Amazing that his administration still has an approval rating...

Yes. But Clinton got a BJ!

 

Here's a nice but incomplete list.

Abramowitz and Cunningham don't make the list.

I understand the NRA is helping to revise the new gun control laws.

Just like Pharmeceuticals wrote the Medicare drug plan and Credit Card companies wrote the bankruptcy laws.

Can any Democratic president fix what the Bush Administration has done in four years? 8 years? 16 years?

How long will it take to pay off Bush's DEBT?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Apr 22 2007, 12:15 PM) [snapback]427874[/snapback]</div>

Yep, that's it . . the entirety of the list of scandals which rocked the Clinton administration . . . as compiled by an open minded liberal.

Hmmmmm. I'm surprised the BJ made your list.
How progressive and open minded of you.

So, is Hillary's ability to quickly turn $1,000 into $100,000 in dubious cattle futures an admirable trait worthy of being left off your list? <_<

 

Ah yes. Sex and the ability to make money definately trumps that laundry list of the Bush Administration's questionable ethics. Far be it from a liberal to use the word Hypocrites ("Campaigning in 2000, Texas Gov. George W. Bush would repeatedly raise his right hand as if taking an oath and vow to "restore honor and integrity" to the White House. He pledged to usher in a new era of bipartisanship.").....as apparently it is copyrighted by the Republicans for the sole purpose of using it against Democrats....er...Liberals.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Apr 22 2007, 01:40 PM) [snapback]427941[/snapback]</div>

What scares me most is that IF W somehow "gets it" in his last 21 months that his "legacy" is irremediable, he may radically accelerate his dismantling of what's left of "good government" from sheer vindictiveness. For example, he could resort to attempting to abolish the (formerly) most trusted regulatory agencies (e.g., EPA, FDA, FTC, ATF) rather than simply undermining them via rewriting their regulations and/or staffing them with industry-friendly cronies. It will take years for the terms of some of the appointed cronies to expire in any case. We'll smell his fumes well past 2012, Democrat president or no.

 

Supposedly, Bush's monthly approval ratings have stayed below 40% for a consecutive period of time exceeded only by Truman and Nixon.

Should Bush's approval ratings continue to stay under 40% (it's baffling that it remains anywhere near 40%), it would seem to provide validation that Bush is, indeed, the worst president in US history (or at least since poll numbers have been recorded).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Apr 22 2007, 05:13 PM) [snapback]428008[/snapback]</div>

Bush had no problem with bipartisanship while governor of Texas, but there was no way for him to prevent the Democrats in Washington from playing nasty.

Funny, wasn't it Clinton who campaigned on the promise to, "preside over the most ethical administration in the history of the country" ????
That was promise he did have the power to abide by. [OK, maybe not. :lol: ]

So what did we get? A president who perjured himself while testifying under oath in front of a federal grand jury. :huh:

The rest of his administration's scandals don't pale by comparison.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=14523

But of course, a certain (large) faction of folks in FHOP would rather just say, 'oh yeah, by comparison, Clinton only got a BJ.'

 

My problem with President Bush is he is too nice and the republicans are too weak. Scooter Libby goes to jail for not remembering who exactly told him something (that everyone in Washington already knew) first. This is the best they could do on the "conspiracy" against Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson.

Sandy Berger (extremely close to President Clinton) gets caught stuffing classified documents in his pants to take home and he loses his security clearance. This cannot even in the most liberal benefit of the doubt be called an mistake. It was deliberate.

It wasn't that President Clinton got a bj. It was that he deliberately lied under oath about it (repeatedly). He eventually admitted it when he saw that he was not going to get away with it. And this was the 3rd woman to come after him. Nothing happened. Liberals still love him.

Weak republicans. The democrats are ruthless. They go after every possiblity of convicting or indicting someone. The republicans didn't change the filibuster rules because they were afraid of what the democrats would do if they got back in power. IT DIDN'T MATTER !!! The dems did it anyway. The GOP set it so that you needed a super or two-thirds majority to raise taxes. The dems quickly (and quietly) changed that to a simple majority. You know it's coming eventually.

 

Ok. He lied about a BJ. How does that compare in any way with invading the wrong country through FUD and getting more people killed in that invasion that on the 911 attacks?

I'd take the BJ and/or lying about it any day.

Although I somewhat agree Clinton should have just said "this is personal" or "It was great. You should try it. Next question?".

