NationStates Jolt Archive

The forum's been a bit slow today, and it's high time we got back to politics. And since so many people have been talking about what a rotten year 2005 was for George W. Bush, I thought this article by David Shribman might stir some interest:

Let's agree that the worst year any president ever had was 1861. This was in the Lincoln administration, which should give the president some cause for hope. But it was a truly terrible year. First the Union fell apart, then Fort Sumter was surrendered, then Confederate Gens. P.G.T. Beauregard, Joseph E. Johnston and Stonewall Jackson defeated Union forces at Bull Run. The situation looked desperate, and was.

But if we look only at modern time (and for convenience, let's define that as beginning with the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt in 1901), and if we omit years in which the presidents themselves died (Warren G. Harding in 1923, Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1945 and John F. Kennedy in 1963) and then for good measure also omit years of catastrophes from abroad (Pearl Harbor removing 1941 from consideration, the al-Qaida attacks removing 2001 from contention), then what emerges are a dozen truly awful years for presidents. And in my calculations, Mr. Bush's 2005 is tied for seventh, with Harry Truman's 1948 along with his 1950. A little perspective can do wonders.

The worst year any president ever had in modern times was 1974, when Richard M. Nixon was forced to resign the White House after the Watergate scandals. Things don't get much worse than that.

Read the whole article, and see his list of the 12 worst years that modern presidents have had, here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucds/20051225/cm_ucds/annusmiserabilis

So, in your opinion, what are some truly bad years for presidents? Let's not restrict ourselves to modern presidents; let's go all the way back to George Washington.

My pick as a really bad year for a president is be Franklin Pierce's 1856. In 1854 he supported repeal of the Kansas-Nebraska act, which overturned the Missouri Compromise and was one of the key steps leading to the US Civil War. It cost him the confidence of the Democratic party, which refused to nominate him for re-election in 1856 as a result - the only time a sitting president has been dumped by his own party. His response? "There is nothing left to do but get drunk."

:p

The opposition to the POTUS would like for us to believe he stole the White House, was a drug and alcohol abuser, dumb as a stump, and lied to us about going to war.

The truth is; We are winning in Iraq, and this war against Islam fanatics is going to take years to win. This is a new kind of warfare. We came under attack years ago, under the Reagan administration, and the war got closer to home under the Clinton administration, but Clinton didn't know how to, or just chose not to, respond to the fanatics. To his credit he did take out an asprin factory. Way to go Bill!!

George Bush did respond. And the fact this country has not had to watch another city go up in flames is due to his action. On that fact alone I would say George Bush has had a very good year. The Christmas season has seen record sales, and the economy has continued to grow, even though we have had to endure constant tax cuts..

If the opposition can point at President Bush and say he has had a bad year, are they just stuck on stupid?

Shurely

PS: When I served in the military, President Kennedy was my Commander in Chief. I was a democrat back then and I will still support the party that has men like him, Senator Scoop Jackson and Senator Miller from Georgia.

George Bush revived the American economy and took action to prevent another Enron or Worldcom, and he gets more than some credit for that.

As much as I dislike with a passion GWB, one line stuck out in the article.
But as one of his predecessors, Lyndon Johnson, once said about himself, he's the only president we've got -- and for the time being his problems are our problems. That's the beauty, and the burden, of the presidency, even in a very bad year.
I may hate everything he does and hate his character, and his admin, and his party, and his idealologies, and his IQ :p , and . . . ( oh, better stop.)
He is our president whether you like it or not. We lost the chance to dump him and now we're stuck with him.

Merry Jingly!

We are winning in Iraq, and this war against Islam fanatics is going to take years to win.
You're making a false connection, there.

I'll give the author numbers 1 and 2--Hoover's 1929 and Nixon's impeachment surely have to rank as the two worst years. But putting Wilson's 1919 ahead of 2005? He won the freaking Nobel Peace prize. Clinton's 1998? He came out of impeachment with poll numbers in the high 60s and his party picked up seats in Congress. And while I suppose you can make a case for Carter in 1979, I think that the corruption scandals that are plaguing Bush and his party right now outweigh the problems Carter was dealing with.

