Worst president in history?
- Thread starter xusnret
- Start date
Originally posted by otter
The point was the "rich punk" comment, your bias is showing, idiot. It's not about the war, its all about your hate. Continue with your charade, Mr Disingenuous.
So, I have a bias, does that bother you, do you think that makes me less of a person? Name calling in any form is not good, so I guess we are even.
I hate the Bushites for putting us into a situation that is going to take a lifetime to recover from...it is my right to feel this way and your right to disagree.
vrai...getting in on someone else's action again...it hurts so good...hehe.
I bet you all have little pat-me-on-the-back parties, and congratulate each other on being the bigger a-hole...
Last edited:
How about opening your eyes a little? President Bush has started that "lifetime" effort to correct errors of our past that led to our being attacked. In case you don't remember the attackers were here under another President's watch taking the training that allowed them to convert passanger planes into weapons of mass destruction.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Val...
...I appreciate you willingness to illustrate your thought process.
Now would be a good time to duck.
1.
2.
...and
3.
That is your interpretation and you can support it all day long by ignoring most of what the administration has said, all of what Bill Clinton has said, 12 years of UN opinion and the entire IWR.
You are insisting on calling a cat a dog. You can, but it doesn't make it so based on the facts.
Again, read Bill Clinton, read the UN, read the IWR, read Hans Blix.
So, who's #1 on your list and why?
We do it because we are the only ones who can and the only ones who should. This is much resented, but it just is. Look at who we are; the world. No one comes CLOSE in diversity of population, religion, lifestlye, politics etc, etc, etc.
Horseshit. Read prior paragraph. People of the world have given up everything they had for over 200 years to come here and CHANGE their luck.
Compared to who? France? Iraq? Canada? Mexico? Russia? Lichtenstein? Somalia? Greenland?
Punk, huh? We had 8 years of the 'smartest people in the world' and learned by action the definiton of useless education.
Who, honeslty, is dumber than Bill Clinton? Who, honestly, has ever wasted more talent?
What will you have to say if, in 20 years, representative republics are flourishing in the Middle East and it all started in 2003 because of the risks a C average punk took to better the world?
If in those 20 years, the Middle East is no better, it will not be lack of trying on the part of one administration long ago.
In 20 years, Bill Clinton will still be known for a blue dress.
Kerry v. Bush is not about lesser evils, it is about changing the world for the better and John Kerry opposses that. You can look at his record and what he has to say about it.
...I appreciate you willingness to illustrate your thought process.
Now would be a good time to duck.
1.
2.
...and
3.
That is your interpretation and you can support it all day long by ignoring most of what the administration has said, all of what Bill Clinton has said, 12 years of UN opinion and the entire IWR.
You are insisting on calling a cat a dog. You can, but it doesn't make it so based on the facts.
Again, read Bill Clinton, read the UN, read the IWR, read Hans Blix.
So, who's #1 on your list and why?
We do it because we are the only ones who can and the only ones who should. This is much resented, but it just is. Look at who we are; the world. No one comes CLOSE in diversity of population, religion, lifestlye, politics etc, etc, etc.
Horseshit. Read prior paragraph. People of the world have given up everything they had for over 200 years to come here and CHANGE their luck.
Compared to who? France? Iraq? Canada? Mexico? Russia? Lichtenstein? Somalia? Greenland?
Punk, huh? We had 8 years of the 'smartest people in the world' and learned by action the definiton of useless education.
Who, honeslty, is dumber than Bill Clinton? Who, honestly, has ever wasted more talent?
What will you have to say if, in 20 years, representative republics are flourishing in the Middle East and it all started in 2003 because of the risks a C average punk took to better the world?
If in those 20 years, the Middle East is no better, it will not be lack of trying on the part of one administration long ago.
In 20 years, Bill Clinton will still be known for a blue dress.
Kerry v. Bush is not about lesser evils, it is about changing the world for the better and John Kerry opposses that. You can look at his record and what he has to say about it.
Shakezula
Insert Lame Innuendo Here
Re: Val...
Not trying to be a smartass here, but would you mind elaborating on your first sentence? I am just wondering how this is really a good answer to the question of who we are to tell people what they can and can't do. "Because we are the only ones who can and the only ones who should tell everyone else what to do?" I am just wondering who put "us" in charge?
