President 2008

[PrchJrkr]

I would vote for Arnold Swarchenegger

A write-in vote, I presume?

 

[Plan B]

Well, we saw what a smartass president (Clinton) got us.

So Psy, what did it get us?
Econ growth?
Smaller govt?
More cops and less crime?
Fame and drugs for Rush?
I guy who really likes girls?
New Natl Parks?
Wealthy paying their share of taxes?
Respect of the world?

 

[PsyOps]

So Psy, what did it get us?

Well, let’s see…

Econ growth?

Clinton had nothing to do with it. You can’t name one policy he wrote that did. Oh and, BTW… he left Bush with a recession.

Smaller govt?

You’re joking right?

More cops and less crime?

Oh the old 100,000 cops thing? Never even happened.

Fame and drugs for Rush?

Are you telling me Rush’s fame and drug addiction was Clinton’s fault? I thought it was Bush’s fault.

I guy who really likes girls?

A lot. So much so, that he committed adultery. You must be real proud of that in a president. Oh, and desecrating the Oval Office. There’s a real proud moment in American history. Then there was the lie.

New Natl Parks?

And that fixed what? Doesn’t more national parks cost the gov more money? I thought you said he made government smaller?

Wealthy paying their share of taxes?

Yup… thanks to the GOP lowering income and capital gains taxes when they took control of Congress. Ever consider what affect that had on the dotcom boom?

Respect of the world?

Are you really that hooked on the global respect thing? The globe that forgot the huge sacrifices of this country so they can live as free as they do and criticize a major reason why they enjoy that fredom? Certainly no respect from al Qaeda, though, since Americans were attacked about half a dozen times during his tenure AND turned his back on the threat and planning of the 911 attack right in our backyard.

The best thing Clinton ever did was, when the dotcom bubble was rising, he left things alone. Outside of that you defend the indefensible. Clinton was a national disgrace. They say you don’t suffer the consequences of a president until about 7 years later. Well, if this is true, we are reaping what he sowed.

 

[Xaquin44]

I'd go with Hillary or Obama

they're the only ones that have anything to really prove.

I guarentee that the first woman or black president will do their best, else risk everyone in the country whining about whathappens when you put a woman in the white house.

In short, I don't care about campaign promises (haha they all lie (both sides)), I just want someone with something to prove.

 

[PsyOps]

I'd go with Hillary or Obama

they're the only ones that have anything to really prove.

I guarentee that the first woman or black president will do their best, else risk everyone in the country whining about whathappens when you put a woman in the white house.

In short, I don't care about campaign promises (haha they all lie (both sides)), I just want someone with something to prove.

So your decision boils down to, it's about being a woman or minority? I don't what sex, race, kind of cereal they eat, sexual preference to be what decides a president. I want the president to 1) Know what it takes to defend this country and 2) Sign laws that best serves the people under the Constitution.

"Something to prove" is not a criteria for being president.

 

[Xaquin44]

So your decision boils down to, it's about being a woman or minority? I don't what sex, race, kind of cereal they eat, sexual preference to be what decides a president. I want the president to 1) Know what it takes to defend this country and 2) Sign laws that best serves the people under the Constitution.

"Something to prove" is not a criteria for being president.

eh

to me "something to prove" is better then empty campaign promises

but lets be honest here. No candidate is going to make everyone happy or follow through on 90% of his/her campaign promises.

 

[clevalley]

eh

to me "something to prove" is better then empty campaign promises

but lets be honest here. No candidate is going to make everyone happy or follow through on 90% of his/her campaign promises.

So ALL of the candidates deliver empty campaign promises right?

Hillary scares the hell out of me... Obama - he seems to be OK but his wife is scaring the bu-jesus out of me right now - a few statements she has made kind of floored me.

 

[Xaquin44]

So ALL of the candidates deliver empty campaign promises right?

Hillary scares the hell out of me... Obama - he seems to be OK but his wife is scaring the bu-jesus out of me right now - a few statements she has made kind of floored me.

well not ALL their promises.

just an overwhelming lot of them.

 

[dustin]

Pulling for Mike Huckabee in the primaries... and whatever Rep. wins the primaries gets my vote.... unless one of em goes independent...then it will be interesting...

but seeing as how I'll probably never get an absentee ballot in time... guess it doesn't really matter

 

[Dork]

eh

to me "something to prove" is better then empty campaign promises

but lets be honest here. No candidate is going to make everyone happy or follow through on 90% of his/her campaign promises.

I'm sorry. Not trying to start trouble but I really can't see how "having something to prove" means "will be a good president." Gang members have something to prove too. Your logic, just like all the other lefties, makes no sense.

I'm sure "they have something to prove" is a cute little phrase you thought up that you are proud of but it's really quite silly. I know you are trying your best. We'll give you a C+ for your effort.

 

[Sadysue]

I lost all respect for Hillary when she didn't divorce her husband for committing adultery in front of the entire county.

I'd rather have Bush again then Hillary.

 

[mrweb]

I am already a little tired of seeing all this Hillary hype. They are doing a great job to try to get her elected. Hopefully, most Americans are smarter than that.

Let's just say that we are have gotten through the 2008 primaries and are facing the general election.....

Who would you vote for?

Just for the record before I weigh in, please do define who "They" and "Most Americans" are before I decide your question of when "we are have gotten through the 2008 primaries..." so I can be one of the smarter ones.

 

[Xaquin44]

I'm sorry. Not trying to start trouble but I really can't see how "having something to prove" means "will be a good president." Gang members have something to prove too. Your logic, just like all the other lefties, makes no sense.

I'm sure "they have something to prove" is a cute little phrase you thought up that you are proud of but it's really quite silly. I know you are trying your best. We'll give you a C+ for your effort.

actually, I didn't think that phrase up

It's quite old really.

I'm not really sure if it's 'cute' either .... but whatever flips your switch.

I'm really not interested in politics at all to be honest. I know I'll end up lied to whoever wins. All the same, I stand by my opinion. I seriously doubt that Obama or Clinton would sit around on their haunches simply given the fact that they will be the first of their kind, and there for (oh no, cute saying incoming!) have something to prove (that something being that they do indeed, have the chops).

 

[Ken King]

Fred Thompson, maybe he will be like the last actor-President we had.

 

[GSXR_MOE]

It's really too early to tell who I'm going to vote for. I'm open minded enough to know that my vote is going to go to the person (not political party) I feel best suits my needs. I refuse to vote down party lines.........