That moves Bush in 2005 into 4th or 5th at least, and he's lucky because he hasn't had to face a hostile Congress like Nixon did, or he'd be vying for the top 3.

Hmmm Madison probably had a bad time watching Washington burn.....

George Bush revived the American economy and took action to prevent another Enron or Worldcom, and he gets more than some credit for that.

After the fact is always easy.

He deserves nothing until his buddy "KennyBoy" gets "properly" punished.

After the fact is always easy.
He deserves nothing until his buddy "KennyBoy" gets "properly" punished.

At least he's taken some action, unlike his father.

Black Forest is right, if ever there was a reason to have a federal grand jury investigate something then the death of Mary Jo K. (Kopecknic??) should be investigated. If for no other reason than her civil rights being violated. Senator Kennedy should be held accountable for leaving the scene of an accident.

As to my making a false connection. This is a lie the opponents have made to the reasons we attacked Iraq. Many have said, even prior to 9/11/2001, that Iraq was making WMD's and had no hesitation to use or sell them to terrorists. The war was launched to change the government of Iraq, and help prevent an event of mass distruction.

The war on terror cannot be against any one country or region. The Islamic extremists are all over the world. Look at what just happened in Europe, with night after night of car burnings and riots. Iraq and the world is better off because we did change the government there. And now that we are there, the Islamic extremists are trying their best to undo what we have done.

The US has been in Korea and Japan for over 50 years now. Our presence there has made the world safer. No country in the history of the world has done more to help other countries become free of oppression.

Shurely

George Bush revived the American economy and took action to prevent another Enron or Worldcom, and he gets more than some credit for that.

He also was quite a good president for Europe. At last it is no longer true that 2 Europeans in a room always results in 3 opinions; many agree about Bush. The rather bad repuatiation he has build for the US has made the EU look good in comparison to many other countries.

So: thumbs up for his PR team :)

The opposition to the POTUS would like for us to believe he stole the White House, was a drug and alcohol abuser, dumb as a stump, and lied to us about going to war.All of that is true, some of it is irrelevant, and those who support Bush would like you to believe that none of it is true.

The truth is; We are winning in IraqWhen you spend tens of billions of dollars on a war, would you even for the slightest second expect otherwise?

Iraq will have to struggle to avoid a civil war but with American help it will eventually stand up for itself... Now... what you are not taking into account is how the Iraq mess has influenced the following...


this war against Islam fanatics is going to take years to win. "The Iraq invasion has spawned and created more terrorists than the US can possibly detain kill or hunt down". - Donald Rumsfeld.

Winning Iraq made the war on Terror much more difficult and probably impossible within the next 10 or 20 years.

Clinton didn't know how to, or just chose not to, respond to the fanatics.Wrong. Suggested reading... Against all enemies by Richard Clarke.

George Bush did respond. Wrong again. He didn't move a finger until the nation's home soil was attacked. When he did move a finger the wrong steps were taken. Once again, "Against all enemies" is a must read. If you're not the reading type I suggest reading chapter 10. That should give you a good enough picture as to how you are so wrong.

And the fact this country has not had to watch another city go up in flames is due to his action.Al-Qaeda is stronger, bigger and larger than ever and it has even began outsourcing. Madrid, London, Bali, Tunisia, Egypt, etc, etc. I'd say its a mere matter of time until US soil is attacked again. The priority for the Al-Qaeda is recruiting, because they know that another attack on US soil would bring about a retaliation. Iraq was the best possible thing that could've happened to them.

Black Forest is right, if ever there was a reason to have a federal grand jury investigate something then the death of Mary Jo K. (Kopecknic??) should be investigated. If for no other reason than her civil rights being violated. Senator Kennedy should be held accountable for leaving the scene of an accident.

As to my making a false connection. This is a lie the opponents have made to the reasons we attacked Iraq. Many have said, even prior to 9/11/2001, that Iraq was making WMD's and had no hesitation to use or sell them to terrorists. The war was launched to change the government of Iraq, and help prevent an event of mass distruction.