Not trying to be a smartass here, but would you mind elaborating on your first sentence? I am just wondering how this is really a good answer to the question of who we are to tell people what they can and can't do. "Because we are the only ones who can and the only ones who should tell everyone else what to do?" I am just wondering who put "us" in charge?
No "sort of" about it Slick, that is what happened.Originally posted by valentino
True, sort of... I am not saying that nobody else made mistakes, just stating that I feel Bush and others in his clan have made things worse...have another...
Mistakes? Negligence would be more appropriate. Clinton was worried more about getting his knob polished instead of providing for the common defense. Bush is worried about continued and new threats and is actually doing something other then breating hard and dipping a cigar like Clinton was. Regardless of where Bush finally fits on the list you can rest assured that Clinton will have a higher placement on a list of the worse.
Re: Val...
I repeat, never said nobody else made mistakes, but it seems like Bush is making things worse...
#1 on my list...North Korea...seems like more of a threat, and actually has nuclear and potentially other useable WMD's.
I love the diversity of the US, and the freedom to live that dream, but why do we continue to make it okay to let people of other cultures live here if we think they are causing us so many problems worldwide?
Handling things with violence only seems to bring more violence, whether it happens in our lifetime or not does not matter...why continue the trend.
Canada has a lot less crime and they basically breathe the same air we do, and have much of the same diversification...Europe as well...
Clinton did waste his knowledge, even though he did some good, he also made many mistakes, and of course the worst will be his hardest to shake.
Kerry did not want to go to war because he did not believe in it...but he went and did the job he was told to do. Bush seems to have found ways around just about everything. I guess we cannot blame him completely though, he was not accepted into his state college, so daddy made it possible for him to go to Yale, talk about wasted opportunity...
Ken-
Maybe Bush and Dole should talk about the erectile disfunction issue...seems like little dubya has some pent up frustration, but I guess it could be his withdrawal symptoms from alchoholism.
I repeat, never said nobody else made mistakes, but it seems like Bush is making things worse...
#1 on my list...North Korea...seems like more of a threat, and actually has nuclear and potentially other useable WMD's.
I love the diversity of the US, and the freedom to live that dream, but why do we continue to make it okay to let people of other cultures live here if we think they are causing us so many problems worldwide?
Handling things with violence only seems to bring more violence, whether it happens in our lifetime or not does not matter...why continue the trend.
Canada has a lot less crime and they basically breathe the same air we do, and have much of the same diversification...Europe as well...
Clinton did waste his knowledge, even though he did some good, he also made many mistakes, and of course the worst will be his hardest to shake.
Kerry did not want to go to war because he did not believe in it...but he went and did the job he was told to do. Bush seems to have found ways around just about everything. I guess we cannot blame him completely though, he was not accepted into his state college, so daddy made it possible for him to go to Yale, talk about wasted opportunity...
Ken-
Maybe Bush and Dole should talk about the erectile disfunction issue...seems like little dubya has some pent up frustration, but I guess it could be his withdrawal symptoms from alchoholism.
Last edited:
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Shake...
I guess I shoulda worded it different.
Obviously, Stalin 'could', Hitler 'could' and Osama 'can' in the sense we 'can'.
I simply take the position that we are the shinning example, with all of our flaws, as to what human beings naturally strive for;
Independance.
Opportunity to enjoy the fruits of ones own labor.
Opportunity to pass things on to ones own family.
Protection and security of equal justice under the law.
I don't see this anywhere else in the world. I do see people endlessly trying to come here.
The entire world would be a much better place if every nation lived under our Constitution, our Bill of Rights and our politcal system.
I can't say that about any other nation.
It's OK that they don't and I do not want to force this down anyones throat. That defeats the purpose. In the case of Iraq, it was simply time to put the boots to him and his regime. We'll leave and they'll likely go back to rule of violence.
We aren't done and the job has been hindered greatly by the fact that public opinion must be accounted for at home. That's a good thing but I've simply yet to hear a coherent argument as to how we are better off with Saddam and the Baathists in power.
And that is the holdup, the public argument that we shouldn't be there at all.
I guess I shoulda worded it different.
Obviously, Stalin 'could', Hitler 'could' and Osama 'can' in the sense we 'can'.
I simply take the position that we are the shinning example, with all of our flaws, as to what human beings naturally strive for;
Independance.
Opportunity to enjoy the fruits of ones own labor.
Opportunity to pass things on to ones own family.
