damage to our country following his Cheneyisms.
I completely agree with that. It isn't America's job to create and defend their borders.
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.
There was a brief movement to change the constitution to allow Clinton another term.
Rachell, In honor of your statement I wrote a hub titled "Bring Back Bill Clinton"
Ya gonna bring back Monica Lewinsky and the Rwandan conflict?
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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...
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
roflmao oh I laughed so hard that time that it hurt!
UV I wasn't laughing at the situation just Melissa's comments. As far as the women go, I am staying out of that heated argument. I was just speaking of the job he did as an American President. And how the American people were so much better off during his Presidency compared to now.
A pragmatist and a conservative Congress makes for a good combination. Clinton's first budget had the largest single year budget deficit up to that time. Once the Republicans took Congress, Clinton's subsequent budgets were not only balanced but, for the first time in years, portions of the National Debt were paid off.
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.
As comfortable as you are using those same women to serve your argument. And to do the whole "men in power vs. poor little defenseless women" thing is so against my feminist nature that it's laughable. It's male chauvinism at it's utmost.
WOW, a powerful man rapes a woman and you are comfortable with supporting him in power and because I find that reprehensible I am the chauvinist. Check the original meaning of the word and find yourself reflected in it. Bill Clinton was a monster would you have been equally comfortable if he was abusing Jews or Blacks? He abused and used women. That is fine with you. I guess as long as the trains run on time it is okay to slaughter the Jews? Where is the line?
If the budget balances he can rape all the women he wants. That is reasoning that eludes me.
Just rehashing the history of the Clinton Administration.
Nobody raped anyone. Bill Clinton got a ridiculous amount of play because he was a big boy on campus. Somehow women being attracted to men in power is now rape. Wonder how women who had really been raped would feel about that comparison.
are we talking about Lewinski?
If so, you guys have some tough laws down there…
If getting a willing BJ by an attractive woman is rape, then I would have earned a life sentence during the time I spent with my ex.
No, after the Lewinsky thing women were popping up everywhere saying he did this or that. Some woman said he raped her 21 years before he became president. She waited until 1999 to report it... to the media.
Just a recounting of most of the highlights. A little reading around will muddy things up. There was no press curiosity at the time. Kind of like now, no press curiosity about anything Obama.
"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.
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?
The media ask Canadian Prime Ministers
Jean Chrétien a question about Monica
Media- what do you think of Monica Lewinsky?
In his French accent, Chretien - wish Monica a penis
Media -excuse me, -what did you say?
Chretien I wish Monica Hap-peniss
Nearly half of married men have cheated on their wives, the bedroom business is between Mr., and Miss Clinton, it's not ours business
Bush on the other hand killed one million Iraqi on Iraq soil, while no Iraqi’s have killed , not even one American on American soil
That's worldwide monkey business by born again George W. Bush in which the spiting image of a chimpanzee ... image of a brotherly neighbour.
Second thought, chimps are intelligent, sorry chimps
"I thought it was a hall mark of liberal thought that they are all corrupt and manipulate the system to avoid prosecution"
Shows what you know about liberal thought.
No, if someone commits a crime, they should be prosecuted and punished. Whomever they are, no matter how conservative or liberal they are. If, that is, they're found guilty.
Heck, I don't even think Nixon deserves the bad rep he's got (and probably was guilty of the cover-up only, rather than allowing or even being aware of the actual burglary). But we'll never know, because he was never tried (or impeached), so he has to be considered innocent (or at least, not guilty).
Heck, I even defended Dick Cheney on another thread, and I think he was definitely bad for the country. But there's a difference between "bad for the country" and "guilty of treason."
And come to think of it, remind me: what was Ken Starr meant to be investigating? A real-estate deal, wasn't it? What the hell does Clinton's extramarital hanky-panky have to do with real estate? Unless that long and costly investigation was really about bringing Clinton down rather than bringing him to justice.
"Heck, I don't even think Nixon deserves the bad rep he's got (and probably was guilty of the cover-up only, rather than allowing or even being aware of the actual burglary). But we'll never know, because he was never tried (or impeached), so he has to be considered innocent (or at least, not guilty). "
And yet he is treated as the worst of the worst by most liberals.
"Heck, I even defended Dick Cheney on another thread, and I think he was definitely bad for the country. But there's a difference between "bad for the country" and "guilty of treason.""
I hate it when you are being fair - though we disagree on whether Cheney was bad for the country - but you expect that.
And come to think of it, remind me: what was Ken Starr meant to be investigating? A real-estate deal, wasn't it? What the hell does Clinton's extramarital hanky-panky have to do with real estate? Unless that long and costly investigation was really about bringing Clinton down rather than bringing him to justice.
Clinton was indicted by the House of Representatives for Perjury - an actual crime. He is the only President in history to be censured by the Senate - with more Democrats voting for it than Republicans voting against it. So you see Clinton was found guilty of a crime that the Senate determined was not sufficient to impeach him. The House indicts, the Senate tries.
Clinton got impeach for screwing a woman
When they should have impeach Bush for screwing a country
The actual crime for which Clinton was impeached was perjury.
Yes, a good frame job
The best liars are most likey to get elected, what really matters is what is deep in their hearts as President for the people. Clinton had one the least amount of wars and one of the highest gross productions ever.
Bush's heart and penis were too many sizes too small for the job.
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
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!!!
by mistywild8 years ago
And he was our President for 8 years http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlcE3HVR … r_embeddedTell me what you think.
by Wesman Todd Shaw6 years ago
So the murder monger corporate pig that used the United States Constitution as toilet paper and was complicit in the false flag murder of at least 3000 Americans as a prelude to wars of profit for corporations such as...
by nicomp really8 years ago
If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved? If George W. Bush had given Tony Blair a set of inexpensive and useless (to Tony Blair's UK video formatting) DVDs, when...
by Capable Woman8 years ago
I mean right this minute.My guess: not reflecting on anything.
by Dr Billy Kidd3 years ago
Both Clinton and Bush have been patiently waiting their turns to be president. The powers that be--the millionaires and billionaires--support them. So it's pretty much a done deal. So how will you vote? And why would...
by paarsurrey7 years ago
"No, I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under God."
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.