I think they're a cheap Nirvana clone band and I have no idea how they managed to pull a paycheck. The singer's voice drives me INSANE. I've always hated that song Glycerine. Makes me want to put anthrax on my nutsack.
In another words you went with the crap sandwich over th d-ouhe-bags. I hate 2 party system. I guess it beats the president getting 99% of the vote though.
I did not vote for him. 2000 was the first election I could vote in. I seriously thought he would be better than he was because 1. He had a dream team of a cabinet. 2. He was very good in Texas. I guess the problem is when your staff has so many Superstars there will be major conflict (which there was)
At least you didn't vote for him -- twice. My thoughts on George W. Bush is that he tried but didn't make good decisions on occasion. However, in a few months his Presidency will be in the past, so we can move on to ostracize the next POTUS.
I think by allowing Texas Concealed Carry and at least doing something to improve education a little, Bush showed himself as the best Governor of the past three or four.
I voted for him and I don't regret it. I don't like what he has turned out to become, but I don't know still if the alternatives were any good. What I regret is that republicans won Congress over while he was in office. Ideologues should not have their party controlling both branches. I regret that this is a lesson we will get again most likely from the next president.
I want to make an important point related to this: I only voted for Bush once (in 2000), and I don't regret it at all. Bush promised tax cuts, fiscal responsibility, and a more humble foreign policy. If a candidate runs on that platform, without giving me reason to disbelieve him, I will vote for him every time. It's a shame that he betrayed us so much, and I didn't vote for him again, but that doesn't make me regret my vote in 2000.
I think he did exactly what he was supposed to do. I personally don't think he could have executed his game plan at all. He was a nice front for whoever came up with the plan. As for the plan itself- I am totally against it. Republicans and Democrats all bow to the same agenda. That's why we don't get another choice. Part of their job is to be sure you don't understand that.
The reason we don't get another choice is not because both Dems and 'pubs have the same agenda, it is because a third party draws support from the side that it is closer to, and the other side wins as a result. The people that voted for Perot would more likely have gone for Bush than Clinton, while the people that voted for Nader would have been more likely to vote for Gore than Bush. Voting for a third party helps the people you least want to win come to power, and that is why there is no viable third party, and why anyone who votes for a third party candidate is either accomplishing nothing (most states swing so far one way or the other that the support a third party candidate gets will not make a difference) or helping to elect the person they least wanted to win.
Nope. Exit polling showed it was about equal with more Perot voters favoring Clinton. It also showed that if Perot had not been in the race, the margin between Clinton and Bush would have changed little... and without Perot, Clinton still wins a large Electoral Vote victory. The rest would have stayed home without Perot in the race. Some interesting findings from the exit polling... Furthermore, when Perot dropped out the first time, Clinton's polling went well over 50% while Bush's stayed about the same. When Perot got back in, Clinton's numbers went down while Bush's stayed about the same. Still, while the myth of Perot voters being Bush voters is simply not true, he did hurt Bush in other ways: All quotes from: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2519/is_n5_v13/ai_13975246/pg_1
