NationStates Jolt Archive

...


Do you know what Josh calls him? Grandma-Man.

I picked number 2.

I picked number 2.
Meh. Im in the minority with hes a good prez.

I don't really like him but he is definitly not the worst. The worst is Carter.

Meh. Im in the minority with hes a good prez.

Nothing wrong with that. I commend your honesty.

I don't really like him but he is definitly not the worst. The worst is Carter.

I can't stand Carter, either. Here's my list of worst Presidents.

1.Abraham Lincoln
2.Franklin Roosevelt
3.Woodrow Wilson
4.Richard Nixon
5.Jimmy Carter
6.Lyndon Johnson
7.Harry Truman
8.Dwight Eisenhower
9.George W. Bush
10.Bill Clinton
11.George H.W. Bush
12.Gerald Ford
13.Ulysses Grant
14.Warren Harding

Meh. Im in the minority with hes a good prez.

This really isn't a fair statistic, so don't be too concerned.

oh God..I really feel sorry for the past presidents of the US. They come into office hoping to make the country and world a better place, but after the leave, they're automatically candidates for a 'which one is worse' list :p

Meh. Im in the minority with hes a good prez.


I to am in the minority Every one says bush sucks but all they can give is already disproven acusations and mindless blabble..there are a few that get me thinking but none of them a huge kerry supporters either

oh God..I really feel sorry for the past presidents of the US. They come into office hoping to make the country and world a better place, but after the leave, they're automatically candidates for a 'which one is worse' list :p

Lol

He's about #2, right behind Abraham Lincoln. The corrupt presidents of the Gilded Age and then Coolidge and Hoover and Taft all kinda let bad stuff happen, they didn't actively cause it. By contrast, GW....

Nothing wrong with that. I commend your honesty.
Thanks.

I can't stand Carter, either. Here's my list of worst Presidents.

1.Abraham Lincoln
2.Franklin Roosevelt
3.Woodrow Wilson
4.Richard Nixon
5.Jimmy Carter
6.Lyndon Johnson
7.Harry Truman
8.Dwight Eisenhower
9.George W. Bush
10.Bill Clinton
11.George H.W. Bush
12.Gerald Ford
13.Ulysses Grant
14.Warren Harding

Hold up, what is wrong with Lincoln? Are you a racist? Or a Secesh person or something?

Thanks.


Hold up, what is wrong with Lincoln? Are you a racist? Or a Secesh person or something?

No, I'm not racist. Lincoln was, though.

Thanks.


Hold up, what is wrong with Lincoln? Are you a racist? Or a Secesh person or something?
Lincoln did some pretty bad things during the civil war like imprisoning political rivials.

I picked number 2.

So did I.

He's about #2, right behind Abraham Lincoln. The corrupt presidents of the Gilded Age and then Coolidge and Hoover and Taft all kinda let bad stuff happen, they didn't actively cause it. By contrast, GW....

What's wrong with Coolidge? If anyone is to blame for the Depression, it's the Federal Reserve.

I don't particularly like Bush but he's far from the worst ever.

I don't particularly like Bush but he's far from the worst ever.

Agreed.

I don't really like him but he is definitly not the worst. The worst is Carter.

Ain't that the truth. Carter was/is one of the biggest disgraces to US politics in all the 20th century. Now I don't agree with everything the current admin. wants me to, but it's far more reasuring to have Bush in office than any other choice out there. Bush is more of a person I can relate to than that pompous ass Kerry. I still can't stand the vehement Bush-hating that I see all the time. The people who seem to cry out the most sound like a bunch of spoiled "in" kids who just found out that they don't get there way. Most of the arguements i've read, and i try to be as objective as possible, seem so based in hatred that no facts or solutions are ever clear. Bush has lied. Big f#%@ing deal. Name me a president, or person for that matter who hasn't. And now that i'm fired up, name me a Democratic president since Kennedy that knew what the military was for and used it as it was designed. And don't go spouting the "900 soldiers were killed in Iraq" BS, any of you tree-hugging leftists. They are soldiers. soldiers die when people shoot at them. And our soldiers shoot back. That is their job. You don't get into the military, train in how to use a variety of weapons systems, and then sign a contract that says you won't be ordered to use them. And as for other countries not liking our foreign policy....tough. we don't need your approval. why don't you be concerned with why your government/country has so little influence over world events that at best your opinion in the UN is an amusing afterthought for us. The last time the US had to compete for world dominance is close to 20 years ago. And last I checked, a person immigrates to this country every 30 seconds (will provide source as soon as I find which article about the US census that I read recently), so for all the america hating out there, we're still a popular place to set up camp. I'm done ranting. :mad:

carter is the worst no doubt in my mind...bush is pretty high up on the worst list though....

I picked number 5. Bush is my idol. He has a good personality and is a great leader and cares more about the country's safety than his popularity around the world.

I picked the third one.

Also, a couple of the Presidents on Roach-Busters' worst list would be on my best list.

