I saw this one coming ever since he signed that law making fetuses (sp?) eligible for healthcare

not starting an pro life pro choice thread here - I have a bad feeling though that this is the first step to banning abortion completely. Its not going to stop the "baby killing" if a woman wants to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy that much, she'll do it - Mexico and Canada aren't that far away and to a woman who is desperate, anything will do.

Instead of babies dying - we will reverse the problem and have women dying from sepsis or blood loss from improper closet abortions.

That article mentions DPhiE alumna Senator Barbara Boxer.

I'm anti-bush too, I'm strictly dickly. :cool:

wow, wasnt that saying used 7436462 years ago back when people were still monkeys?

What answer would sastify you? :cool:

It's important to point out in terms of this discussion that the link was to an editorial -- not a news story.

Which doesn't mean it isn't right, but it is not offered by the Times as Fact -- rather as Opinion.

Having said that, one of my problems with this President is that he and his administration have been deceptive about a number of things.

Not that this is directly about Bush, but I thought my liberal GC friends would want to hear about it...
I saw a bumper stick a while back. It had an American flag with little white doves as the stars and it said "Peace is Patriotic". I loved it!!! Wish I could find it somewhere!

Odd.

From the title, I thought this thread was about depilation ;)

Ouch!

I think the reason people are nostalgic for Clinton is that things were in general pretty good back then, save for his sexual escapades in the O.O. I will say that his foreign policy was much better than some of his predecessors and certainly better than the current regime. Wow did I just say regime? It does sort of feel like a mass conspiracy of sorts is lurking out there, but at least it only has to last a year and 4 months.

True - historians I have read or heard speak put Clinton at middle of the road, at best. The only citation that comes to mind is Robert Dallek, a top Presidential historian who I have taken lectures with, and Dallek places Clinton in the lower/bottom half of Presidents.

Actually, your thought isn't so non-traditional; a great deal many more scholars are looking at the economic impacts of presidents after their administrations. It's more widely accepted now to say that, yes, even if a President was in office for good economic times, they were not necessarily of his own doing.

I think people have to draw the line between a good President and a good politician. Clinton is a damn good politician - his public speaking is excellent, he works crowds well, and he fits the TV generation to a T. Does this mean he was a good President? Not necessarily.

I don't know - I was a Clinton supporter at first, but as time has gone on and I've read more in history, I wouldn't repeat that statement.

How did I forget about this thread?

I will bump it with this

http://home.comcast.net/~andryeevna/...ushforpres.jpg