Name your President now

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

OK, so I think George W. Bush is awful. Not because I'm a LIBERAL (I'm not), just because I think he's a terrible president.

Everybody loves to grouse. Let's think positive. So who would you have as president right now if you could make the choice?

[Funkyalligator]

Any combo with McCain and Powell would be awesome!!!!!! Vp or P whichever they are actually honest and dont have big business's d@#ks in their a**.

[Riggo-toni]

Hey ASF- How come the guy I voted for (Harry Browne) is not on this list!!!!:soapbox: :soapbox: :soapbox:

Enough is enough - Vote Libertarian!!!!!!!:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[Zen-like Todd]

Any combo with McCain and Powell would be awesome!!!!!! Vp or P whichever they are actually honest and dont have big business's d@#ks in their a**.

Thats what you think. Powell used to be on the board at AOL. And I'm sure plenty of other companies.

[fansince62]

well.........and i have voted for both parties (i.e., best man) in several elections......given the current international scene and threat.....there is no one in the democrat party (or more specifically, no team), qualified to meet the current security challenge. if you want to die young and needlessly....vote democrat!!!!

[RiggoDrill]

Can modern science bring back FDR?

[JackC]

Easy choice. Go with the guy who has had major success. Bill Clinton 8 more years!

[Posse81]

I think we should amend the constitution and make Clinton president as long he wants it. God forbid we have another 8 years of unprecedented economic prosperity and peace.

:notworthy

[fansince62]

JackC/Posse....if you don't think 2000+ of your fellow citizens aren't dead because of ineptness in the foreign policy arena on the part of the 8-yr Clinton team then you are either a cowboys fan or a party hack......just who was the commander-in-chief and responsible for handling the threat during all those years?

[Funkyalligator]

Argh, you don't think that the policies that Bush is dictating to the world now won't have broad reaching consequences?

[AtlSkin]

If that's not a classic Republican response, I don't know what is. C'mon now, everything that goes wrong for W can't possibly be Clinton's fault no matter HOW badly some want it to be. I keep waiting for someone to blame the Haliburton scenario on him and sadly I won't at all be shocked when someone does.

If I'm the Dem's a DEMAND an independent council to investigate both Haliburton AND W's earlier issues. What's good for the goose...

PS - I'm neither a Girlz fan nor a party hack. More someone who sees both sides of the street and doesn't make excuses.

HTTR!

[The Evil Genius]

The irony is that we funded the Afghani militants in the 1970's/1980's when they were fighting the "bad guy commies".

I mean, if you want to talk about failed foreign policy - then you have to start right there.

But its convenient to look past us putting these crackpots in power and to blame those who fail at gettign them out of power after they have "turned on us".

Its unfortunate, but when we played the lesser of two evils game and enpowered Osama bin Laden to fight the Ruskies, we lost. Its not like the US didnt think that Osama would turn on them or anything.

[JackC]

Fansince62,

If you don't think that 2000+ Americans are dead and millions of people have lost tons in their 401K because the current President is a boob than YOU must be a Cowboy fan (isn't Dumya from Texas?) or a party hack!

[Art]

Jack, and Posse, as clearly evidenced by the scandals and restatement of fabricated earnings by major companies in the late 90s, Bill Clinton's Presidency wasn't marked with economic success. It was marked by fraud. Under the Bush Presidency and SEC these frauds are coming to light and being exposed for the criminal activity they are and have been.

Fabricated earning reports led to dramatic rise in the markets. Obviously, I'd like to have those rises back myself, but, simply put, the fruits of them are born of a poisonous tree. And, as always, it's not Clinton's fault, despite the fact that the criminal behavior was largely conducted under the Clinton Presidency.

But, when asking for those wonder years back, be sure you realize what you are asking for is corporate fraud and corruption, fabricated earnings and an inflated market due to it.

[JackC]

Art,

Let me get this straight so I can argue with you. In the 90's when things were going great the Conservatives told us that it was because of the groundwork layed by Ronald Reagan and the GOP congress. Now that the Dubya economy is in the tank it's because of Clinton?

You can't have it both ways my young friend. As for you point of when the "crimes" took place during the Clinton years, I would tell you I would guess they are still taking place and the fault lies at the feet of the GOP congress who pushed thru major deregulation.

I would vote for President Clinton again tomorrow, more than once if I could get away with it.

