NationStates Jolt Archive

Since he HAS been the greatest leader of this country and the world in the past hundred years or so, why don't we just allow him to remain President for life?

BUSH!

No.

My advice: don't feed the troll.

Oh I can smell the flames coming from a mile away! Woo its gonna get hot in here.

Many people consider George Washington to be one of our best Presidents. He could have won election after election and basically become king. He decided to step down and give up power, an action that was truely great. If Bush were truly great he would know to never pursue a third term. So if somehow he got a third term completely shitting on the constitution he would had already fallen from greatness, therefore the purpose of having more terms would be null.

P.s. Me personally, hell no. I dislike Bush very much.

I say again:

[American Conservativism]

Freedom of Speech, Right to Keep and Bear Arms etc.: "The Constitution is Scripture! The Constitution cannot be changed! The Constitution is right!"

Gay Marriage, Term Limits etc.: "Amendment! Amendments!!"

[/American Conservativism]

Since he HAS been the greatest leader of this country and the world in the past hundred years or so, why don't we just allow him to remain President for life?

BUSH!

Yeah! Since 0.0% of Republicans are calling for the abolition of presidential term limits, let's have us a great big thread debating it. I can barely contain my excitement.

How bout we tighten term limits to one four-yr term?

New Watenho']I say again:

[American Conservativism]

Freedom of Speech, Right to Keep and Bear Arms etc.: "The Constitution is Scripture! The Constitution cannot be changed! The Constitution is right!"

Gay Marriage, Term Limits etc.: "Amendment! Amendments!!"

[/American Conservativism]

Uh.. that isn't even a Neo-con stance. REAL conservatives believe it to be a state issue due to the practice of marriage being a religious ceremony. In truth, due to a particular bill of right, an ammendment COULD be made to protect gay marriage. However, I am not going to give anybody freebees when they should study our bill of rihts. Plus, I prefer we NOT MAKE UNNECESSARY AMMENDMENTS.

Neo-cons don't care about the bill of rights. They have prominent members attacking the first ammendment's "no establishment clause" while blindsighting people by protecting the second ammendment.

Since he HAS been the greatest leader of this country and the world in the past hundred years or so, why don't we just allow him to remain President for life?

BUSH!
Yeah! I say we declare him All-Holy Emperor-for-Life Bush I of the Ameribushian Empire!

hehe how about a three term limit. Let "Bill" Clinton run against Bush jr. Would be a good contest.

Uh.. that isn't even a Neo-con stance. REAL conservatives believe it to be a state issue due to the practice of marriage being a religious ceremony. In truth, due to a particular bill of right, an ammendment COULD be made to protect gay marriage. However, I am not going to give anybody freebees when they should study our bill of rihts. Plus, I prefer we NOT MAKE UNNECESSARY AMMENDMENTS.

Neo-cons don't care about the bill of rights. They have prominent members attacking the first ammendment's "no establishment clause" while blindsighting people by protecting the second ammendment.

I know, but this late at night I'm too tired to respond properly to trolls. All I can do is troll in return. Very sorry, no offence intended. This wasn't specifically meant to be a supporting-gay-marriage thing, it does just seem sometimes as if the same people who regard the Constitution as almost literally unchangeable seem to want to change certain bits of it before they forever laminate its wording in the history books. This is just what it seems like sometimes to an outsider with a passing interest.

Moreover, I understand the current administration is neo-con; what I don't understand is what exactly the difference is between neo-con and conservative. Again, blame me for being an outsider; you Yanks use different words to the rest of us :p

Wow. Just... wow. He's done some great things, to name a few: raping the taliban, taking out Saddam Hussein, and recently attempting to save social security, which, I might add, Clinton said was going down, too. But he's done some stupid things, too, like stopping further funding of stem cell research, passing a petty amendment banning gay marriage when it was already illegal, and making up funny words. I like the guy, and I support him in general, but he sure as hell ain't the best president ever, and he sure as hell ain't worth pulling a GJC and deeming emperor. If we were gonna do that we should have done it for Reagan, but he got Alzheimer's and kicked the bucket, so that's out. Get real.

passing a petty amendment banning gay marriage when it was already illegal.

You sure about that? The president doesn't have any power to pass an amendment, and even if he did, none has been written or put to a vote.

how about we change the term limit thing so that BILL CLINTON can be re-elected again

and again

and again

Yeah! I say we declare him All-Holy Emperor-for-Life Bush I of the Ameribushian Empire!
I was already waiting for congress to pronounce Bush as emperor in 2008.

Since he HAS been the greatest leader of this country and the world in the past hundred years or so, why don't we just allow him to remain President for life?

So, basically make him a dictator? The term limit was established to prevent that, after all.

A pro-Bush thread? On NS?

Excuse me, but my BS meter is going crazy right now.

Even I am opposed to an increase or a decrease on the number of terms a president can serve.

Since he HAS been the greatest leader of this country and the world in the past hundred years or so, why don't we just allow him to remain President for life?

BUSH!