The war on terror cannot be against any one country or region. The Islamic extremists are all over the world. Look at what just happened in Europe, with night after night of car burnings and riots. Iraq and the world is better off because we did change the government there. And now that we are there, the Islamic extremists are trying their best to undo what we have done.

The US has been in Korea and Japan for over 50 years now. Our presence there has made the world safer. No country in the history of the world has done more to help other countries become free of oppression.

Shurely
Do you have any opinions about other presidents' bad years, since you think Bush hasn't had any? Or were there no other presidents in your opinion?

This is a lie the opponents have made to the reasons we attacked Iraq. Many have said, even prior to 9/11/2001, that Iraq was making WMD's and had no hesitation to use or sell them to terrorists. The war was launched to change the government of Iraq, and help prevent an event of mass distruction.
The excuse given for invading Iraq changes every six months. The WMD story has been proven to be nonsense, though, and there weren't any Jihadists in the country before the occupation started attracting insurgents. Under Hussein Iraq was one of the few countries in that area that wasn't a theocracy: that's why Reagan was supporting him during the war with Iran.

The war on terror cannot be against any one country or region. The Islamic extremists are all over the world. Look at what just happened in Europe, with night after night of car burnings and riots. Iraq and the world is better off because we did change the government there. And now that we are there, the Islamic extremists are trying their best to undo what we have done.
If you're talking about the riots in Paris, that had nothing to do with jihadists, as various people have pointed out over and over again while it was being discussed here. You might as well argue that every black in Los Angeles is an extremist after the response to the Rodney King video getting released.
AS for making the world a safer place, I'm not holding my breath waiting, put it that way. The situation in Iraq is breeding insurgents the way a dead dog breeds flies, and is doing little to make the world any safer.

The US has been in Korea and Japan for over 50 years now. Our presence there has made the world safer. No country in the history of the world has done more to help other countries become free of oppression.
And people say that Americans have no sense of irony?

I think there's a difference between years that were bad for the presidents and years that were bad for the country. For instance, Hoover didn't suffer much in 1929, but the people did. Hoover was a cold-blooded, elitist son of a bitch who didn't give a damn about the poor and responded to a peaceful demonstration of homeless WWI vets by calling out the army against them in the streets of Washington. 1929 was a terrible year for Americans, possibly made worse by having Hoover as president.

I think there's a difference between years that were bad for the presidents and years that were bad for the country. For instance, Hoover didn't suffer much in 1929, but the people did. Hoover was a cold-blooded, elitist son of a bitch who didn't give a damn about the poor and responded to a peaceful demonstration of homeless WWI vets by calling out the army against them in the streets of Washington. 1929 was a terrible year for Americans, possibly made worse by having Hoover as president.

Yea, Hoover actually worsened the effects of the great depression. If I'm correct people named the run-down tenements after him, the called them Hoovervilles I think.

Yea, Hoover actually worsened the effects of the great depression. If I'm correct people named the run-down tenements after him, the called them Hoovervilles I think.
Weren't the Hoovervilles encampments of transients, rather than tenements?

Weren't the Hoovervilles encampments of transients, rather than tenements?

Most of the socalled transients were people that lost their homes and were looking for jobs......

And I believed only the vaccuum cleaner was named for Hoover;)

I think we ruled out being killed in office, as being a bad year for the POTUS, but being impeached or ran out of office, like Nixon was, would be on top of my list, as a very bad year.

Andrew Jackson issued the orders that moved the Cherokee Nation from prime South farmland, to land that was barren. The book "Trail of Tears" is a good read about that. That was a very bad year for those folks.

Shurley

I'd hve to agree with the original post that the absolute worst year for a president was 1861. Lincoln wasn't exactly a popular choice south of the Dixie line before he became POTUS. Matters only came to a head when Lincoln ordered the raising of 50,000 Federal troops to put down the rebellious states (after Fort Sumter). Before that its likely that the small southern forces could have been negotiated with to surrender, but Lincoln plowed on ahead and plunged the eastern US into a five year war the likes of which have seldom been recorded in history. It didn't help Lincoln that for the following couple of years Robert E. Lee, JEB Stuart, Thomas 'Stonewall' Jackson and Jim Longstreet, among some other fine military commanders handed the Federal armies their assess in a sling. In fact, only for US Grant, a raging alcoholic, the Federals would have been rolled over and Lincoln would be the President who lost the union and not the one who preserved it.