Protection and security of equal justice under the law.
I don't see this anywhere else in the world. I do see people endlessly trying to come here.
The entire world would be a much better place if every nation lived under our Constitution, our Bill of Rights and our politcal system.
I can't say that about any other nation.
It's OK that they don't and I do not want to force this down anyones throat. That defeats the purpose. In the case of Iraq, it was simply time to put the boots to him and his regime. We'll leave and they'll likely go back to rule of violence.
We aren't done and the job has been hindered greatly by the fact that public opinion must be accounted for at home. That's a good thing but I've simply yet to hear a coherent argument as to how we are better off with Saddam and the Baathists in power.
And that is the holdup, the public argument that we shouldn't be there at all.
Shakezula
Insert Lame Innuendo Here
Larry
But the terrorists think that the entire world would be a much better place if everyone lived under THEIR rules/religion.... so it just doesn't seem like either side can "win."
It's a never ending battle. Both sides think that the other should be like them instead of just leaving each other alone in the first place.
But the terrorists think that the entire world would be a much better place if everyone lived under THEIR rules/religion.... so it just doesn't seem like either side can "win."
It's a never ending battle. Both sides think that the other should be like them instead of just leaving each other alone in the first place.
Re: Shake...
Agreed on most of what you say, but I think that instead of putting us in a better place, we are worse off with more people hating our "perfect" way of life. It is funny that you say when we leave that they will go back to the rule of violence, that only proves my point that it was and is a wasted effort. To us they are fanatics, to them we are fanatics. It is their opinion that dying for a cause is the most noble way to go out, so maybe I should just accept a lifetime of people living in fear that their neighbor is a terrorist if they look a little different, and might kill them one day.
Some of you state that Clinton was given Osama on a platter...well the first Bush had plenty of chances to take care of Sadaam as well...it just did not happen, I do not recall hearing anyone discuss that much.
Agreed on most of what you say, but I think that instead of putting us in a better place, we are worse off with more people hating our "perfect" way of life. It is funny that you say when we leave that they will go back to the rule of violence, that only proves my point that it was and is a wasted effort. To us they are fanatics, to them we are fanatics. It is their opinion that dying for a cause is the most noble way to go out, so maybe I should just accept a lifetime of people living in fear that their neighbor is a terrorist if they look a little different, and might kill them one day.
Some of you state that Clinton was given Osama on a platter...well the first Bush had plenty of chances to take care of Sadaam as well...it just did not happen, I do not recall hearing anyone discuss that much.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Val...
North Korea is a good one.
Fact though, they are less of a threat in terms of interupting oil supply. Now, they are also a bit ticklish because of the nukes.
We don't have to worry, for now, about Iraqi nukes, so, it was a good time to knock Saddam out, yes?
By that logic, we should have done them BEFORE they had the capability, yes? Say, mid 90's? Clinton built them a start of the art reactor and gave them 10 years of oil instead.
Well, it would be rather un-American to keep people out.
Fact is there are swarms of service jobs that longer term Americans just don't want to do. New Americans have that 'whatever it takes' pioneer thing going on.
We should do a better job but neither major party has it as a priority.
Violence? We were attacked several times through the Clinton years and he most decidedly did not use violence in return.
Turning the other cheek gets your other cheek slapped. I do not agree with Osamas justifications for killing us.
Clinton will only be remembered for Monica because it is the most sound bite friendly thing he did. Raising taxes doesn't sound good and the Enron economy (Wall Street fraud) is not something people want to talk about either. He could have wiped out Al Queda and/or deposed Hussien and been remembered for doing good. Don't ask, don't tell? Come on, the man did NOTHING but play.
Does what Clinton did vis a vis the Vietnam War bother you?
Should we base this election on what 25 year olds did or what they've done for the last 20 years?
North Korea is a good one.
Fact though, they are less of a threat in terms of interupting oil supply. Now, they are also a bit ticklish because of the nukes.
We don't have to worry, for now, about Iraqi nukes, so, it was a good time to knock Saddam out, yes?
By that logic, we should have done them BEFORE they had the capability, yes? Say, mid 90's? Clinton built them a start of the art reactor and gave them 10 years of oil instead.
Well, it would be rather un-American to keep people out.
Fact is there are swarms of service jobs that longer term Americans just don't want to do. New Americans have that 'whatever it takes' pioneer thing going on.