You must be KIDDING ME!!!
He's the worst president we've had since Ronald Reagan. I mean look out economy is the worst in that past decade. The WORLD hates us, we stomp around on the UN which is trying to do it's job. We wrongfully imprison hundreds of people in Cuba with no legal representation. We're in a war that we can never win ... a new VIETNAM. The education system is in ruins, and Defense spending is ridiculously huge. Yet the WORST of all is how BUSH IS TRYING TO LEGISLATE MORALITY...I'm not gay or anything, but come on "Seperation of Church and State" so if this is true why the hell are Evangelical PROTESTANTS trying to make the government keep half f'in dead people ALIVE!!! IF this sh*t goes on I'M moving to Holland where Marijuana is legal and Bush ain't there.

You must be KIDDING ME!!!
He's the worst president we've had since Ronald Reagan. I mean look out economy is the worst in that past decade. The WORLD hates us, we stomp around on the UN which is trying to do it's job. We wrongfully imprison hundreds of people in Cuba with no legal representation. We're in a war that we can never win ... a new VIETNAM. The education system is in ruins, and Defense spending is ridiculously huge. Yet the WORST of all is how BUSH IS TRYING TO LEGISLATE MORALITY...I'm not gay or anything, but come on "Seperation of Church and State" so if this is true why the hell are Evangelical PROTESTANTS trying to make the government keep half f'in dead people ALIVE!!! IF this sh*t goes on I'M moving to Holland where Marijuana is legal and Bush ain't there.

Haha.. Okay, I admit I was skeptical at first, the original poster seemed to be needlessly stirring up anger with obvious flame-bait.. but now I've changed my mind.

This post, above, makes the whole thread worth every wasted second! :p Kudos, Original Poster! :)

Since he HAS been the greatest leader of this country and the world in the past hundred years or so, why don't we just allow him to remain President for life?

BUSH!

I like potatoes. I think I will have some for dinner. Maybe those nice red ones that season up real nice with some sauteed onions.

You must be KIDDING ME!!!
He's the worst president we've had since Ronald Reagan. I mean look out economy is the worst in that past decade. The WORLD hates us, we stomp around on the UN which is trying to do it's job. We wrongfully imprison hundreds of people in Cuba with no legal representation. We're in a war that we can never win ... a new VIETNAM. The education system is in ruins, and Defense spending is ridiculously huge. Yet the WORST of all is how BUSH IS TRYING TO LEGISLATE MORALITY...I'm not gay or anything, but come on "Seperation of Church and State" so if this is true why the hell are Evangelical PROTESTANTS trying to make the government keep half f'in dead people ALIVE!!! IF this sh*t goes on I'M moving to Holland where Marijuana is legal and Bush ain't there.
Reagan was a bad president? Yeah, I guess the booming economy, the fall of communism, the fall of the Berlin wall, and the fall of a major nuclear threat completely made him a horrible president.

You sure about that? The president doesn't have any power to pass an amendment, and even if he did, none has been written or put to a vote.

Bah, it's late, it's Friday, I had a brain fart. He backed** and still backs an amendment banning gay marriage, and yes, I'm 90% sure that the amendment has been proposed. I think it's called the Federal Marriage Amendment, but don't quote me cause I'm too lazy to look it up. You can if you want. Still doesn't change the fact that gay marriage is already illegal and that the amendment is somewhat childish in nature. And I still support civil unions over redefining marriage, as long as they're defined as the same thing.

Wow. Just... wow. He's done some great things, to name a few: raping the taliban, taking out Saddam Hussein, and recently attempting to save social security, which, I might add, Clinton said was going down, too. But he's done some stupid things, too, like stopping further funding of stem cell research, passing a petty amendment banning gay marriage when it was already illegal, and making up funny words. I like the guy, and I support him in general, but he sure as hell ain't the best president ever, and he sure as hell ain't worth pulling a GJC and deeming emperor. If we were gonna do that we should have done it for Reagan, but he got Alzheimer's and kicked the bucket, so that's out. Get real.
Reagan did NOTHING while President. Except crash the economy into an oddly similar recession (*clears throat* now) with his rich richer, poor poorer "supply side economics." I as a stanch Liberal must admit that he was a kind man who whooed the people of the United States, but he would have done better as a Vice President...not making any choices just looking good.

Reagan just happened to be in office when the Soviet Unions eventual destruction occured. Ohh and read any US History book and you'll see that he ruined the economy, don't mess with me I'm in AP US History (i'm not that serious, but i'm still in the class)

Bah, it's late, it's Friday, I had a brain fart. He backed** and still backs an amendment banning gay marriage, and yes, I'm 90% sure that the amendment has been proposed. I think it's called the Federal Marriage Amendment, but don't quote me cause I'm too lazy to look it up. You can if you want. Still doesn't change the fact that gay marriage is already illegal and that the amendment is somewhat childish in nature. And I still support civil unions over redefining marriage, as long as they're defined as the same thing.

Nah, the DOMA was proposed and signed by everyone's hero, Bill Clinton. Bush had threatened an amendment, but never took the steps, allowing the individual states to vote to amend their state constitutions instead, which many have.

Reagan did NOTHING while President. Except crash the economy into an oddly simular repression (*clears through* now) with his rich richer, poor poorer "supply side economics." I as a stanch Liberal must admit that he was a kind man who whooed the people of the United States, but he would have done better as a Vice President...not making any choices just looking good.

REAGAN CRASHED THE ECONOMY?