I still can't stand the vehement Bush-hating that I see all the time. The people who seem to cry out the most sound like a bunch of spoiled "in" kids who just found out that they don't get there way. Most of the arguements i've read, and i try to be as objective as possible, seem so based in hatred that no facts or solutions are ever clear.

Yes of course, when all else fails, a pig-headed refusal to look facts in the face will see us through.

Bush has lied. Big f#%@ing deal. Name me a president, or person for that matter who hasn't.

So Bush got hunderds of thousands of people killed for his lie, yet I'm sure you were right on the 'Crucify Clinton' wagon when he got a blowjob. Typical conservative idiot.

And now that i'm fired up, name me a Democratic president since Kennedy that knew what the military was for and used it as it was designed.

Clinton. Remember? His military did really well in Afghanistan and Iraq? The reason the military is so advanced was due to Clinton. The results of Bush's activity with the military will be seen in future administrations. Name me a republican who knew what it was used for? And if you say Regan, I'd have to then point out that because of his gross overspending he increased the national debt from $789 billion dollars to $2.191 TRILLION dollars. And then, even though clinton spent only 2% less on military spending than Regan did (by the way the Soviet Union had collapsed by then in case you missed it), he presided over the longest period of economic expansion in US history. I honestly am starting to think that republicans are crap with money handling. Just look at some of the most successful economies in US history, FDR pulled the United States out of the depression, JFK/LBJ presided over the US and created incredible economic gains for it, and Clinton's record speaks anthologies for the incredible amount of money that the US made during the 90s, btw last year the budget deficit was equal to that of military spending, coming up on $500 billion dollars. That's a half of a TRILLION.

And don't go spouting the "900 soldiers were killed in Iraq" BS, any of you tree-hugging leftists. They are soldiers. soldiers die when people shoot at them. And our soldiers shoot back. That is their job. You don't get into the military, train in how to use a variety of weapons systems, and then sign a contract that says you won't be ordered to use them.

I actually half agree with you here. Soldiers die, fact of life. However, soldiers shouldn't be put in harm's way for a lie. 900 soldiers have died so far so we could have more oil. Unfortunately so have tens of thousands of men, women and children. All civilians. All Iraqis. That's not good. Do you drive an SUV by any chance? I'm sure you'd be happy that soldiers gave their lives, and civilians had theirs stolen, for you to produce more noxious fumes. Let's can the overall greenhouse gas talk for a minute, and just focus on the fact that fumes produced from cars are harmful to people. It's good that you can go round driving your grossly oversized vehicle, which has the fuel efficiency of a WW2 B29 superfortress.

And as for other countries not liking our foreign policy....tough. we don't need your approval. why don't you be concerned with why your government/country has so little influence over world events that at best your opinion in the UN is an amusing afterthought for us. The last time the US had to compete for world dominance is close to 20 years ago. And last I checked, a person immigrates to this country every 30 seconds (will provide source as soon as I find which article about the US census that I read recently), so for all the america hating out there, we're still a popular place to set up camp. I'm done ranting. :mad:

I was a little disdainful of this. Seeing as you've just justified every bad feeling that the world has for the United States. By the way, Bush is the reason for many of those feelings. Oh and if you're going to talk about the wonderful way that the military should work, why doesn't the US actually try to invade a REAL country. You know, one that hasn't been belted down by 10 years of bombings, blockades and sanctions. That's probably the reason why the good ol' US of A has the largest stockpile of Nuclear, Biological and Chemical weapons in the entire world. Because Uncle Sam couldn't win a REAL war. You probably supported the Vietnam war, too, didn't you?

Why don't you just shut up and go back to sleep? I'm sick of hearing the crap spouting from the mouths of republican neo-conservatives. Just a bunch of fools who don't know the difference between a president and an actor, or for that matter a criminal.

Clinton. Remember? His military did really well in Afghanistan and Iraq? The reason the military is so advanced was due to Clinton.

:: pulls out brown flag... throws it on the 50 yard line::
BS on the play. Loss of 15 yards and loss of down.

Having served through the Clinton years, I still have nightmares about what he did. Clinton did his utmost to gut the military. "Pink slips" handed out right and left. Officers passed over 2 times for advancement are not allowed to "re-up" even tho the billets for the new ranks were deleted.

His disdain for the military was always evident whenever he made his obligatory tours.

50th celebration of Victory in the Pacific day, Clinton was scheduled to be aboard the USS Carl Vinson, watching a parade of ships from many nations.

FDR pulled the United States out of the depression

Wrong. World War II pulled us out of the Depression.

I wouldn't call him the worst ever, but he's definitely the worst since '88 in consecutive years, and some others scattered throughout history.

I voted "mixed feelings." He's definitely not the worst. My vote for that would go to FDR. Carter would be up on that list too. Lincoln would be on my "best" list, he pulled the U.S. through the most trying time in our history.

Funniest president? Gotta be Ford. He never won a national election. Picked to be VP when Agnew resigned, then "ascended" to the presidency when Nixon resigned. He must have looked around the Oval Office that first day and said: WTF?!?

