Historians say Bush is a failure and worst president ever

[Phyxius]

Source (http://hnn.us/articles/48916.html)

In an informal survey of 109 professional historians conducted over a three-week period through the History News Network, 98.2 percent assessed the presidency of Mr. Bush to be a failure while 1.8 percent classified it as a success.

Asked to rank the presidency of George W. Bush in comparison to those of the other 41 American presidents, more than 61 percent of the historians concluded that the current presidency is the worst in the nation’s history. Another 35 percent of the historians surveyed rated the Bush presidency in the 31st to 41st category, while only four of the 109 respondents ranked the current presidency as even among the top two-thirds of American administrations.

The reason for the hesitancy some historians had in categorizing the Bush presidency as the worst ever, which led them to place it instead in the “nearly the worst� group, was well expressed by another historian who said, “It is a bit too early to judge whether Bush's presidency is the worst ever, though it certainly has a shot to take the title. Without a doubt, it is among the worst.�

“No individual president can compare to the second Bush,� wrote one. “Glib, contemptuous, ignorant, incurious, a dupe of anyone who humors his deluded belief in his heroic self, he has bankrupted the country with his disastrous war and his tax breaks for the rich, trampled on the Bill of Rights, appointed foxes in every henhouse, compounded the terrorist threat, turned a blind eye to torture and corruption and a looming ecological disaster, and squandered the rest of the world’s goodwill. In short, no other president’s faults have had so deleterious an effect on not only the country but the world at large.�

“With his unprovoked and disastrous war of aggression in Iraq and his monstrous deficits, Bush has set this country on a course that will take decades to correct,� said another historian. “When future historians look back to identify the moment at which the United States began to lose its position of world leadership, they will point—rightly—to the Bush presidency. Thanks to his policies, it is now easy to see America losing out to its competitors in any number of area: China is rapidly becoming the manufacturing powerhouse of the next century, India the high tech and services leader, and Europe the region with the best quality of life.�

One historian indicated that his reason for rating Bush as worst is that the current president combines traits of some of his failed predecessors: “the paranoia of Nixon, the ethics of Harding and the good sense of Herbert Hoover. . . . . God willing, this will go down as the nadir of American politics.� Another classified Bush as “an ideologue who got the nation into a totally unnecessary war, and has broken the Constitution more often than even Nixon. He is not a conservative, nor a Christian, just an immoral man . . . .� Still another remarked that Bush’s “denial of any personal responsibility can only be described as silly.�

“It would be difficult to identify a President who, facing major international and domestic crises, has failed in both as clearly as President Bush,� concluded one respondent. “His domestic policies,� another noted, “have had the cumulative effect of shoring up a semi-permanent aristocracy of capital that dwarfs the aristocracy of land against which the founding fathers rebelled; of encouraging a mindless retreat from science and rationalism; and of crippling the nation’s economic base.�

“George Bush has combined mediocrity with malevolent policies and has thus seriously damaged the welfare and standing of the United States,� wrote one of the historians, echoing the assessments of many of his professional colleagues. “Bush does only two things well,� said one of the most distinguished historians. “He knows how to make the very rich very much richer, and he has an amazing talent for f**king up everything else he even approaches. His administration has been the most reckless, dangerous, irresponsible, mendacious, arrogant, self-righteous, incompetent, and deeply corrupt one in all of American history.�

:madlaugh: :madlaugh: :madlaugh:

[Scribbler1]

I tend to agree, at least in my own personal experience he has been the worst president I have ever seen.

[Buck Laser]

I tend to agree, at least in my own personal experience he has been the worst president I have ever seen.

Historians will be reassessing him from now on, but it's hard to see how he could rise in anyone's estimation.

[PatrickHenry]

Secretive, too.

Both evil AND stupid.

I must agree, Scribbler. Worst...President...Ever...

[Go Fish]

A survey of me says that 109 historians are wrong. Bad presidents get impeached, and only one has ever had an impeachment stick. Oddly enough, Jimmy Carter beats Clinton out for being the worst ever.
Speaking of Jimmy Carter......(From the same site): http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/49058.html

[ViolaLee]

Bad Presidents only get impeached when the congress is good.

98.2% of the historians say Bush is a failure.

“No individual president can compare to the second Bush,� wrote one. “Glib, contemptuous, ignorant, incurious, a dupe of anyone who humors his deluded belief in his heroic self, he has bankrupted the country with his disastrous war and his tax breaks for the rich, trampled on the Bill of Rights, appointed foxes in every henhouse, compounded the terrorist threat, turned a blind eye to torture and corruption and a looming ecological disaster, and squandered the rest of the world’s goodwill. In short, no other president’s faults have had so deleterious an effect on not only the country but the world at large.�

My sentiments exactly.

[Phyxius]

A survey of me says that 109 historians are wrong. Bad presidents get impeached, and only one has ever had an impeachment stick. Oddly enough, Jimmy Carter beats Clinton out for being the worst ever.
Speaking of Jimmy Carter......(From the same site): http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/49058.html



Weak, but typical. Is that the best you can do? :madlaugh:

[Scribbler1]

A survey of me says that 109 historians are wrong. Bad presidents get impeached, and only one has ever had an impeachment stick.Okay, that's one person surveyed. I say he IS a bad president.

Which makes your survey even, I would say.

Normally, when these threads come up I ask the Bush supporters to name 5 things he is proven to have done well. But I gave that up since it only results in a battle of opinion against opinion and multiple VERY subjective references to the Iraq war.

[Phyxius]

A survey of me says that 109 historians are wrong. Bad presidents get impeached, and only one has ever had an impeachment stick.Okay, that's one person surveyed. I say he IS a bad president.

Which makes your survey even, I would say.

Normally, when these threads come up I ask the Bush supporters to name 5 things he is proven to have done well. But I gave that up since it only results in a battle of opinion against opinion and multiple VERY subjective references to the Iraq war.


Well, that and the old fallback of "Clinton got a blowjob!!!!" http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a176/Hasatude5150/rolleyes.gif

Pathetic, weak and mind-numbingly predictable. Just like the guy they're trying to defend... http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a176/Hasatude5150/beatinoff.gif

[Scribbler1]

Well, I for one don't find it funny. I'm sick and tired of having my country and its people looked at as laughingstocks because of the fool at the top.

[Trish]

Often with history, the further in the past it is, the more clear the picture. I suspect it will be that way with the Bush presidency as well. When one is living the history everything tends to be pretty one-sided. Distance offers a clearer, more complete picture, both good and bad.

[ViolaLee]

I don't find it funny either. I'm also sick and tired of the world's bad opinion of us. I'm looking forward to being proud of my country again, when President Obama takes office.

[Scribbler1]

Often with history, the further in the past it is, the more clear the picture. I suspect it will be that way with the Bush presidency as well. When one is living the history everything tends to be pretty one-sided. Distance offers a clearer, more complete picture, both good and bad.
I take some amount of pride in trying to see both sides of any picture, and I see very little good in this Administration.

In fact, I used to see Bush in a much different light right after 9/11. I thought he did and said EVERYTHING right. A leader and even something of an inspiration, or so I thought.
I don't think I need history to tell me what I already know.

[Go Fish]

Well, which policies of his are being laughed at? If you're talking about things like "misunderestimate" and "disassembling", they can't hold a candle to Jimmy Carter freaking out and trying to kill a swimming rabbit in self-defense.
All of Bush's economic figures are or have been the best in the history of the United States. We're kicking the shit out of the terrorists, and despite what all the MSM say, doing so without impacting the guy on the street. As for justification for holding Hussein accountable, it has been Pri-1 since early in the Clinton years. I could post all of the statements from Clinton's mouth, and those of his administration wherein they correctly discuss Hussein's WMD stockpiles and programs again, but for some reason there is a small group of people who refuse to believe that they were ever uttered. Bush didn't make that stuff up. He DID decide to actively fight back, however, and that doesn't sit well with those who believe in the concept of "Strength Through Weakness".
As for "squandering the good will of the world", I'd much rather be a hated victor than a revered corpse.
Was your phone tapped? Neither was mine. Do I care what happens to jihadists who are captured in their homes and whisked off to Guantanamo? No. Once we kill 3,000 innocent jihadists, then I'll start worrying about them. We are at war, and it's time people recognized that fact. We didn't start it, and it looks like it's going to be a long time before we end it, but we have to fight it. Presidents with balls understand such concepts and act on them, because the alternative, the one which the left screams and cries for, is surrender and destruction.
Right now, I put President Bush in 3rd place, right behind Ronald Reagan and George Washington.

[Phyxius]

Well, I for one don't find it funny. I'm sick and tired of having my country and its people looked at as laughingstocks because of the fool at the top.


Well, I used to be disgusted, now I'm just amused... http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a176/Hasatude5150/icon_smile_wink.gif

[Phyxius]

Right now, I put President Bush in 3rd place, right behind Ronald Reagan and George Washington.


That has to be the funniest thing I've read all day. Thanks for the laugh, GoFish... http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a176/Hasatude5150/lmao.gif

[nevadamedic]

I tend to agree, at least in my own personal experience he has been the worst president I have ever seen.


Blah. You obviously wern't alive when Jimmy Carter was President.

We have never had a popular President during a time of war. Eventually President Bush will be labeled as one of the greatest if not the greatest President in our countries history.

[4Reaganomics]

I wonder what people think of the Democrat majority congress?

22% approval rating right now

It has a much greater chance at getting voted the worst ever than Bush does as president

This incorporates a couple of different polls

I don't deny that Bush is seen by many as the worst president in recent history, only because people don't realize how bad the gas lines and pure idiotic price ceilings of Jimmy Carter were

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_United_States_Presidents

This shows USA today Gallop as recently as a year and a half ago declaring that GW BUSH is seen as average or above by about 46% of people, and the WSJ poll has him ahead of Clinton in 05

Time will tell the true tale, but as far as 98% calling the Bush presidency a failure i'd think again

The main thing that George W. Bush did was nominate Roberts and Alito, this decision will help influence the country for the better over the next 30 years

[Phyxius]

I tend to agree, at least in my own personal experience he has been the worst president I have ever seen.