Boy don't you have revisionist history.

Oh yes, Iran Contra was soooo cool! And I especially loved the bits about closing down mental hospitals to save money and build star wars...but it works...it REALLY works, dammit, those libruls are just being mean...it works...it works...(tip to self, just keep repeating that star wars works...just keep repeating...) And oh yeah, Angola, because who needs blacks anyway, and apartheid, again, because who needs blacks anyway, and honduras death squads, because who needs blacks anyway, and hell yeah Ketchup is a frickin vegetable you know nothing leftists, and, wait, I CAN'T REMEMBER!!!!!!

Nah, the DOMA was proposed and signed by everyone's hero, Bill Clinton. Bush had threatened an amendment, but never took the steps, allowing the individual states to vote to amend their state constitutions instead, which many have.

Actually he did take the steps. Didn't pass the House nor the Senate.

Reagan did NOTHING while President. Except crash the economy into an oddly simular repression (*clears through* now) with his rich richer, poor poorer "supply side economics." I as a stanch Liberal must admit that he was a kind man who whooed the people of the United States, but he would have done better as a Vice President...not making any choices just looking good.

Okay, let's begin with the corrections here. First of all, doing nothing while president generally implies that he did nothing while president, which you can't possibly be implying, seeing as he was almost wholly responsible for the fall of the Soviet Union, who was, at the time, the largest nuclear threat in the world to the United States' safety. Second of all, I think you meant "similar recession" not "simular repression." Also, due to his ending the cold war, the economy boomed short thereafter. Very rarely do a president's actions have anything to do with the economy while he is president, but rather the economy a few years later, when he is no longer president. And trying to even out taxes is hardly a rich richer, poor poorer stance, it's a stance of economic fairness. Taxing the wealthy members of American society over 50% of their income while taxing the poorer member of society (like me) less than 15% of their income is completely ridiculous.

Thank you Pepe Dominguez I'm glad I made this thread good. It's just I love my country and because of Bush and just plain old conservatism it's going to crack (would have said pot, but pots good). We in a globalized world cannot become conservative and hold to the past ... we must in NECESSITY keep advancing in civil rights and political freedoms.

Revisionist history is retarded ... they believe that the Holocaust never existed ... look at the thousands of pictures and film footage taken by Allied photographers at the urging of Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower who said, "some day people will deny that this ever occured."

Okay, let's begin with the corrections here. First of all, doing nothing while president generally implies that he did nothing while president, which you can't possibly be implying, seeing as he was almost wholly responsible for the fall of the Soviet Union, who was, at the time, the largest nuclear threat in the world to the United States' safety. Second of all, I think you meant "similar recession" not "simular repression." Also, due to his ending the cold war, the economy boomed short thereafter. Very rarely do a president's actions have anything to do with the economy while he is president, but rather the economy a few years later, when he is no longer president. And trying to even out taxes is hardly a rich richer, poor poorer stance, it's a stance of economic fairness. Taxing the wealthy members of American society over 50% of their income while taxing the poorer member of society (like me) less than 15% of their income is completely ridiculous.
Sorry for the "repression" accident it's hard to type good while passionately involved.

Reagan just happened to be in office when the Soviet Unions eventual destruction occured. Ohh and read any US History book and you'll see that he ruined the economy, don't mess with me I'm in AP US History (i'm not that serious, but i'm still in the class)

Okay, obviously you haven't been reading your book at all. First of all, the Soviet Union fell when President George H.W. Bush was in office, not Reagan. Second of all, the fall of the U.S.S.R. was a direct result of Star Wars, in which we acted like we could conceivably build a nuclear missile defense system, and when the Soviets tried to keep up they bankrupted themselves. It was, quite possibly, the most brilliant move any president made in stopping the Soviet Union. And being in AP US History is not that impressive, I slept in class and got an A, and pulled off a 4 on the AP Test.

While I like, Bush, and would concider him a good president, we have had quite a few better this century. Reagan, JFK, Truman, Roosevelt i think is it. But I agree with you about the term limit. If a president is good enough to get a third term or more, why not let him? Imagine WWII without Roosevelt, which given Truman was his successor might not have been that bad. But either way, if Reagan wasn't forced out, the gulf would have gone a lot better, the democrats would not have intimidated him into stopping at Baghdad like they did Bush Sr., and this current war probably would not have ever started. Not to mention Clinton may never have been elected...
The term limit should be eliminated not just for Bush, but for everyone. Although i would like to see Bush step down, I'm thinking Condeliza Rice '08.

seeing as he was almost wholly responsible for the fall of the Soviet Union

Dude, duh, the Soviet Union bankrupted it's self on the arms race. Yet another reason why soviet communism cannot work: too nationalized an economy with way too many roadblocks to the outside world.

Reagan played the game with the soviets, but they were already on the way out when he got into office, they had been economically on the way out since Kennedy.

I'm thinking Condeliza Rice '08.

*Starts application for Canadian citizenship NOW*

Dude, duh, the Soviet Union bankrupted it's self on the arms race. Yet another reason why soviet communism cannot work: too nationalized an economy with way too many roadblocks to the outside world.