"And you may say to yourself, well, how did I get here?" -- Talking Heads

I think he isn't our best but good...
...its not that he is bad, but that he started a war...
...and the US seems to hate wars nowadays...
...even if it means freeing an entire country from the rule of an evil... no, crazy dictator. People say its a waste of time because the citizens aren't appreciating us, they don't hate us, they just haven't figured what we have done for them.

I think he isn't our best but good...
...its not that he is bad, but that he started a war...
...and the US seems to hate wars nowadays...
...even if it means freeing an entire country from the rule of an evil... no, crazy dictator. People say its a waste of time because the citizens aren't appreciating us, they don't hate us, they just haven't figured what we have done for them.

Do you realize how stupid you sound? You assume that we did something good for them, because you see all the pro-American propaganda ciculated by our media, and think that it's all good for them. You have not been there, and you likely don't pay attention to the things that al-Jazeera, the Islamic propaganda channel, broadcasts, like huge piles of dead Iraqis. Now granted, it's all propaganda, but still, the point remains: we are essentially opressing another country because we decided their dictator threatened the world oil supply. Oh, I mean Israel. Oh, my bad, I actually meant world peace. Yeah, world peace, no better way to get that than by unilaterally attacking a mostly harmless country without world support (and I don't want to hear bullshit about "what about Britain?" because I think we all know our coalition is mostly little puppet nations) and with scanty evidence. If Clinton had pulled this shit, we just might have impeached him.

Worst President since Taft.

Do you realize how stupid you sound? You assume that we did something good for them, because you see all the pro-American propaganda ciculated by our media, and think that it's all good for them. You have not been there, and you likely don't pay attention to the things that al-Jazeera, the Islamic propaganda channel, broadcasts, like huge piles of dead Iraqis. Now granted, it's all propaganda, but still, the point remains: we are essentially opressing another country because we decided their dictator threatened the world oil supply. Oh, I mean Israel. Oh, my bad, I actually meant world peace. Yeah, world peace, no better way to get that than by unilaterally attacking a mostly harmless country without world support (and I don't want to hear bullshit about "what about Britain?" because I think we all know our coalition is mostly little puppet nations) and with scanty evidence. If Clinton had pulled this shit, we just might have impeached him.

you forget we almost did impeach him.
and yeah I also once had the thought that we were trying to conquer the world, but I was wrong

you also forget I am a much bigger nation than you and you should watch your mouth :P

Do you realize how stupid you sound? You assume that we did something good for them, because you see all the pro-American propaganda ciculated by our media, and think that it's all good for them. You have not been there, and you likely don't pay attention to the things that al-Jazeera, the Islamic propaganda channel, broadcasts, like huge piles of dead Iraqis. Now granted, it's all propaganda, but still, the point remains: we are essentially opressing another country because we decided their dictator threatened the world oil supply. Oh, I mean Israel. Oh, my bad, I actually meant world peace. Yeah, world peace, no better way to get that than by unilaterally attacking a mostly harmless country without world support (and I don't want to hear bullshit about "what about Britain?" because I think we all know our coalition is mostly little puppet nations) and with scanty evidence. If Clinton had pulled this shit, we just might have impeached him.

Do you realize how stupid you sound? Maybe stupid isn't the right word. How about "arrogant and condescending?" Yeah, that's better...

you forget we almost did impeach him.
and yeah I also once had the thought that we were trying to conquer the world, but I was wrong

you also forget I am a much bigger nation than you and you should watch your mouth :P

ah, but you can't invade me for no reason. Plus, my economy's better.

there must be a good reason for that because I can't actually get onto the actual nationstates to check up on my nation, a freind does that for me, and yesterday when I looked at a site's statistic for Techon they were amazingly good.
And you underestimate the power of older nations, I am not an entirely older nation, but I have seen many wars go on without any cause...
...and tell me, is there a reason as to why we went into Iraq? Obviously we did no good

Do you realize how stupid you sound? Maybe stupid isn't the right word. How about "arrogant and condescending?" Yeah, that's better...

thank you for noticing his little blindness

...and tell me, is there a reason as to why we went into Iraq? Obviously we did no good
So far, Halliburton seems to have gained the most. Coincidentally, most of the Bush cabinet members have ties to Halliburton. I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

I to am in the minority Every one says bush sucks but all they can give is already disproven acusations and mindless blabble...

Mindless babble, disproven acusations? Like what? If you're looking for 'mindless babble', then look no further than Dubya himself. As far as disproven acusations go, name one.

Dubya has to be the worst President in recent memory.

maybe that its an entire coincidence

maybe that its an entire coincidence

Possible, but highly doubtful.

1.) We did impeach Clinton, he was accquitted.

2.) The Iraqis themselves have the most to gain from the liberation of their country from Saddam Hussein. Some terrorists are obviously trying to stop this, but they're in the minority.

Possible, but highly doubtful.
In a universe of possibility anything and everything has 50% chance of happening, or being true and 50% chance of not happening, or not being true

I can't stand Carter, either. Here's my list of worst Presidents.