Blah. You obviously wern't alive when Jimmy Carter was President.

We have never had a popular President during a time of war. Eventually President Bush will be labeled as one of the greatest if not the greatest President in our countries history.



I stand corrected -- THAT was the funniest thing I've read today... http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a176/Hasatude5150/laughing.gif

[Buck Laser]

Right now, I put President Bush in 3rd place, right behind Ronald Reagan and George Washington.

Wow! Do you really put Reagan and Washington that low? I might agree on Reagan, but I figured you'd LIKE him.

[nevadamedic]

Right now, I put President Bush in 3rd place, right behind Ronald Reagan and George Washington.

Wow! Do you really put Reagan and Washington that low? I might agree on Reagan, but I figured you'd LIKE him.


Your just mad that your party has never produced a President that could compare to President Reagan or even President Bush.

[4Reaganomics]

I'm pretty sure he means Reagan number one, you know the guy who won the entire cold war without firing a single shot and saw tremendous economic growth to the tune of 20 million new jobs

[NortheastCynic]

I wouldn't call this President our worst, but he may be among the top 5 worst of all time.

My list would look something like this:
Worst: Franklin Delano Roosevelt
2nd: Andrew Jackson
3rd: James Buchanan
4th:LBJ
5th: George W. Bush

What all four of these President have in common is an utter contempt for the law. FDR set up concentration camps, jailed reporters and pushed several unconstitutional pieces of legislation through, Jackson completed the genocide of the American Indians, Buchanan did nothing to prevent the Civil War, LBJ failed at everything he attempted to do as President and that brings us to the current George Bush. He shows a contempt for the law by imprisoning individuals [most of whom are probably guilty] without charging and trying them, torturing, illegally tapping phones and issuing audacious signing statements. He has, with the exception of the current surge, handled Iraq terribly. He has done very little in moving the country toward a renewable source of energy. He has been a fiscal disaster, etc. etc.

He just isn't a very good President. But he's not our worst.

-NC

[Go Fish]

Okay, now we're conversing. Please define "fiscal disaster" as it applies to any of Bush's policies. As specifically as you can.

[Buck Laser]

Your just mad that your party has never produced a President that could compare to President Reagan or even President Bush.

And when I say my prayers at night, I thank God for that daily. :innocent:

[NortheastCynic]

http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_media/TheNationalDebt.html

These charts do a good job of explaining what I mean.

-NC

[nevadamedic]

I wouldn't call this President our worst, but he may be among the top 5 worst of all time.

My list would look something like this:
Worst: Franklin Delano Roosevelt
2nd: Andrew Jackson
3rd: James Buchanan
4th:LBJ
5th: George W. Bush

What all four of these President have in common is an utter contempt for the law. FDR set up concentration camps, jailed reporters and pushed several unconstitutional pieces of legislation through, Jackson completed the genocide of the American Indians, Buchanan did nothing to prevent the Civil War, LBJ failed at everything he attempted to do as President and that brings us to the current George Bush. He shows a contempt for the law by imprisoning individuals [most of whom are probably guilty] without charging and trying them, torturing, illegally tapping phones and issuing audacious signing statements. He has, with the exception of the current surge, handled Iraq terribly. He has done very little in moving the country toward a renewable source of energy. He has been a fiscal disaster, etc. etc.

He just isn't a very good President. But he's not our worst.

-NC


The only one I agree with on there is FDR. You also left our very immoral, off on weekend visits with his mistress arranged by his children.

[4Reaganomics]

I agree with FDR as being one of the worst

I'd also like to bring a new prospective on the thread


In 2004 George W. Bush won re-election. If the election was held today Bush would hold some states and probably lose a general election. He would be a lock for at least 20 states won.

Carter won a mere 49 delegates in 1980. If Bush ran today, the people would give him much more than 49 delegates. So George W. Bush after his body of work would do much better than Jimmy Carter did after his body of work.

Christ he could win texas, one state to Carter's four, and have more delegates

[Buck Laser]

I agree with FDR as being one of the worst

I'd also like to bring a new prospective on the thread


In 2004 George W. Bush won re-election. If the election was held today Bush would hold some states and probably lose a general election. He would be a lock for at least 20 states won.

Carter won a mere 49 delegates in 1980. If Bush ran today, the people would give him much more than 49 delegates. So George W. Bush after his body of work would do much better than Jimmy Carter did after his body of work.

Christ he could win texas, one state to Carter's four, and have more delegates

No. He couldn't win Texas. Not even the panhandle.

[nevadamedic]

I agree with FDR as being one of the worst

I'd also like to bring a new prospective on the thread


In 2004 George W. Bush won re-election. If the election was held today Bush would hold some states and probably lose a general election. He would be a lock for at least 20 states won.

Carter won a mere 49 delegates in 1980. If Bush ran today, the people would give him much more than 49 delegates. So George W. Bush after his body of work would do much better than Jimmy Carter did after his body of work.

Christ he could win texas, one state to Carter's four, and have more delegates


I think President Bush would do a lot better then that and would win another election.

Also President Bush won a second term where Carter did not. :ecstatic:

[Go Fish]

http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_media/TheNationalDebt.html

These charts do a good job of explaining what I mean.

-NC


Those figures are on the mark. Now, if one superimposes 9/11, Hurricane Katrina and the GWOT, they are surprising only because they are not worse.

http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_media/TheNationalDebtImages/ReceiptsOutlays.gif
Looking at this chart, you can see an inversion in the historically parallel tracks between taxation and government utilization of those taxes. For some reason, Clinton felt it necessary to retroactively tax us (He instituted an additional tax on a previous year, which, while not illegal, has only been done one other time in the history of the US) even though he didn't spend that money on things like the levees in NOLA, counter-terrorism, or armoring our Humvees. He didn't pay off any loans with it. He took it from us and then waved it in our faces similar to what a pimp does to his whores.

[4Reaganomics]

Bush wins at least half of the state McCain wins in the general this year. That is much better than Carter did in 1980. They can deny the fact all day long, buit the truth is Carter and Mondayle were rejected in favor of Reagan in some of the biggest land slides in history.

[Scribbler1]

I tend to agree, at least in my own personal experience he has been the worst president I have ever seen.


Blah. You obviously wern't alive when Jimmy Carter was President.You're a little off the mark on that one, but it doesn't matter. We are both alive now, and Bush is president. Don't dwell in the past if you're looking for a scapegoat to attempt to make Bush look good by comparison. It doesn't wash. That's as childish as saying "well, Johnny did it too" and it doesn't exempt Bush for being responsible for what HE did.
I have no love for Carter, but even HE wasn't as bad as Bush.
We have never had a popular President during a time of war. Eventually President Bush will be labeled as one of the greatest if not the greatest President in our countries history.If you say so.

[Scribbler1]

Bush wins at least half of the state McCain wins in the general this year. That is much better than Carter did in 1980. They can deny the fact all day long, buit the truth is Carter and Mondayle were rejected in favor of Reagan in some of the biggest land slides in history.
Which means exactly what? You act like an incumbent never lost a reelection bid.

[Go Fish]

This one shows what Clinton's tax policies did to the GDP. Tax revenue went up, and business revenue went down. Note Bush's % of deficit WRT the entirety of the chart.

http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_media/TheNationalDebtImages/ReceiptsOutlaysPercentGDP.gif

[Go Fish]

Here's where one needs to superimpose a time line of the events I mentioned earlier.
http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_media/TheNationalDebtImages/DeficitRealDollars1941-2009.gif

[Phyxius]

Here's where one needs to superimpose a time line of the events I mentioned earlier.
http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_media/TheNationalDebtImages/DeficitRealDollars1941-2009.gif



Hmmm...

So, debt went DOWN during Carter (77-81), UP during Regan and Bush I (81-93), DOWN RADICALLY during Clinton (93-2001) and then higher than it's ever been during Bush. Not really helping your case there, Go Fish... :madlaugh:

[sam]

I wouldn't call this President our worst, but he may be among the top 5 worst of all time.

My list would look something like this:
Worst: Franklin Delano Roosevelt
2nd: Andrew Jackson
3rd: James Buchanan
4th:LBJ
5th: George W. Bush

What all four of these President have in common is an utter contempt for the law. FDR set up concentration camps, jailed reporters and pushed several unconstitutional pieces of legislation through, Jackson completed the genocide of the American Indians, Buchanan did nothing to prevent the Civil War, LBJ failed at everything he attempted to do as President and that brings us to the current George Bush. He shows a contempt for the law by imprisoning individuals [most of whom are probably guilty] without charging and trying them, torturing, illegally tapping phones and issuing audacious signing statements. He has, with the exception of the current surge, handled Iraq terribly. He has done very little in moving the country toward a renewable source of energy. He has been a fiscal disaster, etc. etc.

He just isn't a very good President. But he's not our worst.

-NC

He is definately in the bottom 5 for me for that exact same reason. That, and his continued, shameless use of the events of 9/11 to instill such fear and paranoia into the mind of the public who are more than willing to eliminate our civil liberties in the illusion they will be protected from the terrorists.

[Go Fish]

Hmmm...

So, debt went DOWN during Carter (77-81), UP during Regan and Bush I (81-93), DOWN RADICALLY during Clinton (93-2001) and then higher than it's ever been during Bush. Not really helping your case there, Go Fish... :madlaugh:

It does seem that being friends with terrorists is cheaper than combating them, doesn't it?

[Easy90]

Yeah, I see your point. I mean...using the terrorist attack that caused over a trillion dollars in damage, and killed 3000 innocent people to "instill fear" is really low down. Why...it's almost like FDR's over-reaction to a similar, but less deadly attack on America in 1941 when he went all "Cheney" and rounded up innocent Americans and put them in "concentration camps." And everyone knows that Bush and Karl Rove PLANNED the attacks and blew up those buildings themselves...just like the levies in New Orleans! To THINK that they would want to listen in on foreign terrorists phone calls, and put terrorists in jails is OUTRAGEOUS!