[Luca Brasi]

Originally posted by Art

Jack, and Posse, as clearly evidenced by the scandals and restatement of fabricated earnings by major companies in the late 90s, Bill Clinton's Presidency wasn't marked with economic success. It was marked by fraud. Under the Bush Presidency and SEC these frauds are coming to light and being exposed for the criminal activity they are and have been.

Fabricated earning reports led to dramatic rise in the markets. Obviously, I'd like to have those rises back myself, but, simply put, the fruits of them are born of a poisonous tree. And, as always, it's not Clinton's fault, despite the fact that the criminal behavior was largely conducted under the Clinton Presidency.

But, when asking for those wonder years back, be sure you realize what you are asking for is corporate fraud and corruption, fabricated earnings and an inflated market due to it.

Art, you are 100% correct. To think that the economic boom of the 90's is owed to Clinton and the sudden downward turn is Bush's doing is rediculous. Having worked closely (but not employed by, thank God) with MCIWorldcom, it was quite a wakeup call seeing ****y upper level managers walking out of the door with their personal belongings in a box. This was bound to happen sometime, and let's just hope it doesn't get much worse.

[Art]

Jack,

I've said before, and I've said here, that this is not something one can blame Clinton for, despite the fact that the criminal behavior was happening under his watch and his SEC. It's not a political issue at all. People who commit fraud aren't doing so because Clinton is the President and not catching them or because Bush is the President and seems to be catching them.

Criminals do what they do regardless of politics because they want, in this case, to acquire more wealth. They are the problem and they are the one's that need to be addressed. Politics is not even on the radar screen of the fault of this. The fault goes to the people who did it and to a lesser extent the oversite group, the SEC, that failed to recognize it for far too long.

[JackC]

Art,

Than why bring it up in response to a poll about who we would all like to be President? Strange.

[Art]

Jack, I brought up a response to you and Posse, not to this poll. I voted for myself in this poll. So you aren't confused further, the response here was to YOU based on what YOU said in a poll about who should be President.

[fansince62]

JackC....well....you are wrong....but it won't be the first time a clintonista was misguided. and it's supremely amusing, turning the coin on its head, that the rationale is clipping coupons, profits and stock price increases - how un-Donkey like. my barb was not pointed at the economy - it was aimed at the defense of this country. and the last resident in the white house did a pathetic job. you have a larger framework in mind vis the international system. have at it. i'm more focused on my own, my familily's and my fellow countrymen's security from dirty bombs, anthrax, guided missile airliners, etc. we're in this position because the last guy didn't fix it. the previous 2 occupants, as i recall, were busy orchestrating the downfall of communism and the reconstruction of the defense department. what exactly did clinto do to secure us from the murderers who now tread the globe?

[JackC]

fansince62,

"it was aimed at the defense of this country"

ROTFLMAO You can't be serious! Your guy only allowed the worst attack on American soil in the history of the nation! He has no idea what to do in the Middle East! He can't find OBL! He was AWOL when Daddy got him in the National Guard! Heck he can't even find most important nations on a map without help. The only guy in his administration with a clue(Powell) is undercut over and over by his dumbness.

He might just be the worst defense President in the history of our country and he's not even half way through his term.

Art,

I still take Clinton over this guy any day of the week.

[fansince62]

JackC...perhaps i should spell it out for you: the planning for the WTC has been documented as being in the works for over 2 years. the Cole incident - you know.....the attack on sovereign American territory where others of your fellow countrymen died and your hero clinton was caught laughing/joking when he thought he was off-camera at the memorial service; the first wtc bombing; the embassy bombings; the intel that was available even then: ALL HAPPENED DURING HIS FRIGGIN ADMINSTRATION. so...while he was busy getting hummers from interns the stage was being set for our fellow citizens to perish in a swift several hours. pls....never let the facts get in your way. bush inheritted a situation that was already messed up. get real, my friend, CLinton'sadministration has been generally graded a success from a domestic (meaning pocketbook point-of-view) but a failure from a foreign policy point-of-view. you're making ad hominem attacks on bush - i could care less. i'm much more intersted in what policy decisions and actions were taken. and btw, although mr ross lived very close to my home in bethesda, i'm afraid he and the clinton foreign policy in the middle east accomplished little to nothing of lasting value. oh yea, ms president managed to accelerate the distribution of rubbers in the indian subcontinent - i forgot what the true agendas were in foreign policy. i take it all back.