1.Abraham Lincoln
2.Franklin Roosevelt
3.Woodrow Wilson
4.Richard Nixon
5.Jimmy Carter
6.Lyndon Johnson
7.Harry Truman
8.Dwight Eisenhower
9.George W. Bush
10.Bill Clinton
11.George H.W. Bush
12.Gerald Ford
13.Ulysses Grant
14.Warren Harding

Umm...so which 20th century Presidents DID you like?

I just think the public stopped caring for their presidents after Reagan

Umm...so which 20th century Presidents DID you like?

I have mixed feelings about Calvin Coolidge.

Lots of correlations exist between what happened in Japan just before the Meiji era and throughout it up to the point Japan bombed Pearl Harbour.

The US and Britain tear down (or at least 'assist' in tearing down) a foreign government that was being stingy with its business with them. They form an economically cooperatve government as a replacement in this country and model it after a western democracy. However, a highly natioanlist population knows that trade laws are being unfairly tilted in the American and British intersts. Assassinations and terrorism follow. Rhetoric grows, extremism and foreign hated grow. The old attempt at democracy is replaced by a militaristic one and then...Pearl Harbour.

We didn't do Iraq any good. We didn't do ourselves any good either. History repeats. What will Iraq do to use years down the road? Is another world war on the way?

===========

Oh yes ( ;) )...best...ummm...hard to chose. Same goes with bad. They all had their good and weak parts. But if I have to choose:

Best: Kennedy (kept his head cool in a crisis - before it was removed from his body - and is the most fun to read about too). Bush Sr. (SENIOR! Not JUNIOR!) was also pretty good. Nice of him to call Reaganomics for what it was. Voodoo Economics. A really stand up guy and not a wimp at all.

Worst: Taft/Reagan. (at least Reagan had charisma...and yes you DID sell weapons to naughty people!)

Carter and Bush Jr just give creedence to why religion and politics must stay seperate. Sad, too cause Carter's a nice man.

I really want to see what happens after Bush Jr's presidency to rightfully judge him. Although I must admit it doesn't look good at all.

I have mixed feelings with him. He did too many programs that were along the Democratic agenda. His increasing of the Department of Education and Prescription Drugs are the most unAmerican and unRepublican thing to do. I wanted smaller government, not these useless programs.

However on ranking, he is not the worst...but by long. The worst IMO is Carter who not only failed on foreign policy but also on Domestic. I think he intentionally wanted to sack the economy. How the hell do you allow high interest rates WHILE in a recession WHILE having inflation. Jeez, seems like we need fiscal policy...idiots.

Bush on economics has been great, just fails at his federal spending because he listens to the Dems too much.

What will Iraq do to use years down the road? Is another world war on the way?

I'll admit it, our future's not a bright one (at least, in terms with our relationship with Iraq), but I doubt it will cause another world war. (I'm not saying they're won't be one, just that it won't be the result of our present predicament) You raise some very interesting questions, though, and make some excellent points. Nice post.

I have no opinion.

We give Bush too much credit for what he's done, and blame him too much for what he hasn't (or hasn't done right).

I think a better poll would be about Congress, and how bad it is ( or not ).

I'll admit it, our future's not a bright one (at least, in terms with our relationship with Iraq), but I doubt it will cause another world war. (I'm not saying they're won't be one, just that it won't be the result of our present predicament) You raise some very interesting questions, though, and make some excellent points. Nice post.

did I make a good point at all?

did I make a good point at all?

Yes.

Yes.
yay! hahaha :P

oh God..I really feel sorry for the past presidents of the US. They come into office hoping to make the country and world a better place, but after the leave, they're automatically candidates for a 'which one is worse' list :p
Look at the positive aspect. The President that used to be the worst is now 2nd worst thanks to the new title holder.....George W. Bush.

http://www.rockcitynews.com/photos3c/antibushwar3/images/nucleariraq3kings.jpg

I have mixed feelings with him. He did too many programs that were along the Democratic agenda. His increasing of the Department of Education and Prescription Drugs are the most unAmerican and unRepublican thing to do. I wanted smaller government, not these useless programs.

However on ranking, he is not the worst...but by long. The worst IMO is Carter who not only failed on foreign policy but also on Domestic. I think he intentionally wanted to sack the economy. How the hell do you allow high interest rates WHILE in a recession WHILE having inflation. Jeez, seems like we need fiscal policy...idiots.

Bush on economics has been great, just fails at his federal spending because he listens to the Dems too much.
Oh I think that Bush should get all the credit for spending too much. Can't really blame the Democrats there?

In the eyes of the public, each president seems ten times worse than the last and ten times better then the next

usually...

I like Bush, but he's not Reagan.

He'll win a landslide.

We didn't impeach Clinton for having an affair, we impeahced him for perjury.

Clinton gutted the military. Haven't you heard of how thinly our forces are spread?

Halliburton's been getting government contracts for many years. Al Gore himself praised the company.

I want Bush to flip-flop on the Assault Weapons Ban, even though a renewal will never survive the House.

The economy is now better than it ever was under Clinton, despite Clinton's debt reduction. The debt is small. I highly recommend GrowthDebt.com. You try to find economic prosperity under Democrats, but instead find the welfare monster, the Great Society programs, the tech bubble, and Carter's...well, let's not mention Carter. ;)

Just my opinions.