[Elrathin]

GWB, WORST PRESIDENT EVER! Thank god he leaves office in less than a year, good riddance and hope the door doesn't slam his ass on the way out.....wait a minute, yes I do.

[AnnEsthesia]

How anyone can say that Bush is the best president and actually mean it is just bizarre to me.

[preservanation]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bad Presidents only get impeached when the congress is good.
LOL.
Exactly!

What happens when congress is bad and the POTUS is good?
The current situation!

[AnnEsthesia]

Bullshit preserva. If this president was not hiding everything behind the curtain of 'national security' and the VP was not claiming absurdities like 'the VP office is not part of the Executive Branch" etc etc ad nauseum, then we would all know just how slimy these people are. I can only hope that when a dem gets into office, they expose all the illegal and immoral crap that has been going on.

[preservanation]

Bullshit preserva. If this president was not hiding everything behind the curtain of 'national security' and the VP was not claiming absurdities like 'the VP office is not part of the Executive Branch" etc etc ad nauseum, then we would all know just how slimy these people are. I can only hope that when a dem gets into office, they expose all the illegal and immoral crap that has been going on.Good luck with that.
They'll be so busy covering up what their doing, it'll leave little time for wild goose chases.

[AnnEsthesia]

Well, with the new coverup laws that Bush has in place, they will not have to try very hard.

[Pookie]

Well, we do know what Bush thinks of the Constitution. Just a [expletive deleted] piece of paper.
That is sad. I can't think of any other POTUS ever, ever saying that.

[Go Fish]

When did he say that?

[NortheastCynic]

When did he say that?
He didn't. This is a myth.
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/print_did_president_bush_call_the_constitution_a.h tml

-NC

[Go Fish]

I know that Al Gore considers the constitution to be alterable/dismissible. It's funny to see a liberal falsely apply Al Gore's attitude toward our constitution to President Bush, insinuating that the mentality is horribly wrong.
It IS horribly wrong, but it's the left's credo, not George Bush's. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_200601/ai_n17180302

Man, that's gonn'a leave a mark.........

[AnnEsthesia]

Gee GoFish, care to cite that fiction?

[apdst]

Bush is the worst, compared to who? Carter? Hoover? Johnston?

What was their comparative data? Illegal imprisonment? FDR did it. Illegal wiretaps? FDR did that, too.

This is nothing but another Libbo spoof-fest.

After Obama gets elected, Gitmo prison is going tos till be going strong, the war will be still be on and there will still be unwarranted wiretaps of foreign calls. Just a little dose of reality, there.

[NortheastCynic]

Bush is the worst, compared to who? Carter? Hoover? Johnston?

What was their comparative data? Illegal imprisonment? FDR did it. Illegal wiretaps? FDR did that, too.

This is nothing but another Libbo spoof-fest.

After Obama gets elected, Gitmo prison is going tos till be going strong, the war will be still be on and there will still be unwarranted wiretaps of foreign calls. Just a little dose of reality, there.
That's exactly why I believe FDR is worse than the current President, he took what the current President is doing and magnified it exponentially. He was truly dictatorial.

-NC

[Go Fish]

Gee GoFish, care to cite that fiction?

Look it up yourself. You DO know how to do stuff like that, don't you? If you can't keep up, please drop out.

[Elrathin]

If you can't keep up, please drop out.

Translation: You can't back it up.

[Phyxius]

Translation: You can't back it up.

As is the case with all the Reich-wingers here...

[Go Fish]

I "fronted it up". Seriously, the ball is in your court. Your tactic of acting stupid might work in some arenas, but I don't owe anyone an explanation of something I've already explained. I'm trying to be nice. Then again, I do have a pretty hefty buffer on that Warning Points thing.
Stop dragging rational discussion into the gutter, Anne.

[AnnEsthesia]

Excuse me, I asked you to cite your references. You made a post with an accusation, you need to back it up. How, exactly, is that dragging it to the gutter? If you are unable to back up your statements, then this is hardly a 'rational' discussion.

[Phyxius]

I "fronted it up". Seriously, the ball is in your court. Your tactic of acting stupid might work in some arenas, but I don't owe anyone an explanation of something I've already explained. I'm trying to be nice. Then again, I do have a pretty hefty buffer on that Warning Points thing.
Stop dragging rational discussion into the gutter, Anne.

Well, to be honest here, you "fronted up" a Reich-wing editorial. It carries no more weight than, say, any other remark a Dittohead could pull out of his/her ass. Nice try, though.

Better luck next time...

[apdst]

Translation: You can't back it up.

That applies to 99% of the Libs here. Ya'll very rarely back up your posts. Most of you never back up your posts. Yet, you all insist that everyone else does.

I don't mind meeting the higher standard, but I just wanted to point that out.

[Elrathin]

That applies to 99% of the Libs here. Ya'll very rarely back up your posts. Most of you never back up your posts. Yet, you all insist that everyone else does.

I don't mind meeting the higher standard, but I just wanted to point that out.

More right wing rhetoric, but still no proof.

[Elrathin]

I "fronted it up". Seriously, the ball is in your court. Your tactic of acting stupid might work in some arenas, but I don't owe anyone an explanation of something I've already explained. I'm trying to be nice. Then again, I do have a pretty hefty buffer on that Warning Points thing.
Stop dragging rational discussion into the gutter, Anne.

Your accusation you made was :

I know that Al Gore considers the constitution to be alterable/dismissible.

Now, please show us where after you made that comment, you "fronted up" the proof. Hint, there is no proof you've offered to back it up. Just rhetoric.

[Phyxius]

That applies to 99% of the Libs here. Ya'll very rarely back up your posts. Most of you never back up your posts. Yet, you all insist that everyone else does.

I don't mind meeting the higher standard, but I just wanted to point that out.

Hell, I'm still waiting for the Reich-wingers here to meet ANY standard other than pulling it out of their asses and crying foul after getting called out on it... http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a176/Hasatude5150/beatinoff.gif

[Go Fish]

Well, to be honest here, you "fronted up" a Reich-wing editorial. It carries no more weight than, say, any other remark a Dittohead could pull out of his/her ass. Nice try, though.

Better luck next time...

Then it shouldn't be hard to disprove it with Gore's actual statement. What's wrong with you leftists? No brains, no balls and no research skills, but tons and tons of mouth. Why don't you all have a little protest march? That's be cute. "All we are say-ay-ing........Is give dumb a chance!"
You take issue with the facts I present, so it's your responsibility to prove me wrong. If you don't you're just another leftist cur.

[AnnEsthesia]

You have presented no facts. You have presented a statement with nothing to back it up.

[Phyxius]

You have presented no facts. You have presented a statement with nothing to back it up.

In typical Reich-wing fashion. Kinda like the AIC of Reich-wingers did when he got us into this stupid war and everytime he's tried to defend the Nazi-fiying of our country ever since.

There's a lesson there, I'm just sure of it... :ponder:

[NortheastCynic]

Oh dear sweet Jesus.

If you make a statement it is YOUR responsibility to back it up with facts, not the responsibility of others to show facts against it. That's debating 101, folks. If you present something as fact, you are to show WHY it is fact.

-NC

[AnnEsthesia]

Thank you, NEC.

[Go Fish]

In typical Reich-wing fashion. Kinda like the AIC of Reich-wingers did when he got us into this stupid war and everytime he's tried to defend the Nazi-fiying of our country ever since.

There's a lesson there, I'm just sure of it... :ponder:

Umm....not to be the fly in your Cheeze-Whiz, but Hitler and the Nazis were socialists, Puddin'. He was on YOUR team.

"During one of the 2000 presidential debates, Al Gore said that he would appoint justices "who understand that our Constitution is a living, breathing document." He suggested "it was intended by our founders to be interpreted in the light of the constantly evolving experience of the American people."

As is Al Gore.

Calling me a democrat/socialist hardly disproves the FACT that Gore is the guilty party here. Of course, uneducated democrats who, like you, don't have time to bother with the truth are not going to be bothered by such things.

[Go Fish]

Thank you, NEC.

AND.....?????

[Elrathin]

"During one of the 2000 presidential debates, Al Gore said that he would appoint justices "who understand that our Constitution is a living, breathing document." He suggested "it was intended by our founders to be interpreted in the light of the constantly evolving experience of the American people."


That's nice but how does that back up the claim that you said "Al Gore considers the constitution to be DISMISSIBLE"?

We know the constitution can be altered through amendments (i.e. altered), but there is no proof he considers the document to be dismissible.

[Go Fish]

http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=86

A Tale of Two Constitutions
David Barton

(First published in the October 2004 issue of The American Legion magazine)

The subject of constitutional interpretation may seem like a topic best fitted for an ivory-tower debate, but it actually has a very real and dramatic impact on daily life (as will be demonstrated shortly). In recent years, two competing viewpoints have emerged.

Probably the first exposure most citizens had to the two views came during the 2000 presidential debates. When asked what type of judges should be placed on the bench, candidate Bush responded: “I believe that the judges ought not to take the place of the legislative branch of government . . . and that they ought to look at the Constitution as sacred. . . . I don't believe in liberal, activist judges; I believe in strict constructionists.” 1 Candidate Gore countered, “The Constitution ought to be interpreted as a document that grows.” 2 Gore later stated, “I believe the Constitution is a living and breathing document. . . . We have interpreted our founding charter over the years, and found deeper meanings in it in light of the subsequent experience in American life.” 3 So, the two choices are . . . follow original intent, or construct a living constitution.

Proponents of a living constitution believe that we should not be bound by what dead white guys wrote two centuries ago when slavery was legal, women could not vote, and horses were the fastest means of transportation. Instead, we should live under a constitution that is alive and vibrant, reflecting today's values and beliefs.

