BF2S Forums Senator Clinton for President 2008, I think not, just another example.

G3|Genius wrote:

Clinton was much more smooth than Bush is.  Clinton had charm.  Clinton had charisma.

Bush has values.  You may not agree with them.  BUT there is something to be said about someone who does not forego his values for political gain.

NO ONE with an objective mind can say that the clintons are straight shooters.  when making a decision, they look to the polls and do what people want, and if it's not the right thing, who cares.

I say, I'd vote for a person whom I know will stick to his guns and his faith rather than a fake feminazi turned (conveniently) centrist.

"He will give them blood, and they will love him for it" (Gladiator)

What are Bush's values? Thou shalt not kill? Thou shall not steal? Thou shall rape the economy Clinton built?hmmmm.

Clintons look to the polls to see what the people want? Holy shit what an idea!!! Since the people put him there in the first place! Maybe if Bush did this just 25% of the time he wouldn't be catching so much shit.

Stick to his guns, I will give Bush credit. Stick to his faith? I don't like the sound of that. Seperation of church and state. Period.


Feninazi popularized by Rush Limbaugh. Convenient. Now prove she is a feminazi by the definition I have given you below. I look forward to it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminazi

My point being, she is still a person. Still an American. And has the brain and will to stand in front of you all and make her views known. Don't like it? So she is a femenazi. K.

I would want her in there just to have Bill near the god damn white house again. Like all you repub's 6 years ago.

"Bush is go'na be a fine prezident cause his daddy was!"

Bubbalo wrote:

Could whoever gave me negative karma give me another tomorrow which says *why*.  I'm just curious is all.

Wasnt me, But im damn sure it was you who gave me some with no reason today. You can ask any mod who can check, I ALWAYS give a reason. Id like my +1 back dude! Thanks

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

...the economy Clinton built?

The economy isn't something a president can improve or degrade on a whim. These things take time, like altering the speed of a freight train. Unfortunately, the public's generally narrow views of history tend to lend credit, good or bad, to the man in charge for current events.

Agreed in perspective. Clinton had the 10 year plan all set and ready and rolling. Guess who fucked that up?

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

...the economy Clinton built?

The economy isn't something a president can improve or degrade on a whim. These things take time, like altering the speed of a freight train. Unfortunately, the public's generally narrow views of history tend to lend credit, good or bad, to the man in charge for current events.

Agreed in perspective. Clinton had the 10 year plan all set and ready and rolling. Guess who fucked that up?

Chuck Norris

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f265/ … k-kent.jpg

your funny... not.

Bubbalo wrote:

Elected by *some* people.

Last I checked, no one was ever elected by all the people...

When I read the title for this forum, it said, "Senator Clinton for President 2008, I think not, just another example."  After reading 60-odd posts, I think I have seen maybe 5 on Hillary Clinton.  Instead, there are people bashing GWB and people bashing BILL Clinton.  STAY ON TARGET!  STAY ON TARGET!

Personally, I think Hillary Clinton would be a better president than GW is/was.  I think you have to have your head up your ass to think GWB is doing good for our country, but that is my opinion, feel free to disagree.  That being said, I strongly encourage everyone of voting age who plans on voting to NOT vote for any one of the two prominent political parties in the 2008 election.  I think it is absurd to vote for a republican because you consider yourself a conservative, or a democrat because you consider yourself liberal.  Why not vote for the person you think is most capable of handling the job?  Why not look through the sample ballot you get in the mail and do some research on the candidates?  Find out some information, like where they stand on issues that you consider important, and results that show their position on those issues?  Why did people vote for GWB?  Because he is a Republican?  If that is your reasoning, you need help.  Hillary Clinton does not represent left-leaning ideology in my opinion.  She represents what right-wingers perceive to be left-leaning ideologies.  Anyone that has seen her votes on Senate bills can see that she does not represent anyone but her fund raisers, just like 99% of the politicians out there.  What it comes down to, if you want to vote for one of the two major parties is, "Who is going to pander to lobbyists more?"

One more thing - It is easy for us to sit here and debate the merits of past presidents 2/5/10 years later.  Hindsight is 20/20.  Do you realize how hard it would be to be President of The United States?  Regardless of how much of an idiot I think GWB is, I respect the man for being able to deal with all the pressure of 290+ million people (not to mention the population of the Earth) constantly telling him what he is doing wrong.

EDITED for spelling

Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2006-05-25 14:02:00)

<[onex]>Headstone wrote:

Wasnt me, But im damn sure it was you who gave me some with no reason today. You can ask any mod who can check, I ALWAYS give a reason. Id like my +1 back dude! Thanks

I always give a reason, otherwise what's the point?

Bubbalo wrote:

atlvolunteer wrote:

Last I checked, no one was ever elected by all the people...

Australia has mandatory voting.  AFAIK, we are the only true Demarchy in the world.

Mandatory voting yes.  Does that mean everyone actually votes, no.

Belx wrote:

At least Clinton did not invade a country with faulty evidence.

Whew..........thats good, cuz neither did Bush........Unless Iraq really WAS complying with the UN sanctions that brought peace for the first gulf war.

Naughty_Om wrote:

Belx wrote:

At least Clinton did not invade a country with faulty evidence.

SHUT DOWN! props for that one...yes, clinton is better at presidency than bush...known fact...
This is Bush's approval rating over his term

\
  \
    \
      \
        \
          \
            \
              >

Not hardly junior.

Naughty_Om wrote:

lets see. invasion of Iraq. Social Security. wire tappings.

Clinton... kept up foreign relations...we actually had money....can speak clearly.

bush...speaks like a 3 year old.

clinton...he handled kosovo well, handled the attack the world trade center in 93 with ease and organization......

COME ON...JUST LOOK at the facts....


bill wont serve again...hillary wont ever get elected, but anyone is better than bush......

How exactly did he handle WTC '93 with ease?.......He didn't handle it at all!!

Iraq wasn't an invasion, it was a continuation of hostilites when Iraq continually failed to comply with the UN resolutions that stopped the war.

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

...the economy Clinton built?

The economy isn't something a president can improve or degrade on a whim. These things take time, like altering the speed of a freight train. Unfortunately, the publics generally narrow views of history tend to lend credit, good or bad, to the man in charge for current events.

Thanks for bringing that up.... When an Administration is in office, a lot of facets of the current Admin, is realized from the former Admin. My point is, President Bush Sr.'s (#41),  Admin. made a lot of changes for our economy in the mid 90's, before he left office that came to fruition during President Clinton's term.

On a side note, what do you all remember about the US Military cuts Pres. Clinton made?  NOW Pres. Bush is having to make up for those cuts, Plus not even a year in office we were attacked in our Homeland, so yes he is spending like a liberal, and I'm not happy about that, but it's justified IMO.