Bush vs. Clinton

[DennyD]

So Clinton sees Lewinski shake her booty and think - "hey, I'd hit that!"
And he did.
And he got caught.
So what happens? The feces hit the fan and they're talking impeachment and it was almost bye-bye Billy.

Now we have a war mongering, oil-lovin', civillian killin', troop sacrificing sub-human that secretly wiretapped anyone he wanted to without permission.

And no one is batting an eye. It's a thousand times more than what Clinton did.
Bush should be impeached; he's got the lowest level of support/popularity ever now.

And he's not in his right mind either... getting a bunch of Arabs - FROM THE DESERT - to run SEAPORTS? Jeesh...

I'd like to see George Carlin as president; he'd take no crap and tell it like it is.



Oh, and you all know what Bush is another word for...

 

[loup garou]

I've got no love for Bush or for foreign countries running our ports, but this

And he's not in his right mind either... getting a bunch of Arabs - FROM THE DESERT - to run SEAPORTS? Jeesh...

is one of the dumbest things I've ever read in P&N, and that is saying a lot.

 

[Feldenak]

Originally posted by: DennyD

Bush should be impeached; he's got the lowest level of support/popularity ever now.

Low popularity levels should not be a standard for impeachment proceedings.

It's actually rather difficult to impeach a sitting president.

 

[judasmachine]

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Originally posted by: DennyD

Bush should be impeached; he's got the lowest level of support/popularity ever now.

Low popularity levels should not be a standard for impeachment proceedings.

It's actually rather difficult to impeach a sitting president.

You have a point, but I would wager the evidence is out there, and he's likely guilty. Although, I personally feel that if that evidence is ever discovered it will be after he's out of office.

 

[Feldenak]

Originally posted by: judasmachine

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Originally posted by: DennyD

Bush should be impeached; he's got the lowest level of support/popularity ever now.

Low popularity levels should not be a standard for impeachment proceedings.

It's actually rather difficult to impeach a sitting president.

You have a point, but I would wager the evidence is out there, and he's likely guilty. Although, I personally feel that if that evidence is ever discovered it will be after he's out of office.

I would also wager that most presidents committed impeachable offenses during their respective administrations. I'm no Bush fan (it really irritates me that people equate our current President with conservatism) but it needs to be asked if impeaching Bush would be good for the country. Personally, I wouldn't trust any of the twits currently in office (maybe Condi but her speciality was always Soviet Bloc)...I'm content to ride it out and hope someone with real conservative values makes it to the national stage in '08.

 

[judasmachine]

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Originally posted by: judasmachine

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Originally posted by: DennyD

Bush should be impeached; he's got the lowest level of support/popularity ever now.

Low popularity levels should not be a standard for impeachment proceedings.

It's actually rather difficult to impeach a sitting president.

You have a point, but I would wager the evidence is out there, and he's likely guilty. Although, I personally feel that if that evidence is ever discovered it will be after he's out of office.

I would also wager that most presidents committed impeachable offenses during their respective administrations. I'm no Bush fan (it really irritates me that people equate our current President with conservatism) but it needs to be asked if impeaching Bush would be good for the country. Personally, I wouldn't trust any of the twits currently in office (maybe Condi but her speciality was always Soviet Bloc)...I'm content to ride it out and hope someone with real conservative values makes it to the national stage in '08.

touche

 

[bamacre]

Democrats are impotent, unless a woman is involved.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: bamacre
Democrats are impotent, unless a woman is involved.

Good thing too, can you imagine the Democrats being as destructive as the Republicans? One party fscking us is bad, two would hurt.

 

[Feldenak]

Originally posted by: bamacre
Democrats are impotent, unless a woman is involved.

Both parties are equally inept IMO. Give me a good fiscal conservative/social moderate any day of the week...

 

[lozina]

Well, for one thing Bush's party is in the majority in Congress. That's a blessing Clinton didn't have

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: bamacre
Democrats are impotent, unless a woman is involved.

Good thing too, can you imagine the Democrats being as destructive as the Republicans? One party fscking us is bad, two would hurt.

So true. :thumbsup:

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: lozina
Well, for one thing Bush's party is in the majority in Congress. That's a blessing Clinton didn't have

And there's your answer as to why Bush is still in office.

 

[Feldenak]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: lozina
Well, for one thing Bush's party is in the majority in Congress. That's a blessing Clinton didn't have

And there's your answer as to why Bush is still in office.

Even if the Democrats had the majority in Congress, Bush would still be in office. It's quite difficult to impeach a sitting president.

 

[Aisengard]

Impeach and remove, you mean.

Clinton was impeached in one of the most despicable and embarrasing partisan moves in the history of this country. But he wasn't removed. The Republicans would have suffered so many losses if that had happened (see, Clinton was actually a popular president) that they would have called it the political Holocaust of the century.

 

[Feldenak]

Originally posted by: Aisengard
Impeach and remove, you mean.

