<p>I never said that the Peace Prize measure's a person's worth (although it does to a certain extent). Even though Jimmy Carter wasnt a good president, the Nobel Prize showed that he was really passionate about making a difference even after he lost his presidency. I dont see Bush Sr doing anything similar! hmmmm.......</p>
<p>So I guess Bush, Sr.'s efforts with the tsunami doesn't count? You don't see his efforts because you don't want to see his efforts.</p>
<p>thats pretty much like a date rapist donating 5$ to a women's shelter.
Indonesia contains the largest amount of muslims in the world. Let's just say that the Bush family arent too keen on muslim interests. In fact, they are very closely tied with the dictatorial power elite in Saudi Arabia as detailed in House of Bush, House of Saud</p>
<p>i think its a little bit more than 5$ even in your analogy.</p>
<p>So I guess Bush, Sr.'s efforts with the tsunami doesn't count? You don't see his efforts because you don't want to see his efforts.</p>
<p>Thanks for the laughs :) Compare his efforts to REAL Nobel prize winners. You'll see the difference!!</p>
<p>every day ppl do not have to win awards to show that they have made a difference. (oh and Bush is working alongside Clinton so if your bashing Bush's efforts your bashing Clintons! haha :))</p>
<p>I guess you are right. But remember, Clinton served two terms while Bush Sr. served ONE. Clinton is way better as President than Bush Sr. Their presidential debates speaks for themselves :)</p>
<p>clinton is the biggest liar ever to be in the white house...I would equate his scandal the next biggest to Nixons</p>
<p>Well I guess that makes George W. Bush a good President then since he is serving two terms. I'm glad you finally see the light!</p>
<p>dubya is by no measure a good president</p>
<p>A lot of questionable presidents have served two terms, it means very little.</p>
<p>As far as Clinton's scandle, I would not put it on par with Nixon's. What Clinton did look terrible for the US, Nixon cheated to win. I'm not a big Clinton supporter, but at least he did not cheat to get his office.</p>
<p>I personally dont care who the president gets action from</p>
<p>The issue wasn't that he had the affair per se, but that he committed perjury.</p>
<p>Well I guess that makes George W. Bush a good President then since he is serving two terms. I'm glad you finally see the light!</p>
<p>Clinton EARNED his presidency. Bush became Gov. because of his father's position. Just wonder:Clinto went from rags to US presidency. Bush is a daddy's boy. </p>
<p>Like sempitern555 said, you are those who will attend fake town hall meetings and applaud the ridiculous activities of the Bush twins because
they need your support! :)</p>
<p>Are you serious? I am seriously doubting that you ever went to school with a statement like that. Bush, Sr. cannot elect Governors! HAHAHAHAHA. It's called voting; I don't know, maybe you've heard of it? Bush, Jr. and Clinton were elected the exact same way buddy. You have a huge case of inverse-snobbery against the wealthy class of America. I'm sorry if you feel the need to put down other people's accomplishments to make yourself feel better. And last time I checked, Bush received the most votes of any President in US history in the 2004 election.</p>
<p>Bush, Sr. cannot elect Governors!</p>
<p>Are YOU serious?? Bush Jr. became popular because of his father. Common Sense!!! Bush is a daddy's boy. You cant debate against it!! Sorry :) (this same idea applies to the Kennedys).</p>
<p>Bush received the most votes of any President in US history in the 2004 election.</p>
<p>Give the source! I'll tear it apart!! You and your crazy sources hahah</p>
<p>Actually, he received the largest number of popular votes, but I don't know about share. He certainly didn't win the most electoral votes, which are what matters anyway.</p>
<p>Yeah, he became popular because of his father. But his father didn't elect him, so to say he became Governor because of his father is entirely incorrect. I'm pretty sure the average person can differentiate between a father and his son so they knew full well who they were voting for.</p>
<p>Here you go primitive. Feel free to tear Wikipedia up!</p>
<p>"Bush received the largest number of votes of any Presidential candidate in U.S. history."</p>
<p>"The counties where Bush led in the popular vote amount to 83% of the geographic area of the U.S."</p>
<p>"The election marked the first time an incumbent president was re-elected while his political party increased its numbers in both houses of Congress since Lyndon Johnson in the 1964 election. It was the first time for a Republican since William McKinley in the 1900 election."</p>
<p>"I'm pretty sure the average person can differentiate between a father and his son so they knew full well who they were voting for"
no, name recognition is actually very important to the majority of dumb voters</p>
<p>""The election marked the first time an incumbent president was re-elected while his political party increased its numbers in both houses of Congress since Lyndon Johnson in the 1964 election. It was the first time for a Republican since William McKinley in the 1900 election.""</p>
<p>that happened because Delay and TRMPAC illegally gerrymandered districts in between the normal census redistricting to get those results. btw, a texas court recently convicted a Delay associate guilty of wrongdoing</p>
<p>who cares if Hick County in Montana went for Dubya. the actual land area has nothing to do with the total number of votes</p>
<p>Well too bad for you that these "dumb" voters choose the Republican Party! HAHAHAHA.</p>
<p>It's really sad that Democrats don't accept the results of any election they have ever lost. They are always there to make excuses. But you know what? Your excuses don't make up for your loss. Continue making excuses and we'll continue to gain more power in Congress.</p>