I like Bush, but he's not Reagan.

He'll win a landslide.
Hopefully not.

We didn't impeach Clinton for having an affair, we impeahced him for perjury.However the perjury was related to the affair. You mince words well but the end result is the same?

Clinton gutted the military. Haven't you heard of how thinly our forces are spread?
Considering that the Cold War was effectively over, most countries around the world drastically cut their military budgets, and that is common sense?
Even with the end of the Cold War, the US was spending the equivalent to all the rest of the countries combined. How do you spell overkill?

Halliburton's been getting government contracts for many years. Al Gore himself praised the company.
However, when the Vice President Cheney has hundreds of thousands of shares of stock in the company, many would call that "conflict of interest"?

I want Bush to flip-flop on the Assault Weapons Ban, even though a renewal will never survive the House.
Yup, you need more Americans running around with WMD (weapons of massive death). :eek:

The economy is now better than it ever was under Clinton, despite Clinton's debt reduction.How so?
The debt is small.
It is $1.5 TRILLION higher than when Bush came to the White House, which works out to over $5,000 MORE debt for every man. woman, and child in the US.
I highly recommend GrowthDebt.com.
It appears that that web site has not been updated since 2001, and I can understand why, because the Debt has skyrocketed since then. The guy is certainly nowhere near the Greenspan variety, and his reasoning is severely flawed. Perhaps you should try a more credible site?
You try to find economic prosperity under Democrats, but instead find the welfare monster, the Great Society programs, the tech bubble, You forgot higher EMPLOYMENT rate, lower unemployment rate, less National Debt, less poverty, higher stock market, lower trade deficit, higher percentage of Americans WITH health insurance, and lower health insurance premiums (I understand that they are going up, up, up?).

The Republicans seem to have done their level best to make it worse for the average American, even with those massive tax cuts that mainly benefitted the wealthiest Americans. Where are those MILLIONS of jobs that were supposed to be created by these tax cuts?

Worst President ever?

Probably not.

Worst President of the last 100 years......?

Probably.

why is Richard Nixon so bad? he opened up relations with china which allowed them to be a trading partner with us. Now Ulysses S Grant theres a bad president.

As far as GW Bush I think hes just mediocre.

oh God..I really feel sorry for the past presidents of the US. They come into office hoping to make the country and world a better place, but after the leave, they're automatically candidates for a 'which one is worse' list :p

Well, some of 'em really deserve it. My least-favorite president is Jackson. A major part of his campaign was to remove any and all Indian presence east of the Mississippi (pardon spelling). I can excuse white supremacy back then, simply because it was the standard way of thinking. But full-fledged genocide for political appeal is something else all together. Personally, I think our presidents would be more liked if they came from a different demographic of Americans. A lot of presidents were strongly involved in big business and the military - two things generally disliked by the many educated citizens.

So Bush got hunderds of thousands of people killed for his lie, yet I'm sure you were right on the 'Crucify Clinton' wagon when he got a blowjob. Typical conservative idiot.

Wow, Bush got hundreds of thousands killed? You attack people for believing propaganda, then show how much of it you've swallowed yourself.

There's no doubt that many innocent Iraqis have died in the war. There's also no doubt that far more hostile combatants have died. The American military is not known for its indiscriminate and imprecise attacks these days. The wonders of modern technology, you know.

On the other hand, we know for fact that Saddam Hussein was directly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of his own people--with no sign it would stop anytime soon. Or did that little factoid escape you?

And before you denounce my addiction to propaganda, allow me to point out that the American media is--unlike that of many countries--not given to spreading propaganda. (outside the tabloid press, anyway) That's what freedom of the press is all about. Our media is far more likely to find fault with our government's actions than they are to approve of it. That's hardly a good way for the government to propagandize, is it?

2.) The Iraqis themselves have the most to gain from the liberation of their country from Saddam Hussein. Some terrorists are obviously trying to stop this, but they're in the minority.

That would only be the case if we left Iraq to their own means. As it is, we're setting up long-term military bases, something that they (and the rest of the muslim world, including terrorists) are not too happy about.

Wow, Bush got hundreds of thousands killed? You attack people for believing propaganda, then show how much of it you've swallowed yourself.

There's no doubt that many innocent Iraqis have died in the war. There's also no doubt that far more hostile combatants have died. The American military is not known for its indiscriminate and imprecise attacks these days. The wonders of modern technology, you know.

On the other hand, we know for fact that Saddam Hussein was directly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of his own people--with no sign it would stop anytime soon. Or did that little factoid escape you?

And before you denounce my addiction to propaganda, allow me to point out that the American media is--unlike that of many countries--not given to spreading propaganda. (outside the tabloid press, anyway) That's what freedom of the press is all about. Our media is far more likely to find fault with our government's actions than they are to approve of it. That's hardly a good way for the government to propagandize, is it?
You seem to be missing a few "factoids" yourself regarding Saddam, taken some media "propaganda", and embellished it to create your own version of the "truth".