Clinton was impeached in one of the most despicable and embarrasing partisan moves in the history of this country. But he wasn't removed. The Republicans would have suffered so many losses if that had happened (see, Clinton was actually a popular president) that they would have called it the political Holocaust of the century.

Indeed. I apolgize for not being more clear.

The impeachment hearings for Clinton were ridiculous, but what irritated me most about the whole thing was everything was focused on the BJ and no on his perjury.

 

[Eddieo]

Originally posted by: DennyD
So Clinton sees Lewinski shake her booty and think - "hey, I'd hit that!"
And he did.
And he got caught.
So what happens? The feces hit the fan and they're talking impeachment and it was almost bye-bye Billy.

Now we have a war mongering, oil-lovin', civillian killin', troop sacrificing sub-human that secretly wiretapped anyone he wanted to without permission.

And no one is batting an eye. It's a thousand times more than what Clinton did.
Bush should be impeached; he's got the lowest level of support/popularity ever now.

And he's not in his right mind either... getting a bunch of Arabs - FROM THE DESERT - to run SEAPORTS? Jeesh...

I'd like to see George Carlin as president; he'd take no crap and tell it like it is.



Oh, and you all know what Bush is another word for...

You forgot this nasty deficit we are in.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Eddieo
You forgot this nasty deficit we are in.

as opposed to the surplus we had in 2000?...

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Eddieo
You forgot this nasty deficit we are in.

as opposed to the surplus we had in 2000?...

Are you even expecting anyone to take that remark seriously??

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: DennyD
So Clinton sees Lewinski shake her booty and think - "hey, I'd hit that!"
And he did.
And he got caught.
So what happens? The feces hit the fan and they're talking impeachment and it was almost bye-bye Billy.

Now we have a war mongering, oil-lovin', civillian killin', troop sacrificing sub-human that secretly wiretapped anyone he wanted to without permission.

And no one is batting an eye. It's a thousand times more than what Clinton did.
Bush should be impeached; he's got the lowest level of support/popularity ever now.

And he's not in his right mind either... getting a bunch of Arabs - FROM THE DESERT - to run SEAPORTS? Jeesh...

I'd like to see George Carlin as president; he'd take no crap and tell it like it is.



Oh, and you all know what Bush is another word for...

Bush hasn't quite hit record lows in popularity just yet. (Although he seems to be trying real hard lately)

Everyone remembers Clinton as a popular president but those numbers didn't reach into positive territory until his third year in office. The first few years he was in office his popularity was solidly in the 40's and at one point fell to 37%. (This was the Hillarycare / Gays in the military era)

Dubbya's dad found himself on the biggest roller coaster ever seen in a presidency. After peaking at an all-time high at 89% he fell to a low point of 29%. He was later able to recover (although not in time to win re-election) and left office with a 51% approval rating.

Reagan is also looked at as a very popular president but his ratings fell at one point to 35%

Carter bottomed out at 28%

Nixon holds the record at 24%


Not that I care about approval ratings. It's an interesting snap-shot of the country's mood but other than that they don't mean much. I only bring this up to correct those who with to portray Dubbya's current ratings being "Record Lows". Dubbya's lowest low to this point is still higher than the lows of our previous seven presidents.

Of course Dubbya still has a couple more years to work on that...

Oh yeah... Link Scroll to page 7 for approval ratings.

 

[Eddieo]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Eddieo
You forgot this nasty deficit we are in.

as opposed to the surplus we had in 2000?...

Could have used that surplus to help pay for SS.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Eddieo

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Eddieo
You forgot this nasty deficit we are in.

as opposed to the surplus we had in 2000?...

Could have used that surplus to help pay for SS.

Where do you think the surplus came from?

 

[bdude]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Eddieo

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Eddieo
You forgot this nasty deficit we are in.

as opposed to the surplus we had in 2000?...

Could have used that surplus to help pay for SS.

Where do you think the surplus came from?

Fiscal responsibility.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: bdude

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Eddieo

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Eddieo
You forgot this nasty deficit we are in.

as opposed to the surplus we had in 2000?...

Could have used that surplus to help pay for SS.

Where do you think the surplus came from?

Fiscal responsibility.

He was spending the Social Security surplus. The end result is that the national debt continued to grow. Not very responsible.

Better than we have now for sure. But not as rosey as some would like to think.

 

[Eddieo]

Originally posted by: bdude

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Eddieo

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Eddieo
You forgot this nasty deficit we are in.

as opposed to the surplus we had in 2000?...

Could have used that surplus to help pay for SS.

Where do you think the surplus came from?

Fiscal responsibility.

No tax cuts for the rich and no huge spending back then.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Eddieo

Originally posted by: bdude

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Eddieo

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Eddieo
You forgot this nasty deficit we are in.

as opposed to the surplus we had in 2000?...

Could have used that surplus to help pay for SS.

Where do you think the surplus came from?

Fiscal responsibility.

No tax cuts for the rich and no huge spending back then.

no tax cuts at all in fact...