Such rhetoric makes a living constitution sound appealing, but it is actually a complete misportrayal of the difference between the two philosophies. In reality, both accommodate an evolving society; in fact, under the strict construction (or originalist) viewpoint, Article V of the Constitution requires that the Constitution be a living document. The real difference between the two approaches is not whether the Constitution should evolve, but rather how those changes should occur - and who should make them.

Under the living constitution approach, history and precedent are largely irrelevant; instead, unelected judges create policy to reflect modern needs through the constitution they themselves write. As explained by Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes:

We are under a constitution, but the constitution is what the judges say it is. 4

Ironically, under this modern approach, judicial policy-makers are regularly out of step with modern society. For example, although 80 percent of the nation currently opposes flag desecration, living constitution judges have ruled that the people are wrong on this issue and that the flag cannot be protected. Similarly, 90 percent of citizens in the federal Ninth Circuit supported keeping “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, but their living constitution judges pronounced them wrong.

Equally striking is the number of recent occasions in which living constitution judges have overturned statewide votes wherein the People clearly expressed their will (e.g., striking down votes in New York and Washington that banned physician-assisted suicides; in Arkansas and Washington that enacted term limits; in Missouri that rejected a tax increase; etc.).

[Go Fish]

That's nice but how does that back up the claim that you said "Al Gore considers the constitution to be DISMISSIBLE"?

We know the constitution can be altered through amendments (i.e. altered), but there is no proof he considers the document to be dismissible.

He has no use for it except as something to be deviated from when it suits him. Read his rationale. Either it stands on its own merits or it doesn't. This is why I wrote last night that Ron Paul never had a chance, because half of America sees our constitution as an anachronistic impediment to the destruction of our nation. He doesn't take issue with certain parts of it, he just says that it has no bearing on modern-day America. If the three of you are too lazy to actually look up what he said, maybe you should find another thread.

[Elrathin]

Ummm Go Fish, yet again, there is no proof, just accusations and rhetoric listed. Nothing backing up your claim of what you accused Al Gore of.

Again, how is Al Gore saying the constitution is DISMISSIBLE as YOU claimed to know.

[Elrathin]

He has no use for it except as something to be deviated from when it suits him. Read his rationale. Either it stands on its own merits or it doesn't. This is why I wrote last night that Ron Paul never had a chance, because half of America sees our constitution as an anachronistic impediment to the destruction of our nation. He doesn't take issue with certain parts of it, he just says that it has no bearing on modern-day America.

Again, Go Fish no proof. Are you going to finally concede your claim as just opinion or are you going to continue down this silly line without proof claiming it as fact?

If it is your opinion that Al Gore acts this way, fine. If you are saying it's fact, you lost a long time ago.

[Easy90]

"has grabbed away more power than any president since WW2," Buck L.

How about backing that outrageous lie up?

[Phyxius]

Umm....not to be the fly in your Cheeze-Whiz, but Hitler and the Nazis were socialists, Puddin'. He was on YOUR team.

Some days I have to work at it, and some days the Reich-wingers just gift-wrap it for me... :madlaugh:

Intense patriotism, extreme faith in leadership, dislike of questioning of governmental policies, boycotting those who speak out against said policies, affinity for war, militarism, use of Christianity to earn Hitler a deity like status among the people, looking for enemies around the world to blame, denouncing naysayers for lack of patriotism, torture is an acceptable practice to be used on the "enemy", imperialistic notions.

Who does that sound like to you? :ponder:

Right wing, if you couldn't figure it out... :thumbsup:

[Buck Laser]

"has grabbed away more power than any president since WW2," Buck L.

How about backing that outrageous lie up?
Of course I will. I'm amazed that you didn't know already. But it'll take a little time to research it. Look for the links tomorrow.

[Scribbler1]

He has no use for it except as something to be deviated from when it suits him. Read his rationale. Either it stands on its own merits or it doesn't. This is why I wrote last night that Ron Paul never had a chance, because half of America sees our constitution as an anachronistic impediment to the destruction of our nation. He doesn't take issue with certain parts of it, he just says that it has no bearing on modern-day America. If the three of you are too lazy to actually look up what he said, maybe you should find another thread.It's considered good forum etiquette to give a source when a post is challenged.
Since you've been asked to back up what you said, you've got me curious too.

[Go Fish]

"You know, I believe the Constitution is a living and breathing document and that there are liberties found in the Constitution such as the right to privacy that spring from the document, itself, even though the Founders didn't write specific words saying this, this, and this, because we have interpreted our founding charter over the years and found deeper meanings in it, in light of the subsequent experience in American life of the last 211 years of our republic, and a strict constructionist, narrow-minded, harkening back to a literalist reading from 200 years ago, I think that's -- I think that's a mistake." -Albert Gore

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/election2000/candidates/gore_3-14c.html

I'm really disappointed that none of you could do a quick Google search for this. It's no wonder that the level of discourse here is a matter of concern.

[Go Fish]

It's considered good forum etiquette to give a source when a post is challenged.
Since you've been asked to back up what you said, you've got me curious too.

Now go back and ask Pookie where she got her information from. Now.

[AnnEsthesia]

Can you point out where he states that you can dismiss the constitution?

[Buck Laser]

"has grabbed away more power than any president since WW2," Buck L.
How about backing that outrageous lie up?
You asked for some backup, boyo. Here it is in spades. Even has some very right wing sources. Read 'em and weep, sonny.

http://www.slate.com/id/2146148/ Presidential power on steroids.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1003/p01s02-uspo.html Power shift to the president may stick.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/46791/a_cult_of_presidential_power
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/12/the_security_th_1.html Schneier on security.
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2007/01/presidents-power-to-attack-iran.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/01/AR2006010100788.html Alito once made a case for presidential power.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19092 Power Grab
http://www.thenewpress.com/index.php?option=com_title&task=view_title&metaproductid=1632 Unchecked and Unbalanced.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20060109_bergen.html The unitary executive
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/waronterror/p/imperial101.htm Unitary Presidency 101

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CHI20070521&articleId=5720 New directive gives Bush Dictatorial Power.
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200602160841.asp New Power for the Vice President.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,288238,00.html Bush's Power to Pardon Libby.
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/10/our-view-on-pre.html Is Mukasey willing to be a "no" man in the White House?

If you want some more, it'll only take a few minutes. Duh!

[apdst]

Now go back and ask Pookie where she got her information from. Now.

Pookie's my girl, but I have to agree that if you're going to demand a high standard you ought start with your own people.

[Scribbler1]

"You know, I believe the Constitution is a living and breathing document and that there are liberties found in the Constitution such as the right to privacy that spring from the document, itself, even though the Founders didn't write specific words saying this, this, and this, because we have interpreted our founding charter over the years and found deeper meanings in it, in light of the subsequent experience in American life of the last 211 years of our republic, and a strict constructionist, narrow-minded, harkening back to a literalist reading from 200 years ago, I think that's -- I think that's a mistake." -Albert Gore

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/election2000/candidates/gore_3-14c.html

I'm really disappointed that none of you could do a quick Google search for this. It's no wonder that the level of discourse here is a matter of concern.You said He doesn't take issue with certain parts of it, he just says that it has no bearing on modern-day America.Which is just a bad interpretation of what he said.

[Scribbler1]

Now go back and ask Pookie where she got her information from. Now.Now? I think not, boss.

[David]

Bush went from from a 97% approval rating to 32% in 2 years. Congress has dropped to 16%.

The whole thing is rotten to the core. When a tree becomes so rotten it gets cut down in a controlled manner before it falls in an uncontrolled manner into your house. Change is needed, with the vote if possible, with force if necessary. :fight:

[dgun]

Historians say Bush is a failure and worst president ever

And so do I. Hey, maybe I should be a historian!

[David]

And so do I. Hey, maybe I should be a historian!

Indeed.

[Go Fish]

Now? I think not, boss.

Why not? (Wait a minute.....okay. Hey, I'm a new guy. Didn't realize. It's a 9mm, isn't it? Can't interrupt her favorite show for such folly.) :)

[Go Fish]

Bush went from from a 97% approval rating to 32% in 2 years. Congress has dropped to 16%.

The whole thing is rotten to the core. When a tree becomes so rotten it gets cut down in a controlled manner before it falls in an uncontrolled manner into your house. Change is needed, with the vote if possible, with force if necessary. :fight:

Um, that whole "force" thing will backfire on you.

[David]

Um, that whole "force" thing will backfire on you.

Not if the whole nation is in revolt...

[Go Fish]

The "whole nation" doesn't consist of people who wear Che Guevara shirts and live with their parents. You DO own a Che Guevara shirt, don't you?

[moses2792796]

Bush has been terrible for America but fantasitic for everyone else. Despite the fact that a few countries have had to suffer pointless invasions, overall the disastrous effect Bush has had on his own country will be beneficial for other countries in the long term, because America is the main supporter of the mentality that continues to corrupt the western world. With them out of the way (which won't be too long thanks to Bush) things can, hopefully, be restored. President Bush, China, Russia, Iran, Hitler, England, Mohammed and myself all thank you for the service you have done the world...

:)

[Go Fish]

Care to put some facts into that post? Are you an American taxpayer? Have you ever Googled the word "Bosnia"? What is you opinion of a president sitting on $93 billion when the levees surrounding New Orleans were deficient? Who passed on 1 offer of Osama bin Laden in handcuffs,and 2 opportunities to blow him to smithereens?
Which country would you rather live in, and why aren't you there now?

[Sublimating]

Weak, but typical. Is that the best you can do? :madlaugh:
well said

[moses2792796]

Care to put some facts into that post? Are you an American taxpayer? Have you ever Googled the word "Bosnia"? What is you opinion of a president sitting on $93 billion when the levees surrounding New Orleans were deficient? Who passed on 1 offer of Osama bin Laden in handcuffs,and 2 opportunities to blow him to smithereens?
Which country would you rather live in, and why aren't you there now?

I do not live in America, despite the fact that Mr Bush is retarded I enjoy watching him aid in the destruction of said country, because I believe the world will be better off without a modern hegemony.

