West Coast Connection Forum

Lifestyle => Train of Thought => Topic started by: Ant on May 12, 2006, 09:22:06 PM

Title: Clinton v. Bush
Post by: Ant on May 12, 2006, 09:22:06 PM
    Poll: Clinton outperformed Bush

    Respondents favored Clinton by greater than 2-to-1 margins when asked who did a better job at handling the economy (63 percent Clinton, 26 percent Bush) and solving the problems of ordinary Americans (62 percent Clinton, 25 percent Bush).

    On foreign affairs, the margin was 56 percent to 32 percent in Clinton's favor; on taxes, it was 51 percent to 35 percent for Clinton; and on handling natural disasters, it was 51 percent to 30 percent, also favoring Clinton.

    Moreover, 59 percent said Bush has done more to divide the country, while only 27 percent said Clinton had.
Title: Re: Clinton v. Bush
Post by: coola on May 12, 2006, 09:23:17 PM
well... bush DID start a war...
Title: Re: Clinton v. Bush
Post by: africas seed on May 12, 2006, 09:33:37 PM
this poll basically just stated the obvious that clinton was a better president.
Title: Re: Clinton v. Bush
Post by: Mo Z. Dizzle on May 12, 2006, 09:37:19 PM
im not sure how the US system works; is or will Clinton be allowed to run for president again>
Title: Re: Clinton v. Bush
Post by: africas seed on May 12, 2006, 09:38:42 PM
im not sure how the US system works; is or will Clinton be allowed to run for president again>

maybe hillary ;D
Title: Re: Clinton v. Bush
Post by: M Dogg™ on May 12, 2006, 10:07:07 PM
im not sure how the US system works; is or will Clinton be allowed to run for president again>

no. There was no offical law until the 40's. Roosevelt, the greatest president since 1865, ran for 4 terms, and won all of them because we were at war during WWII. He broke a long tradition of only 2 terms, as most presidents retired after 2 terms because George Washington said that no man should not serve any more terms. After Roosevelt's death in 1945, they made it law that you only get 2 terms of your own. So since, say, LBJ served a term because of JFK's death, he could run for his own two terms after that. He ran for one, and in 1968 he didn't run again because he feared he'd lose because the Vietnam War. So unless Clinton is the VP, and the president is killed, he cannot be president again. This is why he didn't run in 2000, or he would have easily defeated Bush that year.

Hilary will run, I doubt she'll win, the Dems need to put there money on Obama, his a winner.
Title: Re: Clinton v. Bush
Post by: h cottie is bac-tive? on May 12, 2006, 10:24:46 PM
Hilary will run, I doubt she'll win, the Dems need to put there money on Obama, his a winner.

true story
Title: Re: Clinton v. Bush
Post by: J Bananas on May 13, 2006, 01:17:34 AM
    Poll: Clinton outperformed Bush

    Respondents favored Clinton by greater than 2-to-1 margins when asked who did a better job at handling the economy (63 percent Clinton, 26 percent Bush) and solving the problems of ordinary Americans (62 percent Clinton, 25 percent Bush).

    On foreign affairs, the margin was 56 percent to 32 percent in Clinton's favor; on taxes, it was 51 percent to 35 percent for Clinton; and on handling natural disasters, it was 51 percent to 30 percent, also favoring Clinton.

    Moreover, 59 percent said Bush has done more to divide the country, while only 27 percent said Clinton had.

have you ever thought about taking action as opposed to ranting? you would really convince me youre dedicated to the cause by putting a 7.62 in georgies head. cmon, cmon, cmon, cmon....
Title: Re: Clinton v. Bush
Post by: Ant on May 13, 2006, 01:44:27 PM
    Poll: Clinton outperformed Bush

    Respondents favored Clinton by greater than 2-to-1 margins when asked who did a better job at handling the economy (63 percent Clinton, 26 percent Bush) and solving the problems of ordinary Americans (62 percent Clinton, 25 percent Bush).

    On foreign affairs, the margin was 56 percent to 32 percent in Clinton's favor; on taxes, it was 51 percent to 35 percent for Clinton; and on handling natural disasters, it was 51 percent to 30 percent, also favoring Clinton.

    Moreover, 59 percent said Bush has done more to divide the country, while only 27 percent said Clinton had.

have you ever thought about taking action as opposed to ranting? you would really convince me youre dedicated to the cause by putting a 7.62 in georgies head. cmon, cmon, cmon, cmon....

Have you ever done anything meaningful with your life?  This is a discussion forum.  The one ranting is you.  I read a lot of news and occasionally post the politically entertaining or relevant stories here.  All I'm doing is ctrl+c.  Get over it. 
Title: Re: Clinton v. Bush
Post by: J Bananas on May 13, 2006, 02:04:31 PM
Quote
All I'm doing is ctrl+c.

thatll come back to haunt you
Title: Re: Clinton v. Bush
Post by: Mo Z. Dizzle on May 13, 2006, 02:34:39 PM
im not sure how the US system works; is or will Clinton be allowed to run for president again>

no. There was no offical law until the 40's. Roosevelt, the greatest president since 1865, ran for 4 terms, and won all of them because we were at war during WWII. He broke a long tradition of only 2 terms, as most presidents retired after 2 terms because George Washington said that no man should not serve any more terms. After Roosevelt's death in 1945, they made it law that you only get 2 terms of your own. So since, say, LBJ served a term because of JFK's death, he could run for his own two terms after that. He ran for one, and in 1968 he didn't run again because he feared he'd lose because the Vietnam War. So unless Clinton is the VP, and the president is killed, he cannot be president again. This is why he didn't run in 2000, or he would have easily defeated Bush that year.

Hilary will run, I doubt she'll win, the Dems need to put there money on Obama, his a winner.

thanks for the info dude
Title: Re: Clinton v. Bush
Post by: Ant on May 13, 2006, 04:33:44 PM
Quote
All I'm doing is ctrl+c.

thatll come back to haunt you

How? And why are you so obsessed with me dude? It's not like I go out of my way to follow you around thru threads.
Title: Re: Clinton v. Bush
Post by: Trauma-san on May 14, 2006, 10:36:17 PM
Bush is in the middle of two wars, and about to start a third.  His vice president shoots people, Bush himself is soft on immigration although 75 percent of the country wants harder punishment, he had the largest terror attack ever on his watch, etc. 

Clinton chilled in the oval office and got his dick sucked by the fat interns down the hall. 

What am I missing here? 
Title: Re: Clinton v. Bush
Post by: Ant on May 15, 2006, 05:59:04 PM
Bush is in the middle of two wars, and about to start a third.  His vice president shoots people, Bush himself is soft on immigration although 75 percent of the country wants harder punishment, he had the largest terror attack ever on his watch, etc. 

Clinton chilled in the oval office and got his dick sucked by the fat interns down the hall. 

What am I missing here? 

HAHA.  A lot apparently.  If only the comparison of 16 years of presidential gonvernance was as simple as you made things seem.  Like I said, it's no wonder you vote Bush, your mind just doesn't function properly.
Title: Re: Clinton v. Bush
Post by: E. J. Rizo on May 17, 2006, 10:49:56 AM
this is like a poll proving that 2pac is better than Ja Rule

too easy...

Clinton was a great president... and he probrably would still be president now if it wasnt for the 2 terms he already served....

lets get hilary in there and he can be the First First Man! like a true pimp!
Title: Re: Clinton v. Bush
Post by: Now_Im_Not_Banned on May 17, 2006, 11:39:56 AM
Fuck a bitch (running the country)...