Bush had no real business being in Iraq in the first place.

That would only be the case if we left Iraq to their own means. As it is, we're setting up long-term military bases, something that they (and the rest of the muslim world, including terrorists) are not too happy about.
No, if we just packed up and left Iraq now, Iraq would fall into chaos and there'd be a chance, although its decreasing every day, that fanatics like Al-Sadr would manage to take control.


However, when the Vice President Cheney has hundreds of thousands of shares of stock in the company, many would call that "conflict of interest"?
Cheney had to sell his stock before he was sworn in I think.

Bush had no real business being in Iraq in the first place.
Bush and the US have business everywhere, being the world's strongest country.

So far, Halliburton seems to have gained the most. Coincidentally, most of the Bush cabinet members have ties to Halliburton. I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

Daiglopia, you seem to think Halliburton is an evil entity.
Did you know that Halliburton is the only company that can rebuild the oil refineries in Iraq. The only other company big enough to do it is in France. And France is not helping to do anything in Iraq because they had issues with going to Iraq related to the Oil for Food program that was illegal and amounted to bribery. France and Germany didn't want the war at all because they were getting money from Saddam. Talk about ties to an evil person or business!!

Daiglopia, you seem to think Halliburton is an evil entity.
Did you know that Halliburton is the only company that can rebuild the oil refineries in Iraq. The only other company big enough to do it is in France. And France is not helping to do anything in Iraq because they had issues with going to Iraq related to the Oil for Food program that was illegal and amounted to bribery. France and Germany didn't want the war at all because they were getting money from Saddam. Talk about ties to an evil person or business!!
I don't think the oil refineries would be destroyed if we hadn't gone to war. And seems to me that if France and Germany had been making money already, and didn't need a war to get it. Halliburton, on the other hand, has enlisted the help of our national government and military to make gains where competitiors had once been making a profit. I mean, is that a little wrong, or what?

I don't think the oil refineries would be destroyed if we hadn't gone to war. And seems to me that if France and Germany had been making money already, and didn't need a war to get it. Halliburton, on the other hand, has enlisted the help of our national government and military to make gains where competitiors had once been making a profit. I mean, is that a little wrong, or what?

Just a quick question.. do you realise how France and Russia were making money from Iraq?

The whole thing is BS

Just a quick question.. do you realise how France and Russia were making money from Iraq?
So was Germany, why do you think they tried so hard to stop the removal of their dictator friend?

Kerry Fled

Yet another blanket assertion given to simply incite the restless.

>FOOM..!<

..meaningless drivel...

I don't think the oil refineries would be destroyed if we hadn't gone to war. And seems to me that if France and Germany had been making money already, and didn't need a war to get it. Halliburton, on the other hand, has enlisted the help of our national government and military to make gains where competitiors had once been making a profit. I mean, is that a little wrong, or what?
1) The refineries were dilapidated before US troops invaded.
2) Bush and Cheney are not the first to give Halliburton a large contract without competitors. Clinton did the same thing durning Kosovo, and for the same reasons: Halliburton is one of few companies with the capabilities to do the job.

I don't think the oil refineries would be destroyed if we hadn't gone to war.


Remember Kuwait? We didn't start that, we just helped them run Saddam out, and he burned those oil fields, too.

Dubya is pretty bad, but hardly the worst. At least he pretends to be working for the nation's interests. Bill Clinton is the worst, since he didn't even try to pretend. He openly said that he "loathed the [American] military", he gave American military technology to the Chinese, A NUCLEAR POWER PLANT TO THE NORTH KOREANS (???!!!) and had the European Union dictating what American companies could merge with other American companies. Think Dubya is the "first president to start a war"? Then what was Kosovo? And if a few Albanians dying because of the Serbians trying to keep peace in their country is such an atrocity, then why did Bill Clinton sit with his thumb up his ass and an intern under the desk while 800,000 Rwandans were being slaughtered? So yes, Bush is downright awful, but it has been much worse. The Libertarian Michael Badnarik will be getting my vote. He has absolutely no chance of winning, but he is the only one who actually has any plans for the country, and (I have no way of verifying whether or not he really is) seems entirely non-corrupt.

Before 9-11: R&R for Bush.
9-11 to WoT: "Let's smoke 'em out!" With minimal forces, at that!
WoT to Iraq: Searching... Searching...
Iraq to Postwar: Without civilian targets, Saddam's military will surely collapse!
Postwar to Present: :eek: :mp5: :sniper: :headbang:
Bush is the worst yet. He will be remembered for all time as America's greatest shame.

Dubya is pretty bad, but hardly the worst. At least he pretends to be working for the nation's interests. Bill Clinton is the worst, since he didn't even try to pretend. He openly said that he "loathed the [American] military", he gave American military technology to the Chinese, A NUCLEAR POWER PLANT TO THE NORTH KOREANS (???!!!) and had the European Union dictating what American companies could merge with other American companies. Think Dubya is the "first president to start a war"? Then what was Kosovo? And if a few Albanians dying because of the Serbians trying to keep peace in their country is such an atrocity, then why did Bill Clinton sit with his thumb up his ass and an intern under the desk while 800,000 Rwandans were being slaughtered? So yes, Bush is downright awful, but it has been much worse. The Libertarian Michael Badnarik will be getting my vote. He has absolutely no chance of winning, but he is the only one who actually has any plans for the country, and (I have no way of verifying whether or not he really is) seems entirely non-corrupt.