Pretty bad times for ole Abe all in all.

Getting shot really took the biscuit too...

And I believed only the vaccuum cleaner was named for Hoover;)

I think we ruled out being killed in office, as being a bad year for the POTUS, but being impeached or ran out of office, like Nixon was, would be on top of my list, as a very bad year.

Andrew Jackson issued the orders that moved the Cherokee Nation from prime South farmland, to land that was barren. The book "Trail of Tears" is a good read about that. That was a very bad year for those folks.

Shurley


Speaking of Andrew Jackson, wasn't he impeached? Or censured by Congress? I can't remember which

The war was launched to change the government of Iraq, and help prevent an event of mass distruction.
Which means that it would not be part of the war against terrorism. If you wanted to fight terrorism with the army, you would have attacked Pakistan - now there is a rich target for you.
And if you wanted to end this particular brand of Islamist terrorism, you'd use the police, you'd work together with local authorities, and you'd deal with it as you would with any other criminal issue - which is all this is.
Believe me, it works. It has worked in the European "War on Terror" which was fought and eventually won all through the second half of the 20th century.

Look at what just happened in Europe, with night after night of car burnings and riots.
Please tell me you didn't just blame Islamists for that.

And now that we are there, the Islamic extremists are trying their best to undo what we have done.
Actually, they are having a field day. Guess where new Jihadists now go in their thousands to get training.

[QUOTE=Neu Leonstein]Which means that it would not be part of the war against terrorism. If you wanted to fight terrorism with the army, you would have attacked Pakistan - now there is a rich target for you.
And if you wanted to end this particular brand of Islamist terrorism, you'd use the police, you'd work together with local authorities, and you'd deal with it as you would with any other criminal issue - which is all this is.
Believe me, it works. It has worked in the European "War on Terror" which was fought and eventually won all through the second half of the 20th century. [QUOTE]

The European 'War on Terror' was won? I didn't get the memo. Forget the London/Madrid attacks, I'm talking about ETA, the UVF, UDA, LVF, INLA, RIRA, CIRA, and a dozen more paramilitary groups still active in Europe. Ok, Northern Ireland has been reasonably quiet lately, and the IRA has disarmed itself, but the loyalist groups are still shooting Catholics dead. ETA is still going crazy with the Spanish, and on top of it all is the growing anti-Islamic feeling in the West, which doesn't distinguish between fundamentalists and peaceful worship

I'm talking about ETA, the UVF, UDA, LVF, INLA, RIRA, CIRA, and a dozen more paramilitary groups still active in Europe.
ETA is more a political movement than anything else today. I'll give you though that they are still around, and that they still blow stuff up occasionally - but importantly, they are not after killing people, they warn and give police enough time to evacuate. I'd expect them to end the fight eventually, as the IRA did.
But you forgot the ones that aren't around anymore, like the RAF, or the Red Brigades. I guess totally won is a bit of a hyperbole, but you'd have to admit that Europe has enjoyed a lot more success in combatting terrorism than the US so far. And with a lot less dead people.

Ok, Northern Ireland has been reasonably quiet lately, and the IRA has disarmed itself, but the loyalist groups are still shooting Catholics dead.
Which is mainly because the UK Government doesn't seem nearly as interested as they were when the IRA did the same thing to their people in Manchester (and some say that was accidental too).
If they tried the same things, they'd probably work too.

ETA is still going crazy with the Spanish, and on top of it all is the growing anti-Islamic feeling in the West, which doesn't distinguish between fundamentalists and peaceful worship
The main issue is the way traditional Europeans will live together with Muslim immigrants, that is true. I wouldn't call that a Terrorism issue though.

