Which one did the most for us?

[Cas]

George Bush
Bill Clinton
GW Bush
This could be interesting.

[spectratoad]

Well George Bush helped to put Iraq on the world radar as trouble which gave France and Germany a larger business economy.
Clinton gave us 8 years of porn in the oral office and singlehandedly made the US a global laughingstock.
GW put honor back in the White House and has made people feel prouder about America. I for one walk alot taller in my uniform everyday than I ever though about with Clinton in office. And he put the world on notice that we won't stand for crap and we will take care of ourselves no matter the global climate.

[Back Forty]

GW put honor back in the White House and has made people feel prouder about America. I for one walk alot taller in my uniform everyday than I ever though about with Clinton in office. And he put the world on notice that we won't stand for crap and we will take care of ourselves no matter the global climate.
Dam right. I never even payed attention to politics when I was in. I always felt let down by Clinton as a president. Even though I am no longer in, Bush's support of the military has made me feel like somebody actually has a set of balls and is in charge... He isn't perfect but dammit Kerry isn't close.
I want to add, my Dad just passed this along:
I am a senior citizen.
During the Clinton Administration I had an extremely good and well paying job.
I took numerous vacations and had several vacation homes.
Since President Bush took office, I have watched my entire life change for the worse.
I lost my job.
I lost my two sons in that terrible Iraqi War.
I lost my homes.
I lost my health insurance.
As a matter of fact I lost virtually everything and became homeless.
Adding insult to injury, when the authorities found me living like an animal, instead of helping me, they arrested me.
I will do anything that Senator Kerry wants to insure that a Democrat is back in the White House come next year.
Bush has to go.
Sincerely,
Saddam Hussein

[spectratoad]

:eek: :) :eek: :cool: Had me worried there for a minute.

[vodkarocks]

The basic question is flawed. We would be better off if more people understood that the government is not their nanny.
The main purpose of the federal government is to protect us from our enemies. GW is doing a better job than Clinton did and he also let me keep more of my money. I don't want him to do anything else for me, I will do it myself

[Cas]