Reagan played the game with the soviets, but they were already on the way out when he got into office, they had been economically on the way out since Kennedy.
That's what I was trying to point out. The arms race damaged both nations, US and the USSR. We could take the hit that the arms race dealt more easily, yet the USSR could not. Therefore the Soviet Union was on the way out since the mid to late 50s.

While I like, Bush, and would concider him a good president, we have had quite a few better this century. Reagan, JFK, Truman, Roosevelt i think is it. But I agree with you about the term limit. If a president is good enough to get a third term or more, why not let him? Imagine WWII without Roosevelt, which given Truman was his successor might not have been that bad. But either way, if Reagan wasn't forced out, the gulf would have gone a lot better, the democrats would not have intimidated him into stopping at Baghdad like they did Bush Sr., and this current war probably would not have ever started. Not to mention Clinton may never have been elected...

I would drop JFK and Roosevelt from that list. Roosevelt caused the deaths of millions more than necessary by waiting so long to become involved in WWII and being passive, when we could have ended the war so much sooner. JFK didn't do anything major except stop the Cuban Missile Crisis, which was his fault to begin with because he decided to back out of supporting the Bay of Pigs invasion at the last second, resulting in the slaughter of tons of cuban rebels - another situation of a president being too passive in times of war.

The term limit should be eliminated not just for Bush, but for everyone. Although i would like to see Bush step down, I'm thinking Condeliza Rice '08.

Me too, she's the only one that could beat Hillary. Her, and maybe Giuliani.

*Starts application for Canadian citizenship NOW*
No way join me in Holland ... Liberal Paradise here I COME!!!

I would drop JFK and Roosevelt from that list. Roosevelt caused the deaths of millions more than necessary by waiting so long to become involved in WWII and being passive, when we could have ended the war so much sooner. JFK didn't do anything major except stop the Cuban Missile Crisis, which was his fault to begin with because he decided to back out of supporting the Bay of Pigs invasion at the last second, resulting in the slaughter of tons of cuban rebels - another situation of a president being too passive in times of war.



Me too, she's the only one that could beat Hillary. Her, and maybe Giuliani.
Hint: Guess who declares war?

I want to see Hilary run against Rice.

"Uh. Lady who is related to....CLINTON"...*boo hissy hissy hiss*..."Lady who is black."....*racist boo hissy hissy hiss*

FDR had to wait that long because the damn isolationist mentality of the people of the United States. If you study the Neutrality Acts you can see Roosevelt slowly peeling back isolationism for a more aggressive support for the Allies. Also he used his "Quaranteen (sp) Speech" to test the waters to see if he would be supported in war, but he was instantly criticized ... only Pearl Harbor or something similar would have moved the stubborn jackasses to help the Allies militarily. I believe that FDR was THE greatest president in the past century.

That's what I was trying to point out. The arms race damaged both nations, US and the USSR. We could take the hit that the arms race dealt more easily, yet the USSR could not. Therefore the Soviet Union was on the way out since the mid to late 50s.

The thing is, the USSR would have kept up decades longer, and things may have happened that tipped the scales in their favor during that time, if not for the creation of the Star Wars program. Also, mid-to-late 50's was Eisenhower, not Kennedy.

JFK didn't do anything major except stop the Cuban Missile Crisis, which was his fault to begin with because he decided to back out of supporting the Bay of Pigs invasion at the last second, resulting in the slaughter of tons of cuban rebels - another situation of a president being too passive in times of war.



Yeah! The Bay of Pigs was sooo cool! Because I love it when my country breaks it's own rules to invade a nation that has never been a military threat to it in the past and the only reason for hating it's new govenment stems from the fact that we can't make the same ridiculous economic killing that we did under Batista! Woot! Bay of Pigs all the way, Iraq woo hoo! Kill em all!! Hell yeah, take over the world, forget the deficit, China and Saudi Arabia will bankroll us forever, hell yeah! America fuck yeah!!!!1

As much as I am Bush supporter, I oppose changing term limits for anyone.

*Starts application for Canadian citizenship NOW*

OK, go ahead, just dont threaten to go and end up not going if she wins, like everyone else(Dixy chicks should be in canada twice, Jon bon jovi, the list goes on)

I would drop JFK and Roosevelt from that list. Roosevelt caused the deaths of millions more than necessary by waiting so long to become involved in WWII and being passive, when we could have ended the war so much sooner. JFK didn't do anything major except stop the Cuban Missile Crisis, which was his fault to begin with because he decided to back out of supporting the Bay of Pigs invasion at the last second, resulting in the slaughter of tons of cuban rebels - another situation of a president being too passive in times of war.

You twit. Anyone who can take a look at JFK's legacy with anything approaching an unbiased view will see that the begining of the end of the Cold War came with his handling of the Cuban Missle crisis. For those who are inclined to like democratic presidents anyway JFK did nothing less than save the world.

Regan on the other hand should be dropped from any list that includes the word "good" in the title unless it's in the phrase "Good God...!"

He was the best friend of terrorism and Facism that this country produced in the 20th century. If there was any justice in this country he would have been shot for treason before Carter ever left office.

I want to see Hilary run against Rice.