Fair points. But lets not forget, poverty is the breeding ground of terrorists, from the depressions of the late seventies in Germany(Bader-Meinhof, Red Brigade), the Bogside in Derry(IRA) and the relative economic poorness of northern Spain (ETA), to the middle east. With the exception of bin Laden I don't know many multi-millionaire terrorists(he's a lunatic) Anyway, Europe is now a (fairly) prosperous place to live, Iraq and Iran ain't. Terror will only be beaten when poverty is, and unfortunately that is never going to happen. The 'War on Terror' will soon become like the 'War on Drugs', more of a holding action. It can never be won. All we can do is try to contain the situation and hope not to piss off too many other 'repressed minorities'

Anyway this is all way off topic. I was talking about Bobby Lee handing Lincoln his ass a few posts ago. Lets get back to Bad Years for Presidents and leave the terrorism issue for another thread:)

Okay.

Well, I'm not big on US history, and I think that this year was probably the most difficult one in recent times for a PotUS.
Not least because Bush has apparently no talent for politics at all - all he's got right now is the support from people who agree with his bombing policies. Or so it seems to me.

Okay.

Well, I'm not big on US history, and I think that this year was probably the most difficult one in recent times for a PotUS.
Not least because Bush has apparently no talent for politics at all - all he's got right now is the support from people who agree with his bombing policies. Or so it seems to me.


They're not really his bombing policies, more his daddy's and Fox News

Speaking of Andrew Jackson, wasn't he impeached? Or censured by Congress? I can't remember which
Jackson was indeed censured by Congress in 1834. It was Andrew Johnson who was impeached, though, and it was a fine display of partisan politics run amuck. The Republicans who impeached Clinton at least had a credible charge against him. The Republicans who impeached Johnson had no such thing. Se we can definitely call 1868 a bad year for Andrew Johnson. One plus for him: he was vindicated by history in the long run.

:p

Jackson was indeed censured by Congress in 1834. It was Andrew Johnson who was impeached, though, and it was a fine display of partisan politics run amuck. The Republicans who impeached Clinton at least had a credible charge against him. The Republicans who impeached Johnson had no such thing. Se we can definitely call 1868 a bad year for Andrew Johnson. One plus for him: he was vindicated by history in the long run.

:p

Thanks, I knew one of the Presidents was impeached before Wild Bill, though I don't know if a credible charge has ever been laid at the Clintonisers door step and stuck. The only man in history to become more popular after he was caught cheating on his wife and lied about it, go figure.
You've got to think 1964 was a bad one for LBJ as well. Not only had he just got into office, but Vietnam wasn't yet the mess it was, until of course the Tonkin Gulf incident. Old Lyndon should have run a four minute mile out of the SitRoom that day

The opposition to the POTUS would like for us to believe he stole the White House, was a drug and alcohol abuser, dumb as a stump, and lied to us about going to war.

The truth is; We are winning in Iraq, and this war against Islam fanatics is going to take years to win. This is a new kind of warfare. We came under attack years ago, under the Reagan administration, and the war got closer to home under the Clinton administration, but Clinton didn't know how to, or just chose not to, respond to the fanatics. To his credit he did take out an asprin factory. Way to go Bill!!
While I am not a part of the hardcore opposition to the PotUS, anyone can see this for the blatant partisan hackery that it is.

...until of course the Tonkin Gulf incident...
Which of course was fabricated as well...

http://www.thehistorynet.com/mhq/bltonkin/

Thanks, I knew one of the Presidents was impeached before Wild Bill, though I don't know if a credible charge has ever been laid at the Clintonisers door step and stuck. The only man in history to become more popular after he was caught cheating on his wife and lied about it, go figure.
You've got to think 1964 was a bad one for LBJ as well. Not only had he just got into office, but Vietnam wasn't yet the mess it was, until of course the Tonkin Gulf incident. Old Lyndon should have run a four minute mile out of the SitRoom that day
Just to make sure we're clear on who we're talking about, the US has had two presidents named Johnson. Andrew Johnson was Lincoln's Vice President, and succeeded him when Lincoln was assassinated, serving 1865-1869. Lyndon Baines Johnson served a century later, 1963-1969. Andrew Johnson was the one who was impeached.

Though you do have a valid point about LBJ. But I think that 1968 was a wee bit worse than 1964 for him.