We should do a better job but neither major party has it as a priority.
Violence? We were attacked several times through the Clinton years and he most decidedly did not use violence in return.
Turning the other cheek gets your other cheek slapped. I do not agree with Osamas justifications for killing us.
Clinton will only be remembered for Monica because it is the most sound bite friendly thing he did. Raising taxes doesn't sound good and the Enron economy (Wall Street fraud) is not something people want to talk about either. He could have wiped out Al Queda and/or deposed Hussien and been remembered for doing good. Don't ask, don't tell? Come on, the man did NOTHING but play.
Does what Clinton did vis a vis the Vietnam War bother you?
Should we base this election on what 25 year olds did or what they've done for the last 20 years?
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Iraq doesn't have to...
...go back to the way it was.
There is a strong Iraqi national identity among Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis we are told. There is a stronger sense of 'modernity' in Iraq than typical in the region. Hussein short circuited the nations growth in amny ways that need not happen and we have played a negative role there.
As things considered, a great many minds here felt this was a good bet for democracy.
Iraq may very well turn out well. There is a decent chance.
Before we deposed Saddam, there was 0 chance. Hell, we're still in Japan, Germany and South Korea. It will take time.
As far as Clintons failures, I agree, Bush could have made Osama job one BUT, just as Clinton had judged, so did the Bush people judge; not that big of a deal at the moment.
That's why Richard Clarke sucks so much ass. He KNOWS better than what he's been spouting.
...go back to the way it was.
There is a strong Iraqi national identity among Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis we are told. There is a stronger sense of 'modernity' in Iraq than typical in the region. Hussein short circuited the nations growth in amny ways that need not happen and we have played a negative role there.
As things considered, a great many minds here felt this was a good bet for democracy.
Iraq may very well turn out well. There is a decent chance.
Before we deposed Saddam, there was 0 chance. Hell, we're still in Japan, Germany and South Korea. It will take time.
As far as Clintons failures, I agree, Bush could have made Osama job one BUT, just as Clinton had judged, so did the Bush people judge; not that big of a deal at the moment.
That's why Richard Clarke sucks so much ass. He KNOWS better than what he's been spouting.
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
If you can find a single quote from Bush claiming that the war was because the Iraqis were responsible for 9/11, and we were hitting them back, I'll concede this completely. He never - ever - said that, but people have put those words in his mouth.
Why isn't this disputed? Because for pete's sake, if someone had to answer every stupid assed complaint about Bush, the world would end first.
Congress spelled out our reasons for going to war.
(And Kerry voted for it)....
"Joint Resolution to Authorize the use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq.
Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;
Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to "work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge" posed by Iraq and to "work for the necessary resolutions," while also making clear that "the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable";
Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;
Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and
Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,"
etc. etc..... Passed the Senate by vote 77-23.
Now - find the part that is inconsistent. This is why we went in there. Ok? Not BECAUSE Iraq caused 9/11, but because Iraq was involved in funding international terrorism.
I'm astonished by the comments here. You want to find out why we went to war, find the bill that authorized it. They seem very consistent with what is being said.
BTW - it's not uncommon for the President's opponents to distort what is said for their benefit. The recent embarassment regarding what the 9/11 commission REALLY said regarding ties between Iraq and al-Qaeda ought to be proof enough.
Oil supply...hehe, I thought Operation Iraq had nothing to do with oil???
I agree that Sadaam should have been taken care of long ago...Osama as well, whoever was the first to ignore his threats. I am not totally sure they were ignored, but hind sight shows that it was a mistake to ignore him or not try harder to stop him.
Clinton running from Vietnam does bother me to an extent, but if I am judging for myself, I would rather not have fought in that war if I was being forced to either.
Someone of presidential stature should have been that way for at least most of their lives...be it because of opportunity unwasted or what have you...a persons past is always important, and if you think that Bush's past is not important, why is Kerry's so relevant?
I would hope that Iraq and many other countries can see that at the core of America is a good set of values, and that they will start following those values, it is just the politicians and or rednecks that make an ass out of us all.
While we are at making comparisons, lets just pretend it was Sadaam who had the power to take over the US. I cannot even imagine how that would work out, but imagine how long it would take us to change our way of thinking to suit his....most likely forever, so why are we always trying to change people that do not want to change?
samshade
http://www.truthuncovered.com/
I will look for more in a sec...
