Bill Clinton or Bush?
 

Which one would you prefer in the presidency?



Personally, i'm a democrat, and i'd go w/ Bill clinton anyday. I love the way the country was during his 8 yrs, and especially the budget.

I'm not saying he was perfect, but he did a damn good job in his office.

Anyway, who would you prefer?

Re: Clinton or Bush?
 

You need to change your sig, then.

i'd vote libertarian if they had a chance, but till that day comes, i'll go democrat

NO! I'm fucking sick and tired of comparing Bush and Clinton! Clinton is done. DONE. He had his 8 years and he's never president again. We might as well wish for Lincoln to come back. Bush is here now. It's sad that the Democrats haven't offered up any candidate yet for us to compare to Bush, but all this pipe dreaming about getting Slick Willie back in the Oval Office just fuels the laughter of those who want nothing more than to see Bush last another term.
The_Dude, I agree with you, for the record, but it's time to stop the nostalgia for better days gone by and start trying to find a way out of what we're in now. Look into the proposed candidates(excluding Al Sharpton, I would think...) and see who looks good to you so far. Live in the now.

I agree it is time to live in the now... but what the hell are Democrats doing? Where is there candidate? Bush is ripe to be voted out of office...

Wishing for Clinton is just that.... wishing.

Well, there are nine candidates. We won't know who the main one is until we get nearer to the primaries. All of them are bringing different facets of the platform to the public. The preeminence of a sitting president is detracting from the reality that we shouldn't definatively know who to vote for yet--we haven't heard the full debate. Healthy debate brings new issues to the front and both retains and recruits (as well as deters) members to a party.

Well, i voted for Clinton, but I would take ANY viable democrat over Bush.

I'm a moderate, straight down the middle.
I've voted Republican, I've voted Democrat, I've even voted Independent & Libertarian.

I like the way Clinton played the game, he just screwed up himself bigtime.
I don't like the way Bush plays the game, but I liked the decision on Iraq.

We'll see who the Dems come up with this time,
I'll make my decision then...usually all canidates have problems of any party.
So it usually who'll mostly go with ME and the lesser of evils.
But I ALWAYS vote,
that way I can bitch.;)

Career politicians make baby jesus cry.

Well this does not seem to be a popular opinon, but I like bush and what he stands for. Clinton inherited a good economy, bush inherited clintons economy. Unfortunatly it is going to take good republican thinking to get our economy back the way it was. In time that will happen, and after todays tax cuts, there is a good chance it will happen before the elections. It is truly sad to see the democrats pushing to stop the tax cut simply because they want the economy to suffer so that way Bush won't get re-elected. typical tricks, they won't be happy till we are all paying all our income to taxes and then let the government dispurse funds equally to all who work or don't work, sounds to me like a form of government that won't work, ask the russians!
It reminds me of a saying I heard.
at the age of 18 if you are not a bleeding heart liberal, you have no heart, but at the age of 40 if you are not a conservative you have no brain!....or something like that

Dude, since Bill is a non factor I'm guessing you're talking about Hellary. Bush wins hands down. If you are talking about Bill this isn't even a smart discussion. http://www.boomspeed.com/sixate/icon_rolleyes.gif

That sort of thinking is the reason why third parties don't have a chance.

People vote for the democrats or republicans because they want their vote to matter. But votes for the major parties don't matter. They already have tens of millions of votes, what good is one more? Vote for who you agree with, show the people in charge what you actually think.

Personally, I'd choose Clinton over Bush. I don't agree with the Patriot Act or any of the other restrictions of freedom that have been passed lately.

haha, nice technicality

im sick of bush hiing special intrest groups everywhere in his presidency, he hides them in teh unliklyest places, like the way Oil plays a huge role in his 'hydrogen powerd cars'

Given the circumstances under which the act was presented, it would have passed even if Clinton was in office. It is not a bill which is represenative of the Republican platform at all. It's intrusive and extreme, but time-limited in order to deal with immediate threats against the US.

I quote from Vanilla Sky, "open your eyes." SIGs are a factor in every major candidates campaign. They are what drive the political process these days, be it a council of oilman, a teacher's union, an ILA like the NRA's, a group of Hollywood millionaires, etc.

i'm not a huge fan of Clinton but i'm not a hate monger of him. as for party: I give two shits. the man and his supporters ideals and actions should always be bases of leadership, not the tag of party.

in the Clinton age at least we had some fucking jobs...

with bush...... the ceos have bigger bonuses and ballsier moves...

Clinton all the way...

The guy was interesting to watch.

Would love to meet him if i could.

-------------

You're right about the time limit - it feels like the 2005 sunset clause is the only thing protecting society from the Patriot Act at the moment.

It's worth noting that last month, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and other Republicans led an effort to repeal the 2005 sunset clause altogether. Whilst he was unsuccessful, his efforts demonstrate that there are many Republicans who believe that a permanent Patriot Act SHOULD be part of the GOP platform.

Importantly, there were also a number of Republicans who vocally opposed the removal of the time limit. I would love to see true conservatives loudly applaud those guys for their efforts.