Vodkaman,
You're right, it's a very simplistic question that could lead into a lot of "rhetoric".
I'm also of the belief that the government should be there to protect our liberties, not take them away. I also believe that people need to be responsible for themselves and not rely on the government.
This is a long read but it seems to fit my beliefs-
By now you've probably heard at least a little something about the Libertarian party. Libertarians have had a Presidential candidate on the ballot in all fifty states for the past three election cycles, and the Badnarik campaign is well on its way to making this year's election number four. We have candidates running for local and state level positions all across the country, and currently boast over 600 Libertarians in public office. It's difficult to find a place in America where you can pick up a ballot, and not find a Libertarian running for office.
In spite of this familiarity with the party, the one question that many people still seem to have is, "What exactly is a Libertarian?"
The ideas behind Libertarianism can be traced back over 400 years, to a period in history when the concepts of individual liberty & consensual government were first finding a foothold through the writings of people like John Locke and Algernon Sidney. The right to free one's self from tyrannical government was an infuriatingly-radical notion at a time when kings were thought to be divinely-ordained rulers. It was the bravery and clear-thinking of these early libertarian writers that served as the inspiration for the American Revolution, and the founding of our country as a free and independent nation. Nowhere is this clearer than in the Declaration of Independence, which makes the libertarian case perfectly, that government should exist to secure the life, liberty, and property of every one of its citizens.
Despite the historical connection behind the ideas of Libertarianism and the roots of our own nation, today's political pundits seem to have a difficult time figuring out how to label us: People with conservative beliefs see us as "liberals" because of our outspoken defense of personal freedoms—like the freedom of expression. On the other hand, people with liberal beliefs tend to see us as "conservatives" because of our staunch defense of economic freedoms, like the freedom for people to trade with one another in a way that they decide is in their own best interest. These misconceptions say more about the prejudices of the people who hold them, than they do about the Libertarian perspective.
Despite this confusion, the Libertarian philosophy is really very easy to understand. Libertarians are, quite simply, people who believe in "Self-Ownership": You own yourself, and no one else on Earth has a higher claim to your body or your labor than you do. So long as people act in a way that doesn't interfere with anyone else's freedom, Libertarians believe that they should be free to do what they please.
The idea of "Self-Ownership" is what distinguishes us from both liberals and conservatives. Every political position that Libertarians take can be traced back to this simple idea. For example, Libertarians are opposed to "liberal" attempts to use the government to regulate people's buying practices, by imposing tariffs on certain goods & industries. We oppose this kind of regulation not because we think that all goods & industries are equally wonderful, but because we believe that people own themselves, and should be allowed to buy what they like, based on their own beliefs and values. If for some people that means buying fair-trade coffee at the local co-op grocery store, then that's great—just as long as they don't use the government's power to force other people to do the same.
Likewise, Libertarians are opposed to "conservative" attempts to use the government to regulate people's morality, by imposing laws that restrict their behavior on the Sabbath, or at the pharmacy, or in the bedroom. We're opposed to these kinds of legal restrictions not because we think that all lifestyle choices are equally worth pursuing, but because we believe that people own themselves, and should be allowed to decide how to live their lives as they see fit, so long as they aren't hurting anyone else in the process.
Wait a second...If you're not conservative & you're not liberal, then where do you fit on the political spectrum?
The traditional left-right spectrum is one that political scholars have recognized is incomplete for some time. In fact, it's really only useful for tracking the answer to one question: "What part of your life do you think government should control?" On the left-hand side of the spectrum we find people who believe that it's the government's job to regulate our economic lives—that is, our interactions with one another that involve exchange. Democrats and Green party members tend to be on this end of the spectrum. On the right-hand side, we find people who believe that it's the government's job to regulate our social lives. Republicans and Constitution party members tend to be on this end of the spectrum. This one-dimensional view of politics as something for controlling one area of life or another, explains why Libertarians cringe when we hear politicians talk about passing "bi-partisan legislation"!
The closest you can come to charting Libertarians on a one-dimensional left/right spectrum is to plot us directly in the middle of the two extremes. This is the only place on the line where you can put people who don't believe in controlling each others lives either in an economic or a social sense. However, this fails to take into account that, like all other political groups, Libertarians come in varying degrees. It also makes it difficult to find a place to put people who believe that government should control both economic and social decisions.
When you think about it, it's easy to see that the simple left/right political spectrum fails to accurately describe the various mix of political opinions held today. Several ideas have been conceived about how to address this problem—the most prominent of which has resulted in something called the "Nolan Chart", which has been used as the basis for the "World's Smallest Political Quiz" mentioned in the sidebar on this page.
More important to notice, however, is the fact that the current "two-party" political system—with its major players fitting neatly along the left/right line—fails to accurately represent the range of political opinions held by voters today. Even when you include the other "third parties", without the Libertarian party, the system fails to provide a political home for people who value both economic and social freedom. Though they all still use the rhetoric, there is no other party that is willing to trust you to make all of your own decisions, or to respect all of your rights to life, liberty, and property. There is simply no other party that can truly say its policies will allow you all your freedoms, all the time.
Libertarian ideas are ideas that people still agree with in great numbers. Unfortunately, too often people are lead to believe that they don't have a choice—that they must give up something in order to have a just society—or worse, in order to elect "the lesser of two evils"...but how can being compelled to choose between your "social" freedoms and your "economic" freedoms be anything but unjust and evil?
There is another choice: If you think as we do, and if you want to send a clear message to Washington this November—a message that, if nothing else will force politicians in both major parties to think twice about passing laws that restrict your self-ownership, then vote for the candidate that you agree with most, instead of the candidate that you fear the least. Vote Libertarian!

[eliminatedsprinter]

George H.W. Bush helped the place I work the most and helped get me the best raise I ever got.
George W. Bush gave me the best tax cut I ever recieved.
William Clinton almost totally destroyed the place I work and screwed up FEMA to the point that it was useless to many of us after the Northridge Quake.
So, on a personal level, my family and I have been helped by the Bushes and been hurt by Clinton.

[kahanamoko]

The main purpose of the federal government is to protect us from our enemies. GW is doing a better job than Clinton did and he also let me keep more of my money.
Yeah, he did a WONDERFUL job preventing 9/11 considering the warnings signs and reports he had access to prior to the actual attack. He is a failure.

[Cas]

Yeah, he did a WONDERFUL job preventing 9/11 considering the warnings signs and reports he had access to prior to the actual attack. He is a failure.
Hmmmm, seems to me he had to work with what was left to him from the previous administration. The terrorists knew there was nothing in place when GW took over ie: the FBI couldn't share info with the CIA ala Clinton.