[preservanation]

I do not live in America, despite the fact that Mr Bush is retarded I enjoy watching him aid in the destruction of said country, because I believe the world will be better off without a modern hegemony.You're not alone.
Some here, even our former Sec of State Madelin Albright mused that ridding the world of the old USSR was a bad thing because, according to her, they "kept the US in check".
Same old same old....

[David]

The "whole nation" doesn't consist of people who wear Che Guevara shirts and live with their parents. You DO own a Che Guevara shirt, don't you?

Do you own a Chaney shirt? ;)

[preservanation]

Q) "How do you wash a Che T-shirt?"
A) "Give it to your mommy."

[moses2792796]

You're not alone.
Some here, even our former Sec of State Madelin Albright mused that ridding the world of the old USSR was a bad thing because, according to her, they "kept the US in check".
Same old same old....

Russia caused their own downfall, America will (probably) do the same, due mainly to the fact that they are blinded by ideology and therefore fail to realise that they are making many of the same mistakes that Russia did.

[David]

I love how Bush apologists assume that all his dissenters have Che T-shirts. :lmao:

Why the hell would I buy a t-shirt with a 2,000% price inflation if I was a communist?

[micfranklin]

Not to restate the obvious but does it really take historians to tell us that Bush's administration has been a fuck up?

[Deadshot]

Where's my blue :( ahh well...

micfranklin, you need historians to do this, and I'm going to be a history teacher so I know what I'm talking about here, because Bush and his posse are claiming that History will vindicate him. They compare him to Truman, historically. The problem is that historically Truman presided over the end of WWII and when he began to go down the tubes, poll wise, he was vindicated by SOCIAL reforms he enacted! - NOT military actions.

It was Lyndon Johnson who gave Harry S. Truman the FIRST medicaid/medicare card. That is what showed Truman to be a POTUS of forethought and intelligence. Bush simply doesn't have that.

History will show Bush as the worst POTUS in the 20th Century, trumping even Hoover and Nixon, in the worst case scenario. Best case scenario puts him in third place after Herb and Dick. Either way he's one of the worst POTUS' in the country. Personally I think you'll find him in the bottom 10% of American POTUS'.

[Wndrtch]

Where's my blue :( ahh well...

micfranklin, you need historians to do this, and I'm going to be a history teacher so I know what I'm talking about here, because Bush and his posse are claiming that History will vindicate him. They compare him to Truman, historically. The problem is that historically Truman presided over the end of WWII and when he began to go down the tubes, poll wise, he was vindicated by SOCIAL reforms he enacted! - NOT military actions.

It was Lyndon Johnson who gave Harry S. Truman the FIRST medicaid/medicare card. That is what showed Truman to be a POTUS of forethought and intelligence. Bush simply doesn't have that.

History will show Bush as the worst POTUS in the 20th Century, trumping even Hoover and Nixon, in the worst case scenario. Best case scenario puts him in third place after Herb and Dick. Either way he's one of the worst POTUS' in the country. Personally I think you'll find him in the bottom 10% of American POTUS'.

LOL!! What? No mention of "Rabbit Slayer" Jimmy Carter in that list of bad Presidents?

If "historians' can't even be honest about Jimmy Carter, then they discredit themselves outright.

As far as "history" goes, Bush will be remembered as the only World leader to address the issue of Global Islamic terrorism. All other leaders have been chicken-sh1t about dealing with it, but he did SOMETHING. He certainly engaged the World to address it, unlike Mr. "No-Controlling-Legal-Authority", Bill Clinton.

[micfranklin]

If not the worst he's definitely one of the worst 3.

And on a side note I think one of Truman's best social reforms was racially integrating the military, even though sometimes forcing things isn't the best way to do it.

[apdst]

micfranklin, you need historians to do this, and I'm going to be a history teacher so I know what I'm talking about here, because Bush and his posse are claiming that History will vindicate him. They compare him to Truman, historically. The problem is that historically Truman presided over the end of WWII and when he began to go down the tubes, poll wise, he was vindicated by SOCIAL reforms he enacted! - NOT military actions.

It was Lyndon Johnson who gave Harry S. Truman the FIRST medicaid/medicare card. That is what showed Truman to be a POTUS of forethought and intelligence. Bush simply doesn't have that.

History will show Bush as the worst POTUS in the 20th Century, trumping even Hoover and Nixon, in the worst case scenario. Best case scenario puts him in third place after Herb and Dick. Either way he's one of the worst POTUS' in the country. Personally I think you'll find him in the bottom 10% of American POTUS'.

And you're going to be teaching history? Please, tell us you're joking.

If not the worst he's definitely one of the worst 3.

Care to share your comparitive data with us?

[Deadshot]

Wnd, Carter only presided over an economic collapse. On the Peace front he had the Salt treaty which calmed the Middle East and stop a MAJOR war.

Bush is presiding over a economic collapse AND a War that the USA doesn't like.

Read your history Wnd, Carter isn't as bad a Bush...

[Deadshot]

I'll share some comparitive data.

He has one of the worst Public Approval ratings in modern (read last 100 years) history. He's just below Nixon and just above Truman. The problem is that Nixon has China and Truman has the end of WWII, intergration of the military and social programs (as I stated above).

Bush has no domestic program that is succeeding or is going to succeed. The war he's in is going to shit and the majority of Americans know that. Also the economy is getting kicked around as bad as when Carter was the POTUS. He's hit the trifecta of fuckupery!

[micfranklin]

Care to share your comparitive data with us?

There's no data, I was just offering my opinion.

[Buck Laser]

Fish, I gave you a shitload of facts to back up my argument that Bush has grabbed unprecedented power for the executive branch. So while you go on whining about a lack of facts--and you asked me to back up what you called a lie, you're conveniently silent. I've found this to be very typical of the Limbaugh Chaos Corps, who seem to think they can get away with the most outrageous lies just because they heard them on AM radio. Sad, really.

[Wndrtch]

Wnd, Carter only presided over an economic collapse. On the Peace front he had the Salt treaty which calmed the Middle East and stop a MAJOR war.

Bush is presiding over a economic collapse AND a War that the USA doesn't like.

Read your history Wnd, Carter isn't as bad a Bush...

LOL! What are you talking about? The treaty with the Soviets was a joke! The Soviets never held-up their side of the deal! How in the World is THAT a success? Carter was out there ripping our military to shreds, and the Soviets were sitting back in Moscow, having themselves a good laugh over some vintage Vodka!

The only thing that Jimmy was succesful at, was killing a fluffy rabbit with an oar. But it's ok, Jimmy claimed self-defense. :thumbsup:

[Deadshot]

The treaty with Egypt and Israel which HAS kept the peace between those two countries.

Just out of curiousity, does any Conservative here back up their claims with facts? I'm curious because as a History person I find no Jimmy Carter as POTUS treaty with the Soviets! You wanna know why? Because SALT II was never ratified! The USSR invaded Afghanistan and Carter pulled the treaty and it was NEVER SEEN BY CONGRESS because of what the USSR did.

Wnd, you fell for an old, old trick historians use. Put something out of context, i.e. I mentioned the SALT treaty and the middle East, see if they notice the historical error. You, and others, did not. SALT II was a continuation of a Nixon/Ford treaty, SALT I. The Camp David Accords, where Egypt and Israel signed, DID work.

Carter did the right thing, BTW with SALT II. But don't take my word for it, Nixon and Ford as well as most Republicans call his actions on SALT II the only sane thing he did during his POTUS!

[Deadshot]

bumping this because it didn't show on the "New Posts" when I clicked it.

[apdst]

He has one of the worst Public Approval ratings in modern

Polls aren't historical documentation. A poll can be made to show anything.

Truman has the end of WWII

truman only took the reins when FDR died. Truman didn't concieve some genius plan to end the war.

intergration of the military

This is a huge historical milestone, how?

The war he's in is going to shit and the majority of Americans know that.

That's not entirely true.

Also the economy is getting kicked around as bad as when Carter was the POTUS. He's hit the trifecta of fuckupery!

It is now, and has been for the past few months, but prior to that--since 2003--Bush's economy broke records, especially in unemployment, where The United States experienced record low unemployment.

The USSR invaded Afghanistan and Carter pulled the treaty and it was NEVER SEEN BY CONGRESS because of what the USSR did.

Both sides honored the treaty until 1986, when Reagan pulled it, claiming that The Soviets weren't honoring the terms of the treaty. Carter never pulled anything. 'Cept for maybe his pecker, while Americans were illegally taken prisoner, held and tortured for over a year and while the Soviets tried to overrun Southwest Asia.

What are you going to be teaching? Revisionist History 101?

[NortheastCynic]

Well, this thread's gone way off into the frontier.

Can anyone tell me what exactly makes this President 'good'. Include your definition of what makes a President 'good' please.

-NC

[apdst]

Personal opinion, maybe?

[NortheastCynic]

That's a given, apdst; and begs the question, what specifically about the President is it that makes your opinion toward him positive?

-NC

[apdst]

what specifically about the President is it that makes your opinion toward him positive?

Comparison to past events. I try to base my opinion on fact, as much as possible, but at the end of the day, it's just my opinion.

[NortheastCynic]

Would you perhaps give us a couple of examples of what the President has done that warrant your approval?

-NC

[apdst]

Would you perhaps give us a couple of examples of what the President has done that warrant your approval?

He took the fight to the enemy. He's gained a very important strategic foothold in The Mid-East. His efforts have resulted in the termination of over forty thousand enemy soft targets. When you consider the shit he's had to deal with for the past eight years, he's kept a strong economic record.

Name another president that has had to deal with as much outright bullshit as Bush has. He's had to respond to more crises than most presidents, all the while being sabotaged at every turn by his political detractors.

Bush has had to replace half The Supreme Court. He got fucked with about that. He had to fight off an actual invasion of our country. He got fucked with about that. He had to deal with the two worst natural disasters--three weeks apart--in the history of The United States and he got fucked with about that. Not a single time have the Democrats stopped armchair QB'ing things and actually jumped into the game. We had saying when I was in the service: "Work with me, not against me, and if you're only gonna work against me, I don't need you".