I agree that Sadaam should have been taken care of long ago...Osama as well, whoever was the first to ignore his threats. I am not totally sure they were ignored, but hind sight shows that it was a mistake to ignore him or not try harder to stop him.
Clinton running from Vietnam does bother me to an extent, but if I am judging for myself, I would rather not have fought in that war if I was being forced to either.
Someone of presidential stature should have been that way for at least most of their lives...be it because of opportunity unwasted or what have you...a persons past is always important, and if you think that Bush's past is not important, why is Kerry's so relevant?
I would hope that Iraq and many other countries can see that at the core of America is a good set of values, and that they will start following those values, it is just the politicians and or rednecks that make an ass out of us all.
While we are at making comparisons, lets just pretend it was Sadaam who had the power to take over the US. I cannot even imagine how that would work out, but imagine how long it would take us to change our way of thinking to suit his....most likely forever, so why are we always trying to change people that do not want to change?
samshade
http://www.truthuncovered.com/
I will look for more in a sec...
Last edited:
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
Larry -
There's probably NO chance that North Korea has much of a nuclear program, unless someone GAVE them one. They have never had the kind of resources and money to develop one. The task is enormous. Secondly - the litmus test of having a nuclear weapon is a nuclear *test*. NO test happening.
I don't think they have any weapons. I think they're bullsh*tting...
There's evidence by some of our monitoring that they are definitely trying to process weapons grade material. Maybe. Maybe they have enough for two bombs. I doubt it. I think Kim Jong Il is nuts. He's neighbors to two nuclear states that have no wish for him to be nuclear. I think he's crazy.
There's probably NO chance that North Korea has much of a nuclear program, unless someone GAVE them one. They have never had the kind of resources and money to develop one. The task is enormous. Secondly - the litmus test of having a nuclear weapon is a nuclear *test*. NO test happening.
I don't think they have any weapons. I think they're bullsh*tting...
There's evidence by some of our monitoring that they are definitely trying to process weapons grade material. Maybe. Maybe they have enough for two bombs. I doubt it. I think Kim Jong Il is nuts. He's neighbors to two nuclear states that have no wish for him to be nuclear. I think he's crazy.
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
"This is probably not pertinent in this thread, but where do we get off telling everyone else what they can and cannot have. We are allowed to have whatever weapons we want, kill whoever we want, and others just have to deal with it. I am all for protecting our security, but we have worried about what we are going to do overseas while at the same time ignoring problems right here in the US, and ignoring our peoples needs. I think that everyone should at least try to work and make a living for themselves. "
For one thing - many of us (including the US) have signed multiple international agreements regarding these weapons. They're subject to examination, and we don't freely export these kinds of weapons. And many nations have signed on saying they DON'T want nuclear weapons. Why? Because they don't want anybody pointing one at them. Ukraine is a former nuclear power that chose to disarm. They had the same band of weapons inspectors come in and observe their dismantling of their weapons.
BTW - that's how weapons inspection is *supposed* to work. You invite them in to show you're disposing them. It's NOT SUPPOSED to be a f*cking shell game where the inspectors have to prove they exist.
Iran is a nation that wants to be a nuclear power - but they don't want anyone inspecting them. Answer of the international community - "I don't think so".
Many nations know that proliferation of these kinds of weapons is the sure way to them actually being used. That's why so many have chosen not to develop or stockpile them.
BUT if you're a nation that sponsors terrorism - I'm sorry, but you're not a risk the rest of the world is willing to allow.
For one thing - many of us (including the US) have signed multiple international agreements regarding these weapons. They're subject to examination, and we don't freely export these kinds of weapons. And many nations have signed on saying they DON'T want nuclear weapons. Why? Because they don't want anybody pointing one at them. Ukraine is a former nuclear power that chose to disarm. They had the same band of weapons inspectors come in and observe their dismantling of their weapons.
BTW - that's how weapons inspection is *supposed* to work. You invite them in to show you're disposing them. It's NOT SUPPOSED to be a f*cking shell game where the inspectors have to prove they exist.
Iran is a nation that wants to be a nuclear power - but they don't want anyone inspecting them. Answer of the international community - "I don't think so".
Many nations know that proliferation of these kinds of weapons is the sure way to them actually being used. That's why so many have chosen not to develop or stockpile them.
BUT if you're a nation that sponsors terrorism - I'm sorry, but you're not a risk the rest of the world is willing to allow.