"Uh. Lady who is related to....CLINTON"...*boo hissy hissy hiss*..."Lady who is black."....*racist boo hissy hissy hiss*
their sex boo hissy hissy hiss. Look at the new pope ... white European ... look at the majority of Catholics ... black and latino ... hmm i guess acceptance doesn't work.

FDR had to wait that long because the damn isolationist mentality of the people of the United States. If you study the Neutrality Acts you can see Roosevelt slowly peeling back isolationism for a more aggressive support for the Allies. Also he used his "Quaranteen (sp) Speech" to test the waters to see if he would be supported in war, but he was instantly criticized ... only Pearl Harbor or something similar would have moved the stubborn jackasses to help the Allies militarily. I believe that FDR was THE greatest president in the past century.

Okay, you're right and you're wrong. America did have isolationist sentiments at the time, but one of a U.S. President's express priveleges is to enter into war without congressional approval (or any approval, for that matter) for up to six months. If he would have simply grown some balls WWII in Europe could have been ended so much more quickly, and Pearl Harbor never would have happened because we'd have already been on the offensive in Japan.

Domici YOU ROCK!

You twit. Anyone who can take a look at JFK's legacy with anything approaching an unbiased view will see that the begining of the end of the Cold War came with his handling of the Cuban Missle crisis. For those who are inclined to like democratic presidents anyway JFK did nothing less than save the world.

Regan on the other hand should be dropped from any list that includes the word "good" in the title unless it's in the phrase "Good God...!"

He was the best friend of terrorism and Facism that this country produced in the 20th century. If there was any justice in this country he would have been shot for treason before Carter ever left office.
First you talk about taking an "unbiased view" and then you calll Reagan the "best friend of terrorism and Fascism". A bit hypocritical, no?

The thing is, the USSR would have kept up decades longer, and things may have happened that tipped the scales in their favor during that time, if not for the creation of the Star Wars program. Also, mid-to-late 50's was Eisenhower, not Kennedy.

DOOD! don't you agree! The star wars program was like the cooooolest shit! So what if it didnt' work and cost millions........it was like sooooo cool, like you had the death star and shit, and like it could spin around and kill everyone and destroy whole planets.......if it like, worked and shit.

Dude, duh, the Soviet Union bankrupted it's self on the arms race. Yet another reason why soviet communism cannot work: too nationalized an economy with way too many roadblocks to the outside world.

Reagan played the game with the soviets, but they were already on the way out when he got into office, they had been economically on the way out since Kennedy.
Therefore, you are saying Reagan does not deserve credit for dealing with the U.S.S.R. Well than I can claim that Bush did not hurt our economy because the repression actually started when Clinton was in office, it was already on the downfall. Which I know that statement probably pisses you off, which the one that you say Reagan does not deserve credit pisses me off. So let us stop with that crap.

The Bay of Pigs was sooo cool! Because I love it when my country breaks it's own rules to invade a nation that has never been a military threat to it in the past

It doesnt matter if they were a threat in the past. What matters os if its a threat at the preasent, and I would concider midrange nucular weapons 20 miles of Florida capible of hitting all major cities except Seatle in the continental US a threat.

Okay, you're right and you're wrong. America did have isolationist sentiments at the time, but one of a U.S. President's express priveleges is to enter into war without congressional approval (or any approval, for that matter) for up to six months. If he would have simply grown some balls WWII in Europe could have been ended so much more quickly, and Pearl Harbor never would have happened because we'd have already been on the offensive in Japan.
1) 6 months isn't enough time to do anything
2) If something bad would have happened to soldiers public outrage would move Congress to not declare war
3) If we were on the offensive with Japan how come the Phillipines fell so fast.
4) We were nievely courting peace with Japan up until the day of the attacks.

You twit. Anyone who can take a look at JFK's legacy with anything approaching an unbiased view will see that the begining of the end of the Cold War came with his handling of the Cuban Missle crisis. For those who are inclined to like democratic presidents anyway JFK did nothing less than save the world.

I just said it, and I'll say it again - the Cuban Missile Crisis never would have happened if he would have just backed the Bay of Pigs invasion and stopped communism from becoming the basis for Cuba's government.

Regan on the other hand should be dropped from any list that includes the word "good" in the title unless it's in the phrase "Good God...!"

He was the best friend of terrorism and Facism that this country produced in the 20th century. If there was any justice in this country he would have been shot for treason before Carter ever left office.

A: He was hardly a friend of terrorism, and B: He did get shot. Way to know your history.

Therefore, you are saying Reagan does not deserve credit for dealing with the U.S.S.R. Well than I can claim that Bush did not hurt our economy because the repression actually started when Clinton was in office, it was already on the downfall. Which I know that statement probably pisses you off, which the one that you say Reagan does not deserve credit pisses me off. So let us stop with that crap.

Well, that could make some sense if Clinton hadn't have left office with a multi trillion dollar surplus in tow, which Bush promply spent, and the 90's weren't the most economically productive period in America since the 50's...but yeah, all the way, Bay of Pigs, or Angola, or whatever the fuck you're on about.