[Saigio]

He took the fight to the enemy.

Then let ADD take over and wandered off to other places.

He's gained a very important strategic foothold in The Mid-East.

Which hasn't been cemented and has taken how long?

His efforts have resulted in the termination of over forty thousand enemy soft targets.

His? So, he's the one flying the planes, driving the tanks, firing the rifles? I think it's the soldiers doing the work.

When you consider the shit he's had to deal with for the past eight years, he's kept a strong economic record.

And ignoring the massive spending, and the huge debt we are digging ourselves into with China.

Name another president that has had to deal with as much outright bullshit as Bush has. He's had to respond to more crises than most presidents, all the while being sabotaged at every turn by his political detractors.

And we all know how well he's responded to each disaster. Just ask New Orleans.

Bush has had to replace half The Supreme Court.[/quotes]

And his buddies are all that more thankful for it.

[QUOTE=apdst;161014] He got fucked with about that.

How so? Is it unreasonable to espect someone to get grief for putting his old buddies before qualified people

He had to fight off an actual invasion of our country.

From who? Mexico? How is that an invasion?

He got fucked with about that.

Again, what invasion has to be answered.

He had to deal with the two worst natural disasters--three weeks apart--in the history of The United States and he got fucked with about that.

And maybe it has to do with the response time?

Not a single time have the Democrats stopped armchair QB'ing things and actually jumped into the game.

It would be nice if they would be given a chance, instead of the veto stamp Bush keeps.

We had saying when I was in the service: "Work with me, not against me, and if you're only gonna work against me, I don't need you".

So, he's against Americans that disagree with him?
Heh. Amazing.

[apdst]

Then let ADD take over and wandered off to other places.

Yeah, another place where he killed over forty thousand Islamists and gianed a very important foothold in The ME.

Which hasn't been cemented and has taken how long?

It took ten years to get post-WW2 Germany back into shape. What's the official time limit? Is there one? I mean, if there is, I would love to know what it is. Do you know what it is?

His? So, he's the one flying the planes, driving the tanks, firing the rifles? I think it's the soldiers doing the work.

He made the decision to go git'em. Yes?

And ignoring the massive spending, and the huge debt we are digging ourselves into with China.

That's cool, we'll jsut call in all the markers we are holding on most of the Third World countries on the planet. It'll even out.

And we all know how well he's responded to each disaster. Just ask New Orleans.

Name a sinlge United States president, governer, or mayor that has responded better to a natural disaster of the same magnitude. Ask New Orleans about those three hundred city busses that were left to float. Ask New Orleans how long it took Blanco to pick up the phone and ask for Federal help, per the law. Ask New Orleans about Road Home.

72 hours after landfall, New Orleans, along with the 80 mile strip south of New Orleans was 99% evaced. Name the other domestic evac that went that well. I'll be waiting.

Is it unreasonable to espect someone to get grief for putting his old buddies before qualified people

All politicians do that very thing. So what? Bush doing it is different, how?

From who? Mexico? How is that an invasion?

Remember 9/11?

And maybe it has to do with the response time?

Who's response time? The governer's response time? Blanco told Bush that everything was a-ok, two hours after the 17th Street Canal had been breached? Care to clarify, "response time"? By law, the president can't just send help. The governer has to request that help. So, you must mean that Aunt Kathy's response time sucked ass. Yes?
(refer back to my comment about 72 hours, if you wanna talk about response time)

It would be nice if they would be given a chance, instead of the veto stamp Bush keeps.

He's vetoing their sabotage attempts. Not once has a Democrat jumped on board to say, "things aren't going the way they should. What can we do to help?". I know, you're going to say that they have, but they haven't and you know it.

So, he's against Americans that disagree with him?

No, I'm sure, thought, that he's against anyone that is working against him. Aren't we all?

[micfranklin]

He took the fight to the enemy. He's gained a very important strategic foothold in The Mid-East. His efforts have resulted in the termination of over forty thousand enemy soft targets. When you consider the shit he's had to deal with for the past eight years, he's kept a strong economic record.

Name another president that has had to deal with as much outright bullshit as Bush has. He's had to respond to more crises than most presidents, all the while being sabotaged at every turn by his political detractors.

Bush has had to replace half The Supreme Court. He got fucked with about that. He had to fight off an actual invasion of our country. He got fucked with about that. He had to deal with the two worst natural disasters--three weeks apart--in the history of The United States and he got fucked with about that. Not a single time have the Democrats stopped armchair QB'ing things and actually jumped into the game. We had saying when I was in the service: "Work with me, not against me, and if you're only gonna work against me, I don't need you".

1. He went after the terrorists who caused 9/11, only to end up invading a country that had nothing to do with it one year later. That's taking the fight to the enemy and then getting off track.

2. A strong economic would imply that we weren't bankrupt by say, $9 trillion in debt.

3. He did a shit job getting FEMA down to the south in time after Katrina. Warning them about the storm wasn't his job and neither was getting them out, helping them out was, that which he sucked at.

4. And for the record, he hasn't dealt with nearly as much shit as he's caused.

[apdst]

1. He went after the terrorists who caused 9/11, only to end up invading a country that had nothing to do with it one year later. That's taking the fight to the enemy and then getting off track.

He drew the terrorists out into the open, where they could be killed.

2. A strong economic would imply that we weren't bankrupt by say, $9 trillion in debt.

We're not. Are we? It costs money to fight the enemy. When you consider how many enemy fighters we've killed, it's money well spent.

He did a shit job getting FEMA down to the south in time after Katrina

GOD!!! Would you Libbos get off that?!?! FEMA was on the ground, in New Orleans, before the hurricane. Trucks and supplies were staged in Pineville, Louisiana 48 hours prior to landfall.

You folks need to stop believing all the BS that you're reading about Hurricane Katrina. You really, really do. You're making yourselves look silly.

he hasn't dealt with nearly as much shit

Compared to which president?

[micfranklin]

He drew the terrorists out into the open, where they could be killed.

In Afghanistan. In Iraq he helped ruin a country in the process and only fuel the civil war going on there now.

We're not. Are we? It costs money to fight the enemy. When you consider how many enemy fighters we've killed, it's money well spent.

I hope you can look everyone else in the country in the eye and tell them that, especially after they realize they, along with their grandchildren, will be the ones paying of a $9 trillion debt. Money gone to invading a country that didn't do shit to us is not money well spent.

GOD!!! Would you Libbos get off that?!?! FEMA was on the ground, in New Orleans, before the hurricane. Trucks and supplies were staged in Pineville, Louisiana 48 hours prior to landfall.

You folks need to stop believing all the BS that you're reading about Hurricane Katrina. You really, really do. You're making yourselves look silly.

Really? I've never read anything about them being there early, just articles about how they were days late. If they were there early maybe they would've picked up more people who were sitting on their roofs in time.

Compared to which president?

I noticed you didn't copy the whole part of the sentence I wrote. But hey go ahead, if you think Bush has done everything right it's your opinion.

[Saigio]

Yeah, another place where he killed over forty thousand Islamists and gianed a very important foothold in The ME.

I thought they were Muslims...
Anyways, just because they are a Muslim does not make them a terrorist.

It took ten years to get post-WW2 Germany back into shape.

It was far more ravaged.

What's the official time limit?

There isn't one.

Is there one?

No, and there shouldn't have to be.

I mean, if there is, I would love to know what it is. Do you know what it is?

No. Is there a limit on lives that are acceptable to throw away? What is it? Do you know?

He made the decision to go git'em. Yes?

Doesn't matter, he isn't doing any of the work.

That's cool, we'll jsut call in all the markers we are holding on most of the Third World countries on the planet. It'll even out.

Actually, it'll be coming out of the pockets of the average working class American citizen. That's how it works.

Name a sinlge United States president, governer, or mayor that has responded better to a natural disaster of the same magnitude.

Can't think of one of the top of my head, but I'm sure most people would respond faster and with more decisiveness.

Ask New Orleans about those three hundred city busses that were left to float.

I should.
I wonder what they'd say about them...

Ask New Orleans how long it took Blanco to pick up the phone and ask for Federal help, per the law. Ask New Orleans about Road Home.

Typical of you, to shift blame to others to protect your image of Bush.

72 hours after landfall, New Orleans, along with the 80 mile strip south of New Orleans was 99% evaced. Name the other domestic evac that went that well. I'll be waiting.

Who ordered the evacuation?

All politicians do that very thing. So what? Bush doing it is different, how?

He does it far more then others.
Sorry, I take that back. His daddy did it a lot too.

Remember 9/11?

Oh, so what was an attack is now an invasion?
I better call Merriam-Webster, tell them that they need to make some changes to the dictonary.

Who's response time? The governer's response time? Blanco told Bush that everything was a-ok, two hours after the 17th Street Canal had been breached? Care to clarify, "response time"? By law, the president can't just send help. The governer has to request that help. So, you must mean that Aunt Kathy's response time sucked ass. Yes?
(refer back to my comment about 72 hours, if you wanna talk about response time)

I think I'll respond now, thank you.
Are you aware of how hard it is to predict storm patterns? Ever wonder why the weather man is constantly wrong? It's a lotto draw, really.
If you are told you are not gonna be hit by a storm, how would you respond if you were mayor?

He's vetoing their sabotage attempts.

Show me one sabotage attempt. One. With proof of it being malign and dangerous to the country.

Not once has a Democrat jumped on board to say, "things aren't going the way they should. What can we do to help?". I know, you're going to say that they have, but they haven't and you know it.

Yeah, all these people calling for a change, they are all in my imagination. Yeah, things aren't going how they should in congress. But mayhaps it would be easier if Bush didn't have a hard-on for vetos and Repub made bills.

No, I'm sure, thought, that he's against anyone that is working against him. Aren't we all?

So, he's against those that would disagree with him and are vocal about it. Yes, that is what you are still implying, whether you realize it or not.