Here are the links:

http://www.sierratimes.com/03/04/09/articlejj.htm

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/051103I.shtml

(wishing I still had Lexis-Nexis to post the bloody pay-per-view New York Times source articles).


(I haven't even answered the thread here) While it is certainly very um *interesting* being a liberal in the era of W - I choose Clinton and I'm VERY interested to see who the Democrats come up with for next year.

At least Clinton didn't start a war.

Well I gotta say Bush mainly because Clinton was pure crook in every way not to mention a murder and worse!

Do you honestly believe that Democrats want the economy to get worse? Don't let your tendency to be a conspiracy theorist (we all have that to a degree) get the best of you. Democrats oppose the tax cut because it puts money into the hands of people that already have money to begin with. They don't need it. So while people who are already rich get richer, health care and education programs suffer from being underfunded. The theory is that with the extra money, these CEO's will stimulate the economy, but I don't see it happening. It's a drop in the bucket for these people, whereas if you gave cuts to people who are struggling as it is, it's several buckets' worth to them. And while it sounds awful and irritating and annoying, high taxes for a slightly more socialistic society isn't going to turn us into the Soviet Union. It may turn us into Canada or Sweden, which I don't think is all that bad. I wouldn't mind having to never worry about whether or not I'll have health care, even if it means I take a bit more of a hit in my paycheck.

Maybe, just maybe if he had went looking for Bin Laden after the USS Cole we might not have had 9/11.

But I digress,

Bushes tax cut will put an extra $1200 in my pocket this summer which I plan on spending on a 50 inch big screen tv. So the salesman at the tv store will get his commission, and the manager will get alittle towards his bonus, and the Japanese will get the rest. Thanks slick willie for making it so easy for the Japanese to get their products into the US so cheaply.

So people keep wondering where the hell your job went.

so, you're against free trade? or at least trade w/o much tarrifs?

check out the tariffs the US companies have to pay to sell in Japan, China I would not call it "free" or fair.

Sorry I had to add,
If they can even sell in their markets

I'm all for free trade. It's just that right now, "free" trade isn't free trade. As a country based on exports, we're getting screwed on this. The US dollar floundering really doesn't help matters, either. I'm all for it rebounding back (it indirectly affects my business).

**EDIT**
-sorry for getting off topic.

To the 30% or so that have voted for bush, I just have one thing to say, but I have to call you to say it...
[img]http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0RwAAAEgWNDFl*8wwewiSJnr!gWRqIm5SkT41VjUfne6h233tnaFXmNW1FzGhvquOwjbyVGVwxahfiQ*C0jSj!dOzi5KnATHhQ*!dxpfd1Ng/banana.jpg?dc=4675416867982239699[/img]

Dude, I always vote Libertarian. Not that I agree with all their views but I want a choice other than Democrat or Republican. I am hoping that a strong third party can be built. Maybe if the Libertarian's start making some in roads on the big two somebody will look around and figure out the voting public is tired of being screwed over.

Clinton had one gidt in life, and thats it. He was a good public speaker. Actually this could be attributed to the massive amounts of time he spent watching JFK speeches on video...and emulating him.

He was as slimey as they come. His entire presidency was a facade and a fraud...In other words, I have no respect whatsoever for him.

Also you all realize Budget is locked for a period of the new presidency, from the previous presidency...Hmmm that means that Bush Sr. Initiated that great economy Clinton gets credit for...

Hmmm...that means Clinton initiated that shitty economy you all blame Bush Jr. for...

A true leader encompasses moral courage and integrity. Mr. Clinton was not endowed with either one. Also, while President Bush is not perfect, at least he is not a prevaricating adulterer. His legacy seems assured. Clinton's legacy is the dubious distinction of becoming only the second president impeached in the history of the US. All of the damage control in the world will never erase that fact.

He had it all and he blew it.

Nader.

Repubs spent massive $$$ trying to get something on the Clintons for 8 years and the only thing they could come up with was a blow job.

All I can say to you Bush junkies is you get what you deserve.

Wake up and use your noggins for more than a place to put your hat peoples .

Really?

Then how do you explain Donald Rumsfeld vetoing 600 million dollars that the senate approved to fight Al Quada on SEPTEMBER 9, 2001? At the time, old Rumsfeld was upset because the senate wanted to divert a paultry 600 million dollars from old Rumsfeld's precious anti-missile missile programme. I guess old Rumsfeld really really dropped the ball on that one. He was more worried about some "rogue state" firing off a non existant ICBM than Al-Quada terrorists.

Whoops.

You should read the August 12 th issue of TIME magazine. It would seem that an anti-terrorism unit of the US federal gov't that was set up to take the fight to al-quada by the Clinton administration was shut down by the Bush administration because of purely political reasons. (I.e., they (Bush and company) didn't like it because it was set up by the democrats and if they allowed it to survive, it would be seen as the democrats actually having a good idea. Can't have that now.)

I would argue that if American politicians operated in a bi-partisan manner on the issue of terrorism that attacks like 911 would have been more unlikely.

Prior to 911, the Bush administration acted in a purely partisan manner with the good of the republican party being put ahead of the good of the nation.