[Jeanyus]

Hmmmm, seems to me he had to work with what was left to him from the previous administration. The terrorists knew there was nothing in place when GW took over ie: the FBI couldn't share info with the CIA ala Clinton.
Not to mention The CIA and the FBI lost ALL informants, ala Clinton.

[MagicMtnDan]

There is another choice: If you think as we do, and if you want to send a clear message to Washington this November—a message that, if nothing else will force politicians in both major parties to think twice about passing laws that restrict your self-ownership, then vote for the candidate that you agree with most, instead of the candidate that you fear the least. Vote Libertarian!
Libertarian ideals are terrific.
However, if you vote for anyone other than Bush (or Kerry) you're THROWING YOUR VOTE AWAY. Make no mistake about it - your non Bush/Kerry vote will NOT send a "message" to anyone, certainly not to either of the two viable political parties.
Voting Libertarian may make you feel better but it won't help make this country, this world, a better place. For that you need to vote for Bush.

[Cas]

Libertarian ideals are terrific.
However, if you vote for anyone other than Bush (or Kerry) you're THROWING YOUR VOTE AWAY. Make no mistake about it - your non Bush/Kerry vote will NOT send a "message" to anyone, certainly not to either of the two viable political parties.
Voting Libertarian may make you feel better but it won't help make this country, this world, a better place. For that you need to vote for Bush.
Dan,
I agree with you in regards to this Pres election. I put it up there in hopes people would think more about what our politicians are doing to us nowadays. Every day, it seems, some new bill comes up that prevents more of our civil liberties.
My votes on our local level will be changing as are many others. The local Lib representative got many votes at the last election and some things did change a bit around here. This time around, hopefully the message will be stronger so things can change even more.

[spectratoad]

The way I look at it is this. Why after 20 years as a US Senator has Kerry done NOTHING to better the people of America or our standing in the world or taxes or stem cell research.........basically everyothing that he says he will do as President.
Why can he do it as President but hasn't lifted a finger to do it as Senator and has often voted in the opposite direction of the good? You have more power to do it as a Senator than a President.
As one talk host put it: "Kerry has consistently been on the wrong side of history." :mad:

[Kurtis500]

9/11 happened after 8 years of Clinton, not 8 months of Bush. The people arrived and were trained here on a democrats watch.

[Dave C]

warning signs eh? care to elaborate?
I know thats one the DNC "talking points" so lets see your cards? :rollside:
Yeah, he did a WONDERFUL job preventing 9/11 considering the warnings signs and reports he had access to prior to the actual attack. He is a failure.

[spectratoad]

Yeah, he did a WONDERFUL job preventing 9/11 considering the warnings signs and reports he had access to prior to the actual attack. He is a failure.
So what you are saying is that he should have taken the info that he did have, throw half a plan together go in and get alot more soldiers killed and completed half a mission and left the country in total dissaray.
8 months does in no way equal 8 years for the ability to "get er' done".
You know one of the happiest days in my life was in our hallway at work where we have the pictures displayed of our Chain Of Command, I got to take Clinton's picture down and hand GW's up. It was really funny because everywhere that I knew someone in the military they were just waiting for official word to proceed with the destruction of the past prez picture.
One thing we learn in the military is that you don't have to like the person but you need to respect the position and as President, Clinton got zero respect for either.

[Sleek-Jet]

Yeah, he did a WONDERFUL job preventing 9/11 considering the warnings signs and reports he had access to prior to the actual attack. He is a failure.
What's really funny is that if someone would have said, oh say about in March or April of 2001, that there was an imminant attack coming on US soil, most likely by way of hijacked airliners, and that draconian security measures would have to be instated to prevent it, the outcry would have been deafening (mostly by liberals, because, well that's a violation of your rights, correct??). And what if we would have rounded up all the suspected terrorist's in the country and shipped them back to whence they came?? More outrage... civil liberties, ect.... I can hear it know from the bleeding hearts.
OK, so then the attacks would never have happened. Right now the lefties would be hangin' Bush because he overreacted to a "preceived" threat.
So, since Bush is a failure, what would your wonderfull plan have been to prevent 9/11 from happening??