It doesnt matter if they were a threat in the past. What matters os if its a threat at the preasent, and I would concider midrange nucular weapons 20 miles of Florida capible of hitting all major cities except Seatle in the continental US a threat.
The Soviet Union is a bunch of pansys sure there were missles, but Castro isn't suicidal ... think of this how many missles they have ... like 6 ... how many cities we have ... like 100 + ... 6 cities are nuked, 2 days later Cuba is a wasteland either by conventional weapons or nuclear weapons

Ohh and since we own the United Nations, we would have basically forced all member nations not sympathetic to the commies to assist us in our destruction of Cuba and then the USSR

1) 6 months isn't enough time to do anything.

Gee, that's funny, we got to Baghdad in less than that.

2) If something bad would have happened to soldiers public outrage would move Congress to not declare war.

Bull, tons of people got mad at Bush for going into Iraq when all sorts of stuff was happening to our soldiers, and Congress didn't stop that.

3) If we were on the offensive with Japan how come the Phillipines fell so fast..

I said we would have been, not we were. Didn't you learn to read at your school?

4) We were nievely courting peace with Japan up until the day of the attacks.

A: It's naively, with a sideways colon above the i, and B: What does that have to do with anything I said?

It doesnt matter if they were a threat in the past. What matters os if its a threat at the preasent, and I would concider midrange nucular weapons 20 miles of Florida capible of hitting all major cities except Seatle in the continental US a threat.

But none of the fact that we had been hostile to Castro since day one because he killed our little cash cow sponsored by Batista, and we attacked a sovereign nation, and that goes against our own laws matters, yeah, Bay of Pigs dude, all the way!!!! And kill em all, and all that shit, and I like vanilla wafers DOOOOOD!!!!

I have one thing to say to Rogue Newbie personally. Hey thanks for the invigorating debate ... look what our one on one argument did ... we turned this rather lame post into a post that is rather respectable for its size. Ohh and no harsh feelings, hope to debate you somewhere else after we're done with this.

with much respect,
Logan of The Commonwealth of GodForbid

Well, that could make some sense if Clinton hadn't have left office with a multi trillion dollar surplus in tow, which Bush promply spent, and the 90's weren't the most economically productive period in America since the 50's...but yeah, all the way, Bay of Pigs, or Angola, or whatever the fuck you're on about.

Actually, dumbass, no U.S. President has left office with a national surplus in a couple hundred years, nor has the national debt been reduced at all. Also, apparently you missed the fact that the economy almost never has anything to do with the current President, but rather it is generally thanks to the Presidents that preceded him. Here's a link where you can see past U.S. National Debt (http://www.toptips.com/debt_history.htm).

sorry i spelt it wrong ... and i dont know how to put up accent marks. Who the fuck cares?

Yes but Iraq sucks compared with the fight to the death Japs and the superiorly equipped Germans (Battle of the Bulge) ... if only they had more soldiers.

Republican controlled Congress, and the current trend by the Government to ignore those who oppose their oil driven madness

Umm you did say that "we'd have already been on the offensive in Japan." So i can read.

We were unprepared for war with Japan because we thought that they were still somewhat friendly with us.

Actually, dumbass, no U.S. President has left office with a national surplus in a couple hundred years, nor has the national debt been reduced at all. Also, apparently you missed the fact that the economy almost never has anything to do with the current President, but rather it is generally thanks to the Presidents that preceded him. Here's a link where you can see past U.S. National Debt (http://www.toptips.com/debt_history.htm).


Or:

http://zzpat.tripod.com/rvc_rec_dol.gif

Receipts during the Reagan years increased by $310 billion and by $870.8 billion under Mr. Clinton. This chart show a sharp and steady increase in revenue under Mr. Clinton which may have helped him return us to fiscal responsibility.

Two conservative myths bite the dust in this category. First, tax increases do NOT decrease revenue and tax cuts do not increase revenue more than tax increases. Conservatives also argue Mr. Reagan doubled revenue. This is NOT correct.

In 1993 President Clinton signed into law his economic plan which called for $250 billion in tax increases and $250 billion in spending cuts. Every republican in both Houses of Congress voted against the legislation. However, after republicans took control of congress in 1995 they didn't repeal the tax increases. This fact alone suggest very strongly that their first vote was pure politics and they really didn't want to balance the budget. That vote along with the tax cuts they passed under Mr. Reagan and Mr. Bush suggest very strongly they use the government purse to buy power.

http://zzpat.tripod.com/rvc_rec_gdp.gif

As a percent of the economy receipts grew under Mr. Clinton and shrank under Mr. Reagan. When one considers Mr. Reagan promised a balanced budget in four years, but instead gave us the largest deficits in US history (until Mr. Bush) not only was it a broken promise, but these charts and those that follow disassemble many if not all of what conservatives say they stand for.

Conservatives, like Reagan did not believe in a balanced budget. The deficits created under Mr. Reagan are nothing more than future taxes plus interest. A reasoned individual would never give the present generation tax cuts while saddling the next with massive tax increases. But, this is exactly what Mr. Reagan and his conservative allies in Congress did.

It's important to understand that higher receipts gave us the massive surpluses, not less spending. Also, more growth in the economy didn't give us higher receipts since both presidents gave us about the same amount of growth.

http://zzpat.tripod.com/rvc_def_dol.gif

No matter how we cut it, the rise in the surplus during the Clinton years was truly historic. Mr. Reagan however, was unable to trim a single penny from the deficit from where it was when he began his presidency. Mr. Clinton cut the deficit every year until we had record surpluses.