[apdst]

I thought they were Muslims...
Anyways, just because they are a Muslim does not make them a terrorist.

I never said that it did.

It was far more ravaged.

Germany also didn't have religious friction. They had a centuries old mindset of law and order. American forces in post-war germany had far more things going in their favor than we do in Iraq.

Typical of you, to shift blame to others to protect your image of Bush.

I'm not shifting blame. I'm placing it in it's proper place. Bush had nothing to do with The Road Home Program.

Who ordered the evacuation?

Which one? The pre-landfall voluntary evacuation? Or, ther post-landfall mandatory evacuation? Blanco on the fore and very few people left. Bush on the latter and everyone left, minus a dozen or so holdouts that refused to leave.

He does it far more then others.
Sorry, I take that back. His daddy did it a lot too.

They ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLl do it.

I think I'll respond now, thank you.
Are you aware of how hard it is to predict storm patterns? Ever wonder why the weather man is constantly wrong? It's a lotto draw, really.
If you are told you are not gonna be hit by a storm, how would you respond if you were mayor?

Uh, yeah, I grew up in Louisiana. I know all to well how hard it is to predict a hurricane's path. However, hurricanes rairly change course more than a few degrees in the last 24 hours before landfall. How would I respond, at -24 hours? I would be getting as many people out of town, anyway I could. You can't force people to evacaute, but I would make sure there's a ride for everybody that wanted one. My entire bus fleet wouldn't have been underwater. I know that much.

Show me one sabotage attempt. One. With proof of it being malign and dangerous to the country.

The Dems have been undermining the war almost since it started. How 'bout Pelosi warning Patreaus as how to testify? Hmmm? In other words, she's going to burn him if she doesn't dig what he has to say.

Yeah, all these people calling for a change, they are all in my imagination

They are calling for change, all right. A change in leadership; that's all that's going to change. Gitmo is still gonna be open and troops are still going to be in Iraq.

Yes, that is what you are still implying,

No, that's your implication, not mine. Keep trying, though.

[apdst]

In Afghanistan. In Iraq he helped ruin a country in the process and only fuel the civil war going on there now.

The forty thousand terrorists I'm speaking of were killed in Iraq. If you include Afghanistan, the number goes up to near eighty thousand.

I hope you can look everyone else in the country in the eye and tell them that, especially after they realize they, along with their grandchildren, will be the ones paying of a $9 trillion debt.

The war wasn't gonna be free.

Really? I've never read anything about them being there early, just articles about how they were days late

Of course you did. And no dount you believed everyone of them, too.

If they were there early maybe they would've picked up more people who were sitting on their roofs in time.

Maybe if Blanco and Nagin had done the evac properly, no one would have been sitting on their roofs? In time? In time for what? In time to make all the Libbos happy?

I noticed you didn't copy the whole part of the sentence I wrote. But hey go ahead, if you think Bush has done everything right it's your opinion.

So, you are unable to answer the question?

[Saigio]

I never said that it did.

So, you're just happy that Muslims are being killed?

Germany also didn't have religious friction. They had a centuries old mindset of law and order. American forces in post-war germany had far more things going in their favor than we do in Iraq.

Maybe because their moving in didn't spark civil war.

I'm not shifting blame. I'm placing it in it's proper place. Bush had nothing to do with The Road Home Program.

Who ordered it?

Which one? The pre-landfall voluntary evacuation? Or, ther post-landfall mandatory evacuation? Blanco on the fore and very few people left. Bush on the latter and everyone left, minus a dozen or so holdouts that refused to leave.

And who is to blame for the ones that didn't leave, in both instances

They ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLl do it.

To this extent?

Uh, yeah, I grew up in Louisiana. I know all to well how hard it is to predict a hurricane's path. However, hurricanes rairly change course more than a few degrees in the last 24 hours before landfall. How would I respond, at -24 hours? I would be getting as many people out of town, anyway I could. You can't force people to evacaute, but I would make sure there's a ride for everybody that wanted one. My entire bus fleet wouldn't have been underwater. I know that much.

And if you were wrong? What were the reporters saying about Katrina before it hit? (I was not paying attention to news reports at the time)

The Dems have been undermining the war almost since it started. How 'bout Pelosi warning Patreaus as how to testify? Hmmm? In other words, she's going to burn him if she doesn't dig what he has to say.

Is there a source on that that I could have, I never saw reports on it, and I really don't trust your word currently.

They are calling for change, all right. A change in leadership; that's all that's going to change. Gitmo is still gonna be open and troops are still going to be in Iraq.

Isn't that a bit dependent on who gets elected?

No, that's your implication, not mine. Keep trying, though.

Maybe it's just how I see what you say. Maybe you are truly ignorant of things.
If not, what you are implying is that Bush is against those that oppenly disagree with his policies.

[micfranklin]

The forty thousand terrorists I'm speaking of were killed in Iraq. If you include Afghanistan, the number goes up to near eighty thousand.

Those forty-thousand were never in Iraq until we came there and we probably still would've had to deal with eighty-thousand if we stayed in Afghanistan, but oh well he fucked it up.

The war wasn't gonna be free.

No one's gonna wanna hear that while they're going poor trying to pay off something that never should've happened.

Of course you did. And no dount you believed everyone of them, too.

I call it like I see it and read it, or is this a case of the media being biased in favor of your opinion?

Maybe if Blanco and Nagin had done the evac properly, no one would have been sitting on their roofs? In time? In time for what? In time to make all the Libbos happy?

Like I said it wasn't Bush's job to evacuate those people, it was his job to send aid down and he didn't do that.

So, you are unable to answer the question?

You didn't put the whole thing down, but fine then. He's caused a lot more shit than he's had to deal with. He's gone through a terrorist attack on America and a offbeat war. Well, FDR had to deal with the biggest war in human history right after an awful attack, along with the Great Depression (which ironically the war helped ease) and polio.

[apdst]

So, you're just happy that Muslims are being killed?

I'm glad to see the terrorists being killed.

Maybe because their moving in didn't spark civil war.

bingo!

And who is to blame for the ones that didn't leave, in both instances

The residents who chose to stay have to take responsibility for their own actions.

And if you were wrong?

Then you're just wrong. You do the best you can with what you got, but, doing nothing is not an option.

What were the reporters saying about Katrina before it hit?

The prediciton at -24 hours was that the eye was going to pass right over New Orleans. At -12 hours, the storm shifted to the east causing the eye to pass fity miles to the east of New Orleans. Ironically, if the storm had maintained it's original course, it's possible that the levees wouldn't have failed, because the wind would have been pushing Lake Ponchartrain's storm surge in another direction.

Is there a source on that that I could have, I never saw reports on it, and I really don't trust your word currently.

Sure, man, welcome to the real world. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9370.html

Maybe it's just how I see what you say

I already knew that. Closed minds work like your's.

[apdst]

Those forty-thousand were never in Iraq until we came there

We had to draw them out into the open so we could kill them.

No one's gonna wanna hear that while they're going poor trying to pay off something that never should've happened.

That'll only happen when the Dems jack up taxes.

I call it like I see it and read it

Too bad you don't read everything.

it was his job to send aid down and he didn't do that.

Oh, but he did. You just don't know how wrong you are, sir.

Well, FDR had to deal with the biggest war in human history right after an awful attack

WITHOUT congress undermining every decision he made, too. Did Congress do anything when FDR imprisoned Germans, Japanes and Italians? NOPE!!!!

[Elrathin]

We had to draw them out into the open so we could kill them.

You don't draw them out in a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.


WITHOUT congress undermining every decision he made, too. Did Congress do anything when FDR imprisoned Germans, Japanes and Italians? NOPE!!!!

Tell me, what did President Bush ask for in money and equipment that Congress undermined him on and didn't give him?

[Saigio]

I'm glad to see the terrorists being killed.

So why didn't you say that instead?

bingo!

And our being in Iraq has sparked civil war. So we are cleaning a mess that wouldn't be there if Bush hadn't wandered off the original course.

The residents who chose to stay have to take responsibility for their own actions.

The why blame others?

Then you're just wrong. You do the best you can with what you got, but, doing nothing is not an option.

And on top of looking silly, you lose thousands, maybe millions of dollars on the evacuation.
See why evacuations aren't that common?

The prediciton at -24 hours was that the eye was going to pass right over New Orleans. At -12 hours, the storm shifted to the east causing the eye to pass fity miles to the east of New Orleans. Ironically, if the storm had maintained it's original course, it's possible that the levees wouldn't have failed, because the wind would have been pushing Lake Ponchartrain's storm surge in another direction.

So it wasn't headed for New Orleans, and, because I doubt those in charge of the city have the background that would tell them that, seeing as weather science and politics are not the same field.

Sure, man, welcome to the real world. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9370.html

So, she didn't want to hear over glorifications of things? Just the straight facts?
How treasonous!

I already knew that. Closed minds work like your's.

Hahahahaha!
You say I have a closed mind? Ummmmm, guess what buddy. It's my interpretation of your post. If Bush is against those that do not support him, he is against those that are against him.

[apdst]

So why didn't you say that instead?

I didn't say that.

So we are cleaning a mess that wouldn't be there if Bush hadn't wandered off the original course.

You're right. There would be no civil war, but there would still be a potentially dangerous dictator and no dead Islamists.

The why blame others?

By that logic, it's not Bush's fault that those folks were stranded on their rooftops.

you lose thousands, maybe millions of dollars on the evacuation.

Compare those millions to the lives lost during Hurricane Katrina.

So it wasn't headed for New Orleans, and, because I doubt those in charge of the city have the background that would tell them that, seeing as weather science and politics are not the same field.

The eye wasn't going to strike New Orleans. However, the storm--the worst part of the storm, in fact--was still going to hit New Orleans. Katrina was the one in a million storm that had been predicted for twenty five years. I don't have a degree in weather science, either, but I knew that New Orleans was a bad place to be during Hurricane Katrina.

So, she didn't want to hear over glorifications of things? Just the straight facts?