Actually, the four year anniversary of Mr. Clinton's war was just two months ago. It is commonly referred to as the "Balkan War." This particular effort by NATO did have the UN Security Councils ' blessing, however.

"On March 24 Serbian people around the world will recall with horror the shameful destruction of their country by the US led NATO Alliance. Four years ago, for 78 days and nights, NATO aircraft pounded Yugoslavia inflicting terrible damage on the civilian infrastructure of the country.

Further, NATO’s bombing of Yugoslavia will be regarded by future historians as the act that completely dismantled the international security framework so carefully crafted by democratic statesmen in the aftermath of two World Wars and the advent of nuclear weapons. It will be marked, as the point in history when other so-called democratic leaders acted dishonorably to set the clock back to the days prior to the Second World War when military might was the only criterion that counted in the conduct of international relations."

Actually, I generally think shooting people is generally wrong.

But the war in Yugoslavia was actually a puzzling one for me. There was no economic or political angle. It was started to stop the people from killing each other.

Now before you go off about the whole Balkan situation, i understand that it's very complex and there was this slaughter 700 years ago where the cros killed the peaceful serbs, and then 500 years ago, the Turks killed the peaceful serbs, then in WW2 to there was the ooshtashaw who were cros and they were allied with Hitler and they killed some more peaceful serbs. Blah blah blah.

BUT

The war in Yugoslavia was brief and it was meant to stop the violence and it suceeded in doing that.

The motive for the war was noble - to bring an end to slobo milosovic and his reign of terror. The serbs, cros, slovenians, muslims, and albanians all hate each other and all want to kill each other (well, all is a strong word, let me rephrase that, many want to kill each other to right past injustices....)

But, the military action by the UN was the last resort, all else HAD failed.

There was no oil driving it.

There was no weapons of mass anything.

There was no political gain.

It was a noble case of world leaders deciding that enough was enough, and as disgusting as it was, they were going to bring an end to it the only way slobo understood.

The americans, the UN, had NO DESIRE IN THE WORLD to move into Yugoslavia, or serbia. In fact, i am sure that they found it most disgusting to have to involve themselves in another country's affairs.

If the Americans / UN had not used force, I have no doubt that slobo would still be "ethnic cleansing" away, and building the new "greater Serbia". Instead, he's in court in the Hague I believe right at this moment, and, if he is innocent like he says he is, he will be cleared.

Ancient injustices, whether real or perceived, do not give give the Serbs the right to slaughter innocent people.

Not to digress, but I was merely pointing out to a previous poster that Mr. Clinton was directly involved in a war. In fact, Yugoslavia was only one of four countries that the Clinton administration bombed. Don't misunderstand me, I am not a fan of the current president either, war is war, people die and I believe killing is morally reprehensible for any reason. The fact is, it doesn't really matter who is at the helm, all of these so called leaders make mistakes, unfortunately on a global level. The so called "noble" cause of stopping the genocide that was taking place was a great idea and I think everyone agress that that bastard had to be stopped; however, it had serious consequences. In the wake of that terrible maelstrom, one of the key nations in that area that had previously renounced nuclear weapons and disarmed (becoming the one and only country EVER to do so), subsequently revived their nuclear program. Both the Ukraine and the Soviet Union modernized and restocked their nuclear arsenals as a direct result of this conflict. Did the end justify the means? Who can say? Yeah, the killing stopped but even to this day, thousands upon thousands of refugees have not returned to their homeland. They probably never will especially since the horror of the nuclear threat is even greater than it was before.

No political gain? Consider this...

Is it possible that the United States was anxious to exploit the power vacuum created by the Soviet collapse to rapidly project its power eastward? There are vast untapped reserves of oil and natural gas in the then newly-independent Central Asian republics of the old USSR. Within this new geopolitical environment, the Balkans assumed exceptional strategic importance as a vital logistical staging ground for the projection of imperialist power toward Central Asia.

This is way off topic, but thought you might be interested.

I have been reading this thread, trying not to laugh. These same arguments are gonna be going on in 20yrs. Honestly, who gives a shit. Your boy lost, your boy won, your boy inherited a shit sandwich, your boy got a blow job. The investigation into clinton was a huge waste of money simply because the spineless assholes in congress wouldn't do their jobs. The budget is in the shitter because too many people think it's their business to take my money and give it to someone else. Why should I have to pay for anyones education or roads in some other state? Unions have priced themselves out of the market, so business cajoled the gov. into nafta and such, so they could afford workers. So now all of the jobs are moving. Well guess the fuck what? learn to do something else! Don't like the way politics are going? quit yer bitchin, find a candidate or be one, convince joe six pack your point of view is right, and win some fucking elections! teach your voters how to use a fucking ballot. Don't like the way the courts are stacked? Win something and stack them yourself. The reason we have a conservative congress, supreme court, and president is because people are sick of democrats on the national and statewide level. So shut up and figure out what they want, then do it. It's a representative government, so shove your idealism up your ass, shut your pie hole and represent!

So America "elects" a monkey to run the country, where's the logic in that?

wtf does that mean?