Whoa you like it when people lie to you? You just said at least Dubya "pretends"... I'd rather a President be direct and truthful, sheesh morals are important. Glad you aren't voting for Bush when he lies to you... but why not Kerry since you know Bush is bad. Kerry can't when president be any worse since none of us can see future. And hey at least Kerry won't lie about.

Cheney had to sell his stock before he was sworn in I think.
Well he might have sold his stock, but he is still receiving a "deferred salary" from Haliburton and he also has very valuable "stock options" in the company:

http://www.enn.com/news/2003-09-17/s_8503.asp

But Sen. Lautenberg said that Cheney's financial disclosure filings with the Office of Government Ethics listed $205,298 in deferred salary payments made to him by Halliburton in 2001 and another $162,393 in 2002. The filings indicated that he was scheduled to receive more payments in 2003, 2004, and 2005.

"In 2001 and 2002, Vice President Cheney was paid almost as much in salary from Halliburton as he made as vice president," Lautenberg said. The U.S. vice president's salary is $198,600 annually.

The financial disclosure forms also said that Cheney continued to hold 433,333 unexercised Halliburton stock options, with exercise prices below the company's current stock market price. Cheney's spokeswoman said he had placed these options in a charitable trust and no longer had control over them.

So Mr. Cheney should have quite a nice little nest egg when he retires from politics this year.

If he had wanted to be rich, he just would have stayed on as CEO of Haliburton rather than becoming VP. Millions of dollars in salary vs 200k? Its a no-brainer money-wise. Anyway, the thing you posted isn't particularly damning. In the link inside, it said that the Cheney team claims that he had already earned that salary during his time at CEO, and also in the little blurb you posted it said that his stock options are in the hands of charitable trust. Unless there's more, I don't see a problem with whats happening.

If he had wanted to be rich, he just would have stayed on as CEO of Haliburton rather than becoming VP. Millions of dollars in salary vs 200k? Its a no-brainer money-wise. Anyway, the thing you posted isn't particularly damning. In the link inside, it said that the Cheney team claims that he had already earned that salary during his time at CEO, and also in the little blurb you posted it said that his stock options are in the hands of charitable trust. Unless there's more, I don't see a problem with whats happening.
Ummmm the stock options are growing in value thanks to Halliburton's presence in Iraq, on a NO BID contract to say the least. I call that a delayed "conflict of interest", in that he WILL benefit from the invasion of Iraq. You can't see a problem with that?

I think that the worst was John Adams (1797-1801). Bush is definitely one of the worst though.

I can't stand Carter, either. Here's my list of worst Presidents.

1.Abraham Lincoln
2.Franklin Roosevelt
3.Woodrow Wilson
4.Richard Nixon
5.Jimmy Carter
6.Lyndon Johnson
7.Harry Truman
8.Dwight Eisenhower
9.George W. Bush
10.Bill Clinton
11.George H.W. Bush
12.Gerald Ford
13.Ulysses Grant
14.Warren HardingWhat? Bush is better than Roosevelt, who got you out of the depression, and was a good diplomat too? Better than Lincoln who liberated the slaves? I know these guys did bad things but their good achievements far surpass anything Bush has done.

Ummmm the stock options are growing in value thanks to Halliburton's presence in Iraq, on a NO BID contract to say the least. I call that a delayed "conflict of interest", in that he WILL benefit from the invasion of Iraq. You can't see a problem with that?
No, I don't see anything wrong with a no bid contract, and thats already been discussed in this thread that Haliburton was the only company that wasn't a part of the anti-war axis that was capable of doing the job. And, depending on what trust his options were given to and what they're doing with it, that isn't necessarily a problem either.

Bush had no real business being in Iraq in the first place.

(Applause)

Oh Come on It was just for Thanksgiving.

As always, Siljhouettes, you disagreed intelligently, courteously, and without flaming. For that, you have my thanks. :)

And now that i'm fired up, name me a Democratic president since Kennedy that knew what the military was for and used it as it was designed.
International Criminal Court:

"Democratic presidents wanted for crimes against war".


So Bush got tens of thousands of people killed for his lie, yet I'm sure you were right on the 'Crucify Clinton' wagon when he got a blowjob. Typical conservative idiot.
pwned

Wrong. World War II pulled us out of the Depression.
And who got you into WWII? That's right, it was Delano.

they don't hate us, they just haven't figured what we have done for them.
OK, so the Iraqis are actually out there in Iraq, and you're sitting thousands of miles away, and yet you know better than they do what's good for them?