The falling deficits freed up needed capital for the economy to grow and the Clinton Investment Led Super Boom began. Stocks rose at historic levels and continued to do so throughout his presidency.

The surplus of $274.1 billion in 2000 was in marked contrast to the record -$290 billion deficit in 1992 and -$274.1 billion in 1993 under Mr. Clinton. Mr. Reagan increased the deficit in dollars every year except 1987 and 1988, the two years democrats controlled the Senate. Mr. Clinton cut the deficit every year.

http://zzpat.tripod.com/rvc_income.gif

Another area of extraordinary success during the Clinton years is the rise in median family income. Income rose $3,900 under Mr. Reagan and $7,418 under Mr. Clinton (in 2000 dollars). This is one time when a picture isn't worth a thousand words. The increase under Mr. Clinton were almost twice that of Mr. Reagan

http://zzpat.tripod.com/rvc_unemploy.gif

Unemployment declined on average for both presidents. The spike in years 1-3 are a result of a very severe recession. Mr. Reagan presided over the highest unemployment rate since 1941 in 1982 and 1983. Unemployment peaked in 1982 but remained historically high throughout his presidency. Average unemployment under Mr. Reagan was 7.54% and 5.20% under Mr. Clinton. Mr. Clinton gave us the lowest unemployment rate in 30 years

http://zzpat.tripod.com/rvc_pov.gif

Another major success of the Clinton years is the drop in poverty. Poverty dropped 3.8% under Mr. Clinton and 1% under Mr. Reagan (beginning term to ending term). Average poverty was 13.28% under Mr. Clinton and 15.82% under Mr. Reagan or 2.54% lower under Mr. Clinton on average (15.82-13.28=2.54). However, it should be noted the recession caused poverty to spike up 1.2% in years two and three (1982 and 1983) under Mr. Reagan.

And Iraq, kill em all, and Bay of Pigs, fuck yeah, and I like chocolate.....

Yes but Iraq sucks compared with the fight to the death Japs and the superiorly equipped Germans (Battle of the Bulge) ... if only they had more soldiers.

Well, Iraq does suck compared to the Nazis and the Japs, but the nazis did not have superior weaponry for the majority of the war. We were sporting springfield and M1 Carbines, which beat the hell out of the standard shoulderarm of the Germans... I think it was the Kar but I could be mistaken.

Republican controlled Congress, and the current trend by the Government to ignore those who oppose their oil driven madness

Well, it's hardly oil driven. I don't know if you know anything about the Husseins, but Saddam had the means to produce biochemical weapons, given that his labs were not currently operating, and he had shown that he would use them by attempting genecide on his own people when he killed over 10,000 Kurds. They tortured prisoners with red-hot fireprods and Uday was known to order 10-12-year-old school girls so that he could rape them to his heart's content, and then dispose of them. Saddam also funded sects of Hezbollah and provided thousands of dollars worth of reparations to the families of suicide bombers in Palistine. He wasn't exactly a nice guy minding his own damn business.

Umm you did say that "we'd have already been on the offensive in Japan." So i can read.

But you replied as if I said we were already on the offensive.

We were unprepared for war with Japan because we thought that they were still somewhat friendly with us.

Again, that just supports my point that if FDR would have been more aggressive and attacked Japan first, Pearl Harbor would never have happened.

Or:

And Iraq, kill em all, and Bay of Pigs, fuck yeah, and I like chocolate.....

Okay, and, once again, the economic happenings during Clinton had very little to do with his inaction- I mean actions. He sat on his ass watching the economy grow during the technology boom of the 90's which had nothing to do with him, but had to do with extra money ending up in the government's hands that had been formerly used to compete with the Soviets. Secondly, nowhere is a trillion dollar surplus mentioned in the documents you provided. Thirdly, the surpluses referred to in those documents are budget surpluses, which are completely different than national surpluses. Fourthly, there is a completely blatant ring of bias throughout those references, whereas the site I directed you to consists of naught but historically factual numbers.

Since he HAS been the greatest leader of this country and the world in the past hundred years or so, why don't we just allow him to remain President for life?

BUSH!

Should this ever happen it will be time for another American Revolution to rid us of the evil Texans.

Well, Iraq does suck compared to the Nazis and the Japs, but the nazis did not have superior weaponry for the majority of the war. We were sporting springfield and M1 Carbines, which beat the hell out of the standard shoulderarm of the Germans... I think it was the Kar but I could be mistaken.

Well, it's hardly oil driven. I don't know if you know anything about the Husseins, but Saddam had the means to produce biochemical weapons, given that his labs were not currently operating, and he had shown that he would use them by attempting genecide on his own people when he killed over 10,000 Kurds. They tortured prisoners with red-hot fireprods and Uday was known to order 10-12-year-old school girls so that he could rape them to his heart's content, and then dispose of them. Saddam also funded sects of Hezbollah and provided thousands of dollars worth of reparations to the families of suicide bombers in Palistine. He wasn't exactly a nice guy minding his own damn business.

But you replied as if I said we were already on the offensive.