There should be levels of perjury just like there are levels of murder, e.i., murder one, murder two. Lying about who you had sex with is like perjury ten. Lying and getting thousands killed should be perjury one...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mirza @ Apr 22 2007, 03:07 PM) [snapback]427872[/snapback]</div>

Tell us what else is new within ANY administration....


...or in the business world for that matter...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(rudiger @ Apr 22 2007, 08:20 PM) [snapback]428053[/snapback]</div>

SO we judge a Presidency based on poll numbers? I believe Truman and Lincoln were two of the most reviled of all. That would rank them among the worst using your criteria. Yeah, that makes sense.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(05_SilverPri @ Apr 22 2007, 11:25 PM) [snapback]428157[/snapback]</div>

Oh, please do show me the poll numbers taken when Lincoln was still in office.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Apr 22 2007, 08:07 PM) [snapback]428116[/snapback]</div>

I soooo couldn't disagree more that Clinton should have just said, 'it's personal, I'm not going to answer that question.'

What if your sister, mother, wife, or any other woman sues a man in court for sexual harassment?
Should the woman be afforded a fair hearing?
As a defense, should the man just say, 'um, I'm not going to answer that question, it's personal . . . besides, it was great, you should try it.' :huh: <_<

What if the man is also an attorney and found in contempt of court for intentionally falsifying testimony?
On your scale, what level of perjury would that constitute?

Would level 10 fair to the woman?

What level would it be if the attorney/man was fined $90,000?

What about disbarment? Level 10 again?

What if this attorney/man habitually lied in court?

Fine, upstanding presidential material????

Yes, this IS Bill Clinton I am referring to.
Jones v. Clinton.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_v._Jones

Yeah Alric . . . "I'm not going to answer that question, it's personal, it's not sex." NICE!
Screw over the woman in court. :angry:

Bush never perjured himself. He was given information from the US Intelligence agencies. Relying on that is not perjury. Any talk of him falsifying intelligence information for his own personal gains . . . Halliburton's . . . or for any any other nefarious reasons is nothing but unsubstantiated politically motivated sniping. PERIOD!

 

Bush never perjured himself. He was given information from the US Intelligence agencies. Relying on that is not perjury. Any talk of him falsifying intelligence information for his own personal gains . . .

*****************************************(edit)

How about cherry-picking "information" you want, no matter where you have to stretch to get it, as opposed to "he was given..."; and ignoring other info you don't want to hear? That doesn't qualify as "falsifying"??

Have you read R. Clarke? Or is he a "disgruntled former employee"?

 

"How about cherry-picking "information" you want, no matter where you have to stretch to get it, as opposed to "he was given..."; and ignoring other info you don't want to hear? That doesn't qualify as "falsifying"??

Have you read R. Clarke? Or is he a "disgruntled former employee"?"

More "politically motivated sniping".

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(05_SilverPri @ Apr 23 2007, 12:25 AM) [snapback]428157[/snapback]</div>

It is all about hate. Tell me though, does that make the Democratic controlled Congress worse than President Bush - I mean, and correct me if i am wrong, their poll numbers are worse, arent they :lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy @ Apr 23 2007, 12:38 AM) [snapback]428195[/snapback]</div>

Who cares!? Where are the tousands dead in this case? We are talking lying and getting thousands killed as opposed to being inappropiate. If he was inappropriate he should get his due as an individual but I don't care as long as it does not interfere with his job.

Wait a minute. Why does all criticism of Bush goes back to a discussion of Clinton issues? What Clinton did then has nothing to do with what Bush does today!!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(05_SilverPri @ Apr 23 2007, 12:25 AM) [snapback]428157[/snapback]</div>

Interestingly, the reason Truman's poll numbers and popularity was so low at the time was because he fired McArthur and refused to cave in to the rabid anti-communism fear perpetuated by the likes of Joseph McCarthy. In other words, it would seem that the same nearly 40% of people who continue to support Bush are, presumably, the exact same type of people who brought Truman's poll numbers and popularity down (and the same type who endlessly 'blame Clinton' for all of Bush's stupid mistakes).

One shudders to think what Bush would have done if he had been president during Truman's time.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(rudiger @ Apr 23 2007, 07:40 AM) [snapback]428240[/snapback]</div>

And if we use the polls as the criteria for judging performance (according to the original post), Truman was one of the worst. That is why using polls isn't a good way to judge.