Staredit Network

Lets say that we had a sudden election because of a big commotion or terrorist atak, who would become the president Nader, Clinton, or Bush (Jr.)
i was just wondering what you would think. I chose Clinton and Bush because they both had their 8 yr run and nader because he is always on the ballot.


Choose wisely...

Bush would win the election, but Clinton would be the better president. Lets face it: Clinton got us into a SURPLUS, Bush got us from a surplus to a smacking facedown debt.

true dat true dat
clinton also did some stuff in the oral... i mean oval office that i cant mention but w/e
i would pick bush though because i like to keep my guns and clinton was outlawing guns in california...

How is this relevant to presidency?


First, sources. Second, that arguement isn't supported by reasons.

SHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH i was trying to sound smart and the oral office was grade "A" material!

Yeah, if you judge Clinton merely over his little affair, you are an idiot.

ouch that hurt... and i wasnt really old enough to hear about anything other than that affair so HA

Both suck.

Clinton didn't do anything worthwhile (and the only things that happened becauseof his government were bills that came from the Republican House and Senate). No one of any intelligence gives him credit for the economic boom (and those that do give him credit conveniently let him off the hook for the economic slow-down that started at the end of his term).

Lol I kind of liked Clinton in office, I grew up with Clinton in office, I don't remember Bush Sr much, and until the 2000 election I didn't pay much attention to politics and the presidential debate.

I was oblivious to all the stuff that was going on and I didn't notice much about Clinton, as i-beat-u says:


Now since the 2000 election I've seen more stuff in the media and a lot of politics, though that might be due to me growing older as well.

Heh, it was actually a surprise to me when the 2000 election happened, because that would mean no more Clinton as president, and it was like the first election I've lived through that I remember. I miss Clinton.

granted, people judge Bush over how he says "nuclear."

I voted Clinton.

No, that's just like a punch line for Bush. Kame, can we pretty please have another 20 pages of how stupid and evil Bush is? Please please please!

Clinton totally

I voted Clinton. Even if you think he didn't do anything, you have to admit he'd being doing a better job than Bush. I even remember reading an article once during Clinton's presidency about how he was warning people about Osama and the Taliban. And then Bush comes in, ignores it, and then we get hit with a horrible terrorist attack. Good stuff.

I'd love to see that article.


Edit: It's funny that people are voting based on who they like the most, not based on who they actually think will win. And why the hell is Nader there? He gets owned every time, why would it be any different?

I do think Clinton would honestly win. Near the end of his second term, people were actually rallying to get the Constitution changed again to allow presidents to have a third term just so he could run again in 2000. And he was so much more enthusiastic than any recent Democratic candidate.


Its too bad I read it years ago when Bush was first elected, otherwise I'd go find a nice little copy for you.

Sorry, but bullsh*t. You are telling me there was an article about Clinton warning people about the Taliban (bullsh*t in and of itself) and Bush ignoring it... before the terrorist attacks?

I'll believe it when I see it, and I don't expect that I will.


edited for clarity

I know what I read, so you can keep doubting it all you want. Clinton gave a heads up about Taliban activity and Osama bin Laden. I've also seen a lot of propaganda-like reports about Clinton suppsoedly supporting the Taliban because of not directly going after them, but I do specifically remember seeing a few about how he warned people about the Taliban threat and other US officials said he was just dwelling on it too much.

Hmm and now that I think back to it, didn't more reports come out that the FBI had actually gotten word about the terrorist attack but no one ever acted on it? I remember from Fahrenheit 9/11 when Michael Moore went after Bush on that one as well. SO if you think about it, my point about Clinton isn't that farfetched.

Edit:
Links to the FBI one:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/jun2002/ashc-j07.shtml
http://www.buzzflash.com/perspectives/911bush.html

And a bit on Clinton:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/lib...206-afghan1.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A62776-2001Dec18

Yeah so Clinton knew about Osoma and only said, "hey guys, there is this towel head terrorist dude in the middle east, ya hes there alright"

Please...... Clinton didn't do anything to go after Osoma Bin Laden, oh wait......Clinton fired 2 missles at Osoma, one hit an old old old terrorist camp (long abandoned) and the other missle hit an asprin factory. Way to go Clinton! You got him!

There are too many reasons and ways we could have stopped 9/11. You can't just blame Bush.

Bush all the way.

Those links don't help you at all.

First link: "World Socialist Website". Nice source. However, all it does is slam the Patriot Act. The word "Clinton" isn't even on the page.

Second link: Michael Moore/Alex Jones style site explaining that Bush knew about/caused the attacks. The day you are allowed to use those dubious conspiracy sites in a debate is the day that "debate" loses its meaning.

Third link: It says how Clinton talked with Afghanis about improving conditions; nothing about him warning of an attack.

Fourth link: Hahahahahahaha! This is the same as the above one, but I like this gem:



That hurts you more than it helps you!

It's dishonest to post those links. Did you think no one would actually read them?

I don't get how you could vote for bush he has done way more band than good.

Hahahahaha!!! Are you serious? When did I ever say that had to do with Clinton? That was about the FBI's knowledge.


If people can use Blogs as actual sources of information, I can use these all I want. Oh the beauty of the internet.


That was more about how Clinton was trying to help Afghanis. Again I never said that link had anything to do with what I said earlier in the post. Don't assume all the links I posted had to deal with the Clinton statement I made. I said I read it years ago, connoting that it would be hard for me to find it.


I especially like the part when it says, "Bin Laden and his aides were targets, but not the Talbian regime that gave them sanctuary." Oh and, "For the next two years, Clinton pursued a policy of economic sanctions against the Taliban and sent numerous messages to the de facto government of Afghanistan requesting bin Laden's delivery for trial." "Pickering told him the Taliban's guest [Bin Laden] had killed Americans and intended to do so again" is nice, too. Or "'If bin Laden or any of the organizations affiliated with him attacks the United States or United States interests,' he told Waqil, 'we will hold you, the leadership of the Taliban, personally accountable.'" Lastly, "'When discussions came up of what are we going to do, the military focus stayed on Osama bin Laden himself and his outfit.'"

So yeah, you could say that really hurts my arguement of Clinton actually knowing about Bin Laden as a threat. It obviously went against my original statements. How could I be so blind? [/sarcasm]


How is it dishonest? I posted them so people could read them.

Hahaha, you are very typical of a teen leftist.

The whole problem with Clinton was that he took no action besides "economic sanctions". Bush didn't lift any, and he certainly didn't ignore any warnings from Clinton. If Clinton thought they were planning a terrorist attack, then he damn well better have done something about it besides "warn Bush" on his way out.

Clinton and Bush both could have done more, but you can't give Clinton any credit here whatsoever. For his 8 years in office, including after the first attacks, he basically did sh*t.

However, can you imagine what would have happened if Bush tried to do anything?

You and the other resident leftists here would be crying "You can't have a pre-emptive war! They are not attacking us! Stop trying to slaughter civillians!".

Of course, when we get attacked, you all are the first people to blame Bush for doing nothing.

Bush didnt do 'nothing', he did something wrong. He invaded Iraq for oil.

Actually I was in favor of the Afghani war. Its the Iraqi war that makes me think less of Bush. He did something about the 9/11 attacks, and that was good. But Iraq has nothing to do with that "something."