Glad you aren't voting for Bush when he lies to you... but why not Kerry since you know Bush is bad. Kerry can't when president be any worse since none of us can see future. And hey at least Kerry won't lie about.
He should vote for whoever he agrees with most. It's thought like this that keeps the US locked in a two-party system.

george bush stole my woman and my car

but john kerry is a vampire with ties to the blood donation industry

so i'm voting on the jesus ticket

Did you know that Halliburton is the only company that can rebuild the oil refineries in Iraq. The only other company big enough to do it is in France.
This gets tossed around a lot, and it's simply wrong. Halliburton is #3 in the oil services industry, behind Schlumberger (http://www.slb.com/) and Baker Hughes ( http://www.bakerhughes.com/). While Schlumberger has a decidedly French name and origin, it's a modern multinational firm headquartered in NYC.

Halliburton does have a unit specializing in putting out oil fires, and they may indeed be the best in the world for that particular task. However, they have lots of competion in providing some of the other services they got in no-bid contracts (http://www.forbes.com/business/commerce/newswire/2004/04/12/rtr1329550.html), including running fuel convoys and serving meals to servicemen.

It's wise to consider the nature of multinationals when discussing politics. They are loyal primarily to themselves, not host nations, a lesson readers of Jennifer Government would be wise to remember.

Whoa you like it when people lie to you? You just said at least Dubya "pretends"... I'd rather a President be direct and truthful, sheesh morals are important. Glad you aren't voting for Bush when he lies to you... but why not Kerry since you know Bush is bad. Kerry can't when president be any worse since none of us can see future. And hey at least Kerry won't lie about.

No, I do not like being lied to. Maybe you are right. Perhaps it is better that we have a leader who throws it in our faces when he destroys us, rather than one who destroys us under the pretense of caring for us.
There are many reasons why I do not vote for Kerry. First and foremost, are that my principles are right in line with the Libertarian Party. My votes are never pragmatic, meaning I would never vote for someone just because they will be good (or in this case only slightly better... probably) in the short-term. Second, it is true that we cannot predict the future. Therefore, we do not know how much worse than Bush it can get. If Kerry is elected we might get to see. In a way, Kerry's two-facedness is worse than Bush's lying. When Bush lies, people can see through it, but when Kerry says two completely opposite things, it is impossible to tell. If he does something that many people don't like, he can say "I told you that was what I was going to do", and most likely, during the campaign, he said that he was going to do it, along with just the opposite.

I find it funny how libs think that Bush is the stupidest man ever, but somehow enginered a conspiracy to attack Iraq for Oil and Haliburton.

Its also funny how alot of people here think Haliburton is the all-consuming evil.

Anyway, Bush is a good president but not the best. Bush has liberated 2 nations, helped the US recover from 9/11, raised the economy from the recession that started in Clinton's term, and was crushed by 9/11, presided over a very low unemployment level, the same as Clinton's, with more jobs being created daily, broken up most of Al Quedi, constructed a very strong coalition for both the Iraq and Afganistan theaters of the War on Terror, established the department of homeland security,and watched over a very large tax cut that DID help boost the economy.

How can you think that Bush lied, when British, Russain and American inteligence all said the same things about Saddams WMDS, as well as the democrat leaders like the Clintons and John Kerry?

My top presidents would be:
1.Washington(a right wing extremist for sure)
2.Reagan
3.Jefferson
4.Teddy Roosevelt
5.Dubya
In that order

I would like to point out that although JFK was a decent president, the whole Missle Crisis would never had happened if he hadnt screwed up with the bay of pigs.

In closing, I am just happy about the latest poll results with Bush ahead, and I leave you with a thought in which I will quote Ann Coulter:"254 swiftboat veterans say Kerry is a fraud; 14 say he's a hero. Partisan considerations aside, which would be more difficult to do: Get 14 liars to keep a secret, or get 254 liars to do so? As a student of recent history, I defer to any registered Democrat on this question. Of course, the 14 in Kerry's camp are not necessarily lying, being bribed, or hoping for a position in the Kerry administration – possibilities the media will never raise, I note. But we're talking about 35-year-old memories here; 254 memories to 14 memories is what we used to call "evidence.""
Think about that before claiming the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are Lying.

You seem to be missing a few "factoids" yourself regarding Saddam, taken some media "propaganda", and embellished it to create your own version of the "truth".

Bush had no real business being in Iraq in the first place.


Oh, I forgot. Those mass graves are filled with the results of Saddam's just and righteous rule. Perhaps you could fill me in on what other "factoids" I'm missing?

But Sen. Lautenberg said that Cheney's financial disclosure filings with the Office of Government Ethics listed $205,298 in deferred salary payments made to him by Halliburton in 2001 and another $162,393 in 2002. The filings indicated that he was scheduled to receive more payments in 2003, 2004, and 2005.

Cheney took out an insurance policy on those deferred payments to ensure that the financial interests of Halliburton have no impact on his own financial situation.

So Mr. Cheney should have quite a nice little nest egg when he retires from politics this year.

Did you miss your own quote where it said:
Cheney's spokeswoman said he had placed these options in a charitable trust and no longer had control over them.

"Charitable trust" means "nest egg for a charity," not "nest egg for you."