She's trieing influence the testimony. And, yes, that treasonous. In what world is it ok to influence the sworn testimony of a general leading troops in the field?

he is against those that are against him.

What'd I just say? Took you long enough to figure it out.

[Scribbler1]

A survey of me says that 109 historians are wrong. Bad presidents get impeached, and only one has ever had an impeachment stick. Oddly enough, Jimmy Carter beats Clinton out for being the worst ever.
Speaking of Jimmy Carter......(From the same site): http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/49058.htmlScrew Jimmy Carter. We're talking about BUSH here. Again, the simple fact is that if a former president was bad, it does NOT make the current one good by default.

[Scribbler1]

I love how Bush apologists assume that all his dissenters have Che T-shirts. :lmao:

Why the hell would I buy a t-shirt with a 2,000% price inflation if I was a communist?And it would be made in China, anyway.

But I happen to know a lot of people, including Republicans who despise Bush and THEY wear suits and ties.

[micfranklin]

We had to draw them out into the open so we could kill them.

Because we invaded them for no fucking reason. When you provoke somebody for no reason of course they'll come out and kill you. Never heard the phrase "don't start no shit, won't be no shit?"

That'll only happen when the Dems jack up taxes.

Because the president you're defending bankrupted us.

Too bad you don't read everything.

Or maybe you're just seeing what you want to see. If that's the case with you, then I can't do anything.

Oh, but he did. You just don't know how wrong you are, sir.

Of course he did.....only days later, rather than hours. And for the record millions of people didn't die in Katrina it was actually less than 2,000 deaths but still.

WITHOUT congress undermining every decision he made, too. Did Congress do anything when FDR imprisoned Germans, Japanes and Italians? NOPE!!!!

Doesn't mean he didn't have to deal with the Depression and the war, doesn't make his imprisonment of peoples any better.

[David]

And it would be made in China, anyway.

But I happen to know a lot of people, including Republicans who despise Bush and THEY wear suits and ties.

You still think I have a shirt with some mad doctor's face on it? :madlaugh:

I'm no communist (anarchy :sick:) nor am I liberal. I'm not a conservative or a fascist for that matter. I'm also not some indecisive centralist. I'm a realist and call it how I see it. Generally this gives me a far Left viewpoint, but you'll see me backing up a neo-con if they have a point.

[Scribbler1]

You still think I have a shirt with some mad doctor's face on it? :madlaugh:Still? I never said anything of the kind. I was responding to the crack about the "Che" T-shirt. Shoulda used a smiley, I guess.

I'm no communist (anarchy :sick:) nor am I liberal. I'm not a conservative or a fascist for that matter. I'm also not some indecisive centralist. I'm a realist and call it how I see it. Generally this gives me a far Left viewpoint, but you'll see me backing up a neo-con if they have a point.Yeah, that's about where I come down too. Except I'm not usually siding with the far left either. I call them all like I see them and I don't support any "side", preferring to support individual ideas and positions.

[David]

Still? I never said anything of the kind. I was responding to the crack about the "Che" T-shirt. Shoulda used a smiley, I guess.

Yeah, that's about where I come down too. Except I'm not usually siding with the far left either. I call them all like I see them and I don't support any "side", preferring to support individual ideas and positions.

Ya. I'm an open minded person, but I am a democratic socialist (and don't let me catch anyone saying I'm a communist :fight:) so I do have a few far Left stances.

[Buck Laser]

You asked for some backup, boyo. Here it is in spades. Even has some very right wing sources. Read 'em and weep, sonny.

http://www.slate.com/id/2146148/ Presidential power on steroids.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1003/p01s02-uspo.html Power shift to the president may stick.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/46791/a_cult_of_presidential_power
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/12/the_security_th_1.html Schneier on security.
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2007/01/presidents-power-to-attack-iran.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/01/AR2006010100788.html Alito once made a case for presidential power.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19092 Power Grab
http://www.thenewpress.com/index.php?option=com_title&task=view_title&metaproductid=1632 Unchecked and Unbalanced.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20060109_bergen.html The unitary executive
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/waronterror/p/imperial101.htm Unitary Presidency 101

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CHI20070521&articleId=5720 New directive gives Bush Dictatorial Power.
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200602160841.asp New Power for the Vice President.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,288238,00.html Bush's Power to Pardon Libby.
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/10/our-view-on-pre.html Is Mukasey willing to be a "no" man in the White House?

If you want some more, it'll only take a few minutes. Duh!

Isn't it funny how conveniently Go Fish forgets to respond when you confound him with facts? Pretty typical, though.

Better luck next time!:clapper:

[Phyxius]

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a176/Hasatude5150/Bushi%20II/bush_vietnam_joke.jpg

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a176/Hasatude5150/Bushi%20II/bush_wewerentsoldiers.jpg

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a176/Hasatude5150/Bushi%20II/bush_dudejob.jpg

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a176/Hasatude5150/Bushi%20II/bush_guns_stick.jpg

[David]

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a176/Hasatude5150/Bushi%20II/bush_vietnam_joke.jpg

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a176/Hasatude5150/Bushi%20II/bush_wewerentsoldiers.jpg

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a176/Hasatude5150/Bushi%20II/bush_dudejob.jpg

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a176/Hasatude5150/Bushi%20II/bush_guns_stick.jpg

:lmao: nice. I do take issue with you sig, however. Bush is a neo-con. That's like calling a social democrat a communist.

[Phyxius]

:lmao: nice. I do take issue with you sig, however. Bush is a neo-con. That's like calling a social democrat a communist.


Shhhhhh...

I was waiting for Go Fish to figure out the punchline... :madlaugh:

[dgun]

Hillary is an avowed socialist

Hillary is by far the best Republican running. She is more Republican than most of the Republicans that so called Republicans support.

So, she wrote a meaningless book that pandered to the base of the Democratic party? And if anything she said meant a damn thing, then maybe you would have a point Go Fish. But if classic Republican Clinton haters would take time out from their Clinton hating ways and actually look at what policies the Clinton's have supported over the years, what you would see is a GOP dream candidate, minus all of the social conservative bullshit that the real GOP policy makers don't give a shit about anyway except for using to pander to the Christian Right.

I have said it many times, Hillary Clinton is a straight up corporate shill, bought and paid for primarily by the banking industry.

To say that Ms. Clinton is a communist is even more absurd than December saying the Dalai Lama is a CIA plant. She is, in all regards, a typical American capitalist.

[David]

Clinton is the best neo-con the GOP could ever hope to get. Yet more proof ours is a 1 party system in disguise.

Obama is a social democrat. Still capitalist.

Nether are socialists or communists.

[moses2792796]

hmm...

communism - each man is equal by virtue of equal wealth
capitalism - each man is equal by birth but can be differentiated through wealth

in other words, both are enslaved by economic circumstance, when did the entire world forget that money is a means to an end?

[Deadshot]

What's so funny about this is where those on the Right continually take conversations like this. The name of the thread is " Historians say Bush is a failure and worst president ever ." At each instance the Right has been shown why Bush is a FUBAR POTUS and they fail in their defence of him.

So instead of simply conceding the point that they lost, they simply begin attacking Democrats in general. They want the topic to change to "Democrats are communists or socialists", well if you want to argue that, fine - DO IT IN ANOTHER THREAD!

Right now you need to defend your belief in Bush and his presidency. Buck Laser, David, Phyxius, PatrickHenry, ViolaLee, Scribbler1, a myriad of other posters and myself have presented evidence that Historians are right, Bush is one of our WORST Presidents. Where is your evidence to the contrary, people of the Right? Buck's last post has people on the Right crucifying Bush, so even some Conservatives think he sucks!

You want to shit all over Obama, Clinton -either one, or Democrats in general, fine. Let's debate that. But right here you need to get back to topic and tell us why we, all our evidence, the grand majority of citizens of the USA, Historians and others are wrong and you are right. You will need evidence...something you all seem to be lacking, hence the direction the argument has taken.

That being the case the only conclusion a logical person can come to is that the topic sentence for this thread is right...Bush is a failure and the worst president ever!

[Wndrtch]

Those forty-thousand were never in Iraq until we came there and we probably still would've had to deal with eighty-thousand if we stayed in Afghanistan, but oh well he fucked it up.




You're right. They weren't in Iraq before we went in.

They were scattered around the globe, in every country, hiding in the shadows plotting death and destruction, safely. Now, they've congregated in Iraq, like fish in a barrel. We can now get to them without chasing them down in every country.

How else do you fight global, international terrorism?

[micfranklin]

By not invading countries who didn't attack us.

[Go Fish]

Isn't it funny how conveniently Go Fish forgets to respond when you confound him with facts? Pretty typical, though.

Better luck next time!:clapper:

For the record, and since Buck hasn't corrected this yet, he was actually arguing with someone called "Easy90".
Clearest case of "CRAFT" disorder I've seen in years.

[Deadshot]

Wnd, that was not the purpose of the war, to concentrate all the Terrorists in one spot. If you are saying that it is that's pretty dispicable of the United States of America. To say to the Iraqi people and the current government that in truth we were simply using you and your country to draw in all the Terrorists of the world so as to concentrate them there is simply Evil. I think it would make even Machiavelli cringe to think that we lied to our people, their people and the world!

Go Fish, you and Wnd have yet to provide evidence to counter the evidence of others that Bush is not a failure and the worst president ever. Each post that is put here that attacks a poster, as Go Fish did, or tries to re-write history, as Wndrtch did, simply adds more to the preponderance of evidence that shows the threads title to be a fact.

[Go Fish]

I'm still waiting for Pookie to correct herself.

[Deadshot]

Whatever, Go, you have no argument anyway...

[Go Fish]

This here thing says that Carter was the worst.
http://www.the-privateer.com/chart/dow-long.html

So does this thing.
http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=248

You guessed it:
http://ap.grolier.com/article?assetid=0078990-00

And again:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/25opec/sld004.htm

And here's what a balanced, informed analysis of America's presidents looks like. Jimmy Carter ALMOST qualified as a failure.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007243