Again, that just supports my point that if FDR would have been more aggressive and attacked Japan first, Pearl Harbor would never have happened.
It's a proven fact that Hussein abandoned all weapons programs after the Gulf War and we based the WMD scare on more tanker trucks, when all we were doing was photographing the same truck over and OVER AGAIN

We had no idea where the IJF (Imperial Japanese Fleet) was

Germans had developed the SiG 44 (pre AK47 and M16), the Tiger Tank, V2 Rockets, the Bismark, and were also developing nuclear weapons.

Should this ever happen it will be time for another American Revolution to rid us of the evil Texans.
Thomas Jefferson said of the Shay's Rebellion, "it will be a sad state when we [as a nation] do not experience an uprising every 10 years."

It's a proven fact that Hussein abandoned all weapons programs after the Gulf War and we based the WMD scare on more tanker trucks, when all we were doing was photographing the same truck over and OVER AGAIN

Hardly.

We had no idea where the IJF (Imperial Japanese Fleet) was

...And? We would have if we had attacked them two years before they attacked us.

Germans had developed the SiG 44 (pre AK47 and M16), the Tiger Tank, V2 Rockets, the Bismark, and were also developing nuclear weapons.

True, but we had ranged rockets similar to the V2s, we developed the nukes first (thanks to great men like Einstein and Oppenheimer), and we had superior standards, whether or not they had more advanced technology in a few areas.

Hey thanks Great Beer and Food for the factual support about the deficit

Hardly.
...And? We would have if we had attacked them two years before they attacked us.
True, but we had ranged rockets similar to the V2s, we developed the nukes first (thanks to great men like Einstein and Oppenheimer), and we had superior standards, whether or not they had more advanced technology in a few areas.
It's true Iraq had NO weapons of mass destruction, but Bush had Weapons of Mass Deception

WE would not have supported an aggressive stance AT ALL two years previous

Only because British commandoes destroyed Germanys heavy water plant in Norway...Oh and German leadership minus Hitler ... such as Rommel could have won the war if Hitler hadn't insisted on making all decisions himself.

Thomas Jefferson said of the Shay's Rebellion, "it will be a sad state when we [as a nation] do not experience an uprising every 10 years."

Yeah, and someone else said, "If you're young and you're a Republican, you have no heart. If you're old and you're a Democrat, you have no brain." Just because someone says something doesn't mean it's true. Old TJ wrote all men are created equal, too. That didn't stop him from owning 187 slaves according to one of those online encyclopedia things, can't remember which, remember that from a project long ago.

No. No. No, and again NO. This country may not make it through THIS term, let alone any FUTURE terms that Bush may have if the term limit is eliminated. The guy who comes in after Bush has one hell of a job to do in terms of the deficit, fixing Social Security, issues in the Middle East, the economy... you get the idea.

Thomas Jefferson said of the Shay's Rebellion, "it will be a sad state when we [as a nation] do not experience an uprising every 10 years."

I know I heard someone once said that a little revolution every now and then would be good for a country. We can exile all Bush supporters to Iraq since they love it there so much.

Yeah, and someone else said, "If you're young and you're a Republican, you have no heart. If you're old and you're a Democrat, you have no brain." Just because someone says something doesn't mean it's true. Old TJ wrote all men are created equal, too. That didn't stop him from owning 187 slaves according to one of those online encyclopedia things, can't remember which, remember that from a project long ago.
That was the norm, and upon his death he freed everyone of em and if he was alive past the 1840s he would have released them earlier in his life. Yes that clause is not true, but that is because Of REPUBLICANS.

I'm sorry I have to go, but this has a been a great time again hope to chat with or against you again Rogue Newbie.

The Commonwealth of GodForbid Over and OUT!

It's true Iraq had NO weapons of mass destruction, but Bush had Weapons of Mass Deception

Hahahaha, right, Bush had Weapons of Mass Deception. I know, Bush told Clinton to massively cut CIA funding throughout his term in preparation for the War in Iraq. And he told M6 (British Intel) and Russian Intel to lie for him so that he'd have the support of some outside sources, too. Right, he's almost smart enough to do all of that on his own.

WE would not have supported an aggressive stance AT ALL two years previous

No, the majority of us wouldn't have, but we don't have the priveleges that come with being elected President of the United States of America, now do we?

Only because British commandoes destroyed Germanys heavy water plant in Norway...Oh and German leadership minus Hitler ... such as Rommel could have won the war if Hitler hadn't insisted on making all decisions himself.

So? That still doesn't change the facts.

Well if good ole FDR didnt die, he would have been elected over and over because he was a war president. But then again, he did serve for life...

Well if good ole FDR didnt die, he would have been elected over and over because he was a war president. But then again, he did serve for life...
Yes he would have been a king in a way, that is why the two term limit was instituted ... after FDR entered his third term ... i'm just saying why would we abolish it so that a fucking idiot can be our "king" instead of someone who would have actually cared about us ... the people

Ohh yeah RN it's MI6 not M6 for British Intelligence, it was prolly a typo but still pointing it out.

People might willingly elect Bush for a third term? Let's not think about it...

Since he HAS been the greatest leader of this country and the world in the past hundred years or so, why don't we just allow him to remain President for life?

BUSH!
if he did, i would join an armed rebellion to stop him.

Who wouldn't join a Revolution?