Anyone got a Problem with that Cause I DO !!!!
And I see a Patern forming in the White House which we DON'T NEED!!!!
2007-09-28 08:34:43 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Henry the 8th at the bottom
THAT WAS 25 YRS APART !!!!!
2007-09-28 08:40:47 · update #1
heres the 40 % FACT!!!!!!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070928/ap_on_el_pr/bush_clinton_fatigue
2007-09-28 08:50:47 · update #2
Indeed, I grew up in Canada and was amazed that they could put up with same round-robin group of buffoons ruling that country for thirty years.
Of course, I still consider Reagan's first term a pretty good time for the country (despite Democratic attempts to rewrite that part of history). Since then, however, eh...we could use some new blood. Then again, I'm not real impressed with any of the offerings this year. Ron Paul is my best match...but even him I have serious concerns over.
Edit: FYI, Brian, Bush sr. was VP under Reagan. The number includes everyone born since 1980. (27 and under) And, yes, 40% sounds close enough.
2007-09-28 08:40:58 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I have seen Johnson, Nixon, Peanut man, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton, W. Bush.
Imagine 4 to 8 years listening to Hillary screech. Her voice is like fingernails on a chalkboard.
2007-09-28 16:05:02 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't by it!
Bush's have been in 12 years and Clinton 4 years.. That is 16.!
Only 13 million Americans of 0ver 200 Million are age 0-19 The figures mean nothing!
The figures show that most Americans are 19 and older! I don't get the big deal. You can say the same thing about any single presidency in US History!
http://www.easternct.edu/personal/faculty/pocock/ranks.htm
2007-09-28 15:47:55 · answer #3 · answered by cantcu 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Now with our-girl-hill in the running…and the possibility of another eight years of classic clinton comedy…geez. I’m getting myself depressed.
However on a positive note, it looks like Hill could be the end of the dynasty since Chelsea hasn’t entered politics.
Edit for CU above:
(BJ was in office eight years not four.)
2007-09-28 15:48:56 · answer #4 · answered by GIVRO 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
In my parent's generation they grew up from elementary school through high school with a Roosevelt as Presient. So what. If someone can do the job why should the fact that a relative or mate have already been President. Did you know we have had related Presidents before.
John and John Quincy Adams were father and son
William Henery Harrison and Benjamin Harrison were grandfather and grand son
Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt were cousins.
2007-09-28 15:39:28 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
OMG I am soooo ready to rid us of the Bush/ Clinton reign. 2 terms of Hillary would be the coup de gras for this country.
2007-09-28 15:42:29 · answer #6 · answered by Reba 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes, there is a problem with that. But IF Hillary gets elected, and let's say she even gets reelected, there will be no one left to run in either family. Or maybe I should say there would be no one left that could win an election.
2007-09-28 15:38:11 · answer #7 · answered by Lisa M 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
40% seems a bit high. That means 40% of the population is under 19. I don't believe that is the case. You wouldn't happen to have a link to these stats, would you?.........
2007-09-28 15:38:48 · answer #8 · answered by Brian 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Its a shame they can't remember a White House that worked for the benefit of the people.
2007-09-28 15:37:32 · answer #9 · answered by Steve C 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
That statistic seems wrong.
Think about it. 40 percent of ALL AMERICANS are 19 or younger ?!? Huh ???
2007-09-28 15:41:42 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