Perhaps you personally left Clinton alone, but many other people did not. There is always plenty of name-calling regardless of who is in the White House.
That aside, I feel that President Bush has adequately done the job that the people who voted him in wanted him to do.
2006-07-31 05:26:33
·
answer #1
·
answered by Witchy 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Let me tell you a little secret. When my daughter was a baby, I left her in the car went I bought gas. At that time there was no pay-at-the-pump, and rather than unstrapping her and lugging the carseat inside, it was easier to run in and pay. And it WASN'T a big deal. I could easily see the car. I'm not so paranoid as to believe that kidnappers lurk in gas stations waiting to steal infants. Nor did I worry that some stranger would call the police and I'd be arrested for being 50 feet away from my child for 2 minutes. If the mini-mart in question was, like most, designed with big glass windows, it's not a big deal. He could see her. EDIT: Faith's stories are completely different. 15 minutes isn't 2 minutes. Leaving the car running isn't turning the car off and taking the keys. A little common sense and sense of proportion goes a long way. EDIT" IR's 'the baby could have died in the hot car?' In 2 minutes? So ... when you buy gas I assume that you take baby out of the car and set the carseat in the parking lot so baby won't die in the hot car? There is nothing 'immature' about common sense and not panicking over what 'could happen' in the most extreme and remote scenarios. EDIT: Shana -- while I'm not a kidnapper, and don't know how they think, if I WAS a kidnapper, I can think of many more sensible places to seek out victims than a busy gas-station where there are people coming and going all the time, (people who would surely notice me breaking the car window to get the baby out), where the child's parent is likely watching the car and will re-appear at any second, and where there are probably video-cameras monitoring the lot.
2016-03-27 08:38:05
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
There isn't a question in there, but I will add my comments. All leaders, by the sake of assuming the position expose themselves to critisism from opponents. Clinton was hardly left alone by anyone, except the liberal media which chose to lightly publish his wrongdoings from the angle that the conservatives were attacking him. It was news, so they reported it from a kind vantage point.
Bush is under attack for all of the same reasons. His opponents want the White House back and will not stop at anything to do it. They support him by voting for something (such as Iraq) and then two days later condemn him for the same action they just supported. They claim that he lied about WMD's or mislead Congress....well I'm hear to tell you that Congress is generally better informed than the President when it comes to Intelligence Reporting. They had all the same information (if not more) than the President did.
2006-07-31 03:57:25
·
answer #3
·
answered by tjjone 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
As is expected of you, Mrs. Paige, another stupid diatribe written in a hysterical manner using no shred of logic.
George Bush is doing 'god's work' about as effectively as you are--that is, to put it mildly, pathetically. The difference is that you seem to really believe that's what you're doing, whereas Bush is only catering to the right wing religious wackos for the power he derives, he knows as well as everyone else it's nothing to do with god.
And you people didn't call Clinton names? You left him alone?
Apparently you somehow missed Ken Starr's 15 minutes of fame? Was your head was stuck so far up god's a55 then that you weren't aware that Clinton was IMPEACHED!
2006-07-31 06:02:30
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Wow...where do I begin to respond to this? Maybe you should go rinse your eyes out with some holy water so God will grant you some insight. Just because someone is "religious" doesn't make them a good person, or anything close to a descent president. In fact, if you check out the profiles of many of the serial killers caught and convicted in the U.S. in the last 50 years, I'm sure you'll find many of those monsters to be "men of God". We live in a free country but under the Bush regime many of us will lose our everyday freedoms and constitutional rights if something doesn't change. The poor will get poorer and the sick will get sicker and the environment will decline to the point that our children's children will not be able to play outdoors because the air quality is so bad or the temperature is too hot. And remember, it's not for you, it's not for me, it's not for God, an it's definitely not for America. It's all for the money and the oil for Mr. Bush and his friends and family. NO REPUBLICANS IN '08 PLEASE!!!
2006-07-31 04:01:10
·
answer #5
·
answered by L.A. in F.W. 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Mrs. Paige, you are a liar.
Clinton was put through the ringer. He was IMPEACHED, you uniformed nitwit.
And as far as George Bush being a moral leader and man of god:
1) started a PREemptive war
2) paid for his girlfriend's abortion back in Tx when it was illegal
3) does NOTHING for the poor & looks out for the rich: that is an INVERSION of christian values
4) is actually pro-choice. He has stated that... and I quote: "The country is not ready for Roe v. Wade to be overturned" Oh, he says that HE doesn't believe in abortion, but has stated that we won't seek to overturn it.
etc
etc
You've been played, Mrs. Paige. The GOP panders to the religious right every election year, and in non-election years completely ignores you.
Unfortunately, the religious right is too stupid to the fact that they're being used, and it's been going on for decades.
2006-07-31 03:58:01
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Um, we most certainly did see people calling CLinton names... actually, the Christian Right Wing wanted to Impeach him... not only for the Adultery... but for also going after Osama Bin Laden who was then a known terrorists and was on the top 10 list of Most Wanted by the FBI.... They didn't want to spend our money going after him, so they dogged Clinton into backing out. These are the same "Christians" who are all for this war. Spend more money on a war that could have been prevented by an Adulterer that they made fun of even After he got out of office. Now maybe YOU left Clinton alone... but YOU can hardly speak for all Christians. You can only speak for YOURSELF.
And this is America.... Freedom of Speech?? remember that one??? We can say whatever we want about a president. We are ALLOWED to have an opinion about this, just as you are allowed to SCREAM at everyone cause you disagree. I suggest you accept this freedom for what it is... a freedom EVERYONE shares... and either you learn to deal with it... or you look this foolish all the time. Which is rather amusing...... You are exercizing your Right to say what you want, but you are Demanding that everyone else give up that Right. Just makes me wonder if you are a member of the Christian Right Wing.
2006-07-31 03:57:15
·
answer #7
·
answered by Kithy 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Is this really a question... The only question I see is after "We left Clinton alone?" but that isn't a question either. Please refrain from spreading your doctrine and next time make a question before you post.
However, in response to your statement I do have something to say and it is very short and sweet:
We left Clinton alone because he was actually a good president; smart, respectful, and all around someone you were proud of to be your president. It doens't matter if you are a 'MAN OF GOD' it matters if you are a 'LEADER OF THE PEOPLE' cause after all that is what the president is supposed to be!
2006-07-31 03:55:27
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
George W. Bush is the worst "president" in history -- he doesn't deserve the capitalization of the word. He is a living horror. He is a liar and a mass murderer. If he is a Christian, lady, Christianity is an evil, horrendous thing, nothing at all like its namesake intended. I can't begin to imagine the terrible karma Bush has in store for him. He is the closest thing to EVIL there has ever been in American politics. And if he's not an adulterer on top of everything else horrid he is, it's either because he's incapable of having sex or no woman would have him.
2006-07-31 03:55:10
·
answer #9
·
answered by Sweetchild Danielle 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
I'm relatively supportive of many of Bush's policies, but he is the president, and that is a role that should always be questioned, no matter who you are (even if he were an actual clergy) Our nation is set up with checks and balances for that very purpose...and do remember Clinton was impeached, he wasn't left all alone.
2006-07-31 03:54:46
·
answer #10
·
answered by daisyk 6
·
0⤊
0⤋