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

Originally posted by Art

I've said before, and I've said here, that this is not something one can blame Clinton for, despite the fact that the criminal behavior was happening under his watch and his SEC. It's not a political issue at all. People who commit fraud aren't doing so because Clinton is the President and not catching them or because Bush is the President and seems to be catching them.

Criminals do what they do regardless of politics because they want, in this case, to acquire more wealth. They are the problem and they are the one's that need to be addressed. Politics is not even on the radar screen of the fault of this. The fault goes to the people who did it and to a lesser extent the oversite group, the SEC, that failed to recognize it for far too long.

Art, I think this *is* a political issue, and I blame both Republicans and Democrats, Clinton and Bush.

The core of the problem (to me) is the massive growth of stock options being issued, primarily to executives but also to regular employees. This growth stemmed in large part because of concerns over excessive executive pay in the early 1990s, when this pay was not tied enough to performance. Stock options became a great solution, because they were tied to perceived company performance, and because companies could issue them without it affecting their net income. Once stock options were issued in such magnitude, company execs had an excessive incentive to hide problems and juice the company's perceived short-term performance over fundamentals, helped along by Wall Street analysts who made money via a juiced equities market.

Independent analysts complained loudly that stock options should be expensed and were being issued in ridiculously high volumes. But the Congress (Dems and Republicans) ignored calls for legislation mandating the expensing of options. Congress also pressured an accounting oversight committee from recommending the expensing of options.

Clinton took no leadership on this issue, despite the fact that the "robber baron" capitalists benefitting from the loophole made a good rhetorical target for Clinton (who liked to take on such battles). I think Clinton avoided the issue because he recognized that, after Whitewater and Monica, his only friend was the equities market buoying national wealth. It was the Republicans who weakened him as President (via their relentless attacks on Monica and related peripheral issues), but of course it was Clinton who opened the door for such attacks through his stupid personal behavior and lies under oath.

As for Bush, Cheney and their Republican crowd, these guys will play any angle to help their weathy friends in big business. No, they didn't cause the problem, but, like Clinton, they took no leadership on what was an obvious problem long before Enron and Worldcom collapses.

In short, they're all to blame. Politicians will always be in hock to people with money until elections are publicly funded. I never understand opposition to radical campaign finance reform, when the costs are neglible and the benefits of policians freed from dependence on wealthy special interests accrue to everyone.

McCain has taken some leadership on this, but even McCain's proposals are modest. To those who say radical campaign finance reforms will be struck down as being unconstitutional (abridgment of free speech), I say, let's draft a Constitutional amendment for publicly funded campaigns and solve the problem once and for all.

My hope for 2004 is a McCain/Powell independent ticket, but I'm not holding my breath.

[JackC]

Fansince62,

I feel really bad for you my friend. You really don't have a clue. At first I thought this person must be joking, now I realize you're serious! How sad for you.

If you think the person that was in charge the "first" day OBL planned the attacked is to blame you are not being very logical. The attack took place after 9 months of Dubya (1/5 of his entire term)

BTW I heard the Cole attack planning started in 1990. I wonder who was President then? Forget that point Cole doesn't compare to September 11th.

You have refuted none of my points, you just wanted to talk about Clinton's BJ's. By the way the planning for 9-11 went on while the stupid GOP congress unsuccessfully tried to remove a great President from office.

Out

[fansince62]

JackC.......you're a bigger fool than I imagined: that takes some doing. since i have been involved in this for most of my professional working life I can tell you unequivocably that the defense posture of this country deteriorated the most during the clinton siesta (over the last 20 years). were i so inclined i'ld explain to you with large lettered blocks and tinker toys how defense, intelligence, diplomacy and ACTION really work. i'ld demonstrate the thorough and fulsome lack of any foreign policy vision during the clinton years. i might take the time to show you how detailed evidence of terrorist movements started a long time ago. i might even be kind enough to return to the original thought that during clinton's watch nothing was done to arrest the growth of terroism other than lobbing a few tlams at defenseless chemical plants. the appropriate question for bush is "what are you doing about it?" the correct question for clinton is "why didn't you do anything about it?" so, please, while you're standing on the side-lines and others of us are fighting the real battles, have the decency not to rewrite history to fit your Freudian fears of what you believe bush is doing to you.