20 years of Bush/Clinton White House

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy @ Nov 8 2007, 12:50 PM) [snapback]536864[/snapback]</div>

A person's name means nothing. It's just the sound you make, or the letters you write, to refer to them. Some folks on PC like to suggest that my own preferred candidate is a bad person because his last name sounds a little bit like the first name of a famous psychopath.

I hated Gerald Ford, but I'd probably have voted for Betty. Same last name. Different people.

I have not yet made up my mind on Clinton. But I repeat that my decision will not be based on the fact that I thought her husband was a lousy president. (Though not nearly as lousy as his successor.)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Nov 8 2007, 02:19 AM) [snapback]536635[/snapback]</div>

Don't third parties do exactly that? Screw over people to get their specific point of view across?
I'm sure Nader had his qualms about Gore and the democrats, but do you think the greens really preferred bush over gore? Sure, principles are great, a third party with a runoff would be great, but look what voting for nader has cost the nation. We're now debating on whether we can torture people. We're in a quagmire. National debt is insane. The wealth gap is greater than ever before. And the list goes on...

 

Funny, I was thinking "look what Ross Perot cost the nation."

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Nov 8 2007, 10:17 PM) [snapback]537138[/snapback]</div>

You are assuming that Nader voters would have voted for Gore if Nader had not been on the ballot.

I'd rather say: Look what nominating an incompetent campaigner cost the nation. Or look what allowing religious fanatics to take over the Republican Party cost the nation. Or look what allowing Bush's Florida State campaign chairwoman to run the Florida elections cost the nation. People who were so disgusted with BOTH candidates that they voted for the most convenient protest candidate are not responsible for the well-documented fraud in Florida.

 

Dems and Clintons in office = world peace :blink:

 

Has anyone seen the new commercial airing on TV? The one with the children telling the canidates to not make unkept promises?.... :mellow:

I thought it was really a good one as its not aimed at just one party but all parties involved!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Nov 9 2007, 11:04 AM) [snapback]537255[/snapback]</div>

I know that hindsight is 20/20. But for those who voted for Nader back in 2000, knowing what we know now, do you think some might just change their mind, bite the bullet, plug their nose, and pull the lever for Gore?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Nov 9 2007, 09:32 AM) [snapback]537320[/snapback]</div>

Knowing what we know now, do you think the Democratic Party might just have nominated a candidate who could conduct a competent campaign?

Knowing what we know now, do you think the left might have gotten up a petition drive to prevent Bush's Florida campaign chair from holding the office that runs the elections in that state?

Knowing what we know now, do you think we'd all be filthy rich because we'd have bought the stocks that went up and sold the ones that went down?

I voted Green because I believe we need a new party, and because I could not stomach either of the candidates. And since my state was not a swing state, nobody in the nation or the world cared a damn who I voted for. In the presidential race, my vote was meaningless.

 

I just can't believe folks see a difference in the two parties. They are in bed together, and both are evil.


Time for new blood - not Dynasty Dictatorships that don't represent AMERICANS -I mean legal citiznes (not immigrants).

 

Are you better off than you were 8 years ago?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(huskers @ Nov 9 2007, 05:00 PM) [snapback]537518[/snapback]</div>

Yes I am, even with the Rs and Ds wasting my tax dollars.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Nov 9 2007, 06:38 PM) [snapback]537475[/snapback]</div>

Yes. Those are all legitimate concerns. I think we would have been better off with Nader than either the dems or repubs.

And apologies for playing the dberman game, but do you think we would have been better off with Al Gore?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Spoid @ Nov 9 2007, 07:10 PM) [snapback]537538[/snapback]</div>

Ditto

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(huskers @ Nov 9 2007, 05:00 PM) [snapback]537518[/snapback]</div>

Yes. But only because I came into money. Nothing to do with the government.

 

It is easy to assume we are "better off" when we are living on credit.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(huskers @ Nov 9 2007, 08:00 PM) [snapback]537518[/snapback]</div>

No.

 

All Americans now owe a personal share of the 9 trillion dollar national Republican debt.
This should be equivalent to 3 years of additional back taxes from each and every taxpayer.
With that in mind, are you still better off?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mojo @ Nov 11 2007, 12:06 AM) [snapback]537933[/snapback]</div>

That doesn't even take into account the environmental degredation that has taken place to allow some of us to live such lavish lifestyles. Add in the ecological effects and we are indeed worse off in the long term. Again, we are living on credit, both monetary and natural capital. Bankruptcy is in the future....

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(05_SilverPri @ Nov 8 2007, 10:40 AM) [snapback]536703[/snapback]</div>

but, will there be dirt under that bush too!