:p

The opposition to the POTUS would like for us to believe he stole the White House, was a drug and alcohol abuser, dumb as a stump, and lied to us about going to war.

The truth is; We are winning in Iraq, and this war against Islam fanatics is going to take years to win. This is a new kind of warfare. We came under attack years ago, under the Reagan administration, and the war got closer to home under the Clinton administration, but Clinton didn't know how to, or just chose not to, respond to the fanatics. To his credit he did take out an asprin factory. Way to go Bill!!

George Bush did respond. And the fact this country has not had to watch another city go up in flames is due to his action. On that fact alone I would say George Bush has had a very good year. The Christmas season has seen record sales, and the economy has continued to grow, even though we have had to endure constant tax cuts..

If the opposition can point at President Bush and say he has had a bad year, are they just stuck on stupid?

Shurely

PS: When I served in the military, President Kennedy was my Commander in Chief. I was a democrat back then and I will still support the party that has men like him, Senator Scoop Jackson and Senator Miller from Georgia.


Lol you made a list of what thoes that "oppose POTUS" But failed to address all of them

Even taking your explination of the war as truth you failed to address any of your own points
believe he stole the White House, was a drug and alcohol abuser, dumb as a stump, and lied to us about going to war

Lol nice make us think you are going to address these things and compleatly go into a rant on how we are "winning" lol
Even if we are winning that does not disclude bush from stealing the whitehose being a drug and alcohol abuser, dumb as a stump and lying lol

Which of course was fabricated as well...

http://www.thehistorynet.com/mhq/bltonkin/

Oh yea. I ran into an old navy guy. Colorful career. He was on the destroyer that tried to help the Lexington(or was it the Yorktown); a sub sank both. His ship split in 1/2. He said it's amazing what goes in your mind when death is at hand. I was standing on the back of the ship trying to decided to jump into the ocean feet first or head first. Asked him what he choose and he said he didn't. Somebody kicked him in the ass. :D

He was at Tonkin and he said it was bullshit. They kept taunting the NVN and they wouldn't do anything. So one day the got the order, charged in and blew the crap out of the boats, towed them to international waters and cried foul.

Ahh well.....

Black Forest is right, if ever there was a reason to have a federal grand jury investigate something then the death of Mary Jo K. (Kopecknic??) should be investigated. If for no other reason than her civil rights being violated. Senator Kennedy should be held accountable for leaving the scene of an accident.

As to my making a false connection. This is a lie the opponents have made to the reasons we attacked Iraq. Many have said, even prior to 9/11/2001, that Iraq was making WMD's and had no hesitation to use or sell them to terrorists. The war was launched to change the government of Iraq, and help prevent an event of mass distruction.

The war on terror cannot be against any one country or region. The Islamic extremists are all over the world. Look at what just happened in Europe, with night after night of car burnings and riots. Iraq and the world is better off because we did change the government there. And now that we are there, the Islamic extremists are trying their best to undo what we have done.

The US has been in Korea and Japan for over 50 years now. Our presence there has made the world safer. No country in the history of the world has done more to help other countries become free of oppression.

Shurely

I dont know if anyone pointed this out already but the same could be said about the Christian Fundamentalists. The only difference, they are in charge of the countries and the Islamic Fundementalists are trying to stop them from makeing their ocuntries oil puppets like Iraq is now. Christian Fundementalists are just as bad except they have the worlds superpower behind them. I thought the last crusade was in the Middle Ages but I gueass I was wrong. Another has started and it was proclaimed by GWB. No matter how you put it you are supporting one religion over the other. Marx wasn't lieing when he said "Religion is the oppiate of the masses.". Its a faith. You can't prove it so why die fopr it! Ultimately your a moron if you waste your life and then find out that the god you believed in was fake and then you recieve whatever punishment the religion hands out for being a non-believer. Sheesh...I thought we had progressed past "My god is better than yours."

George Bush revived the American economy and took action to prevent another Enron or Worldcom, and he gets more than some credit for that.

If you borrow $500billion each year and pump it into the economy, I would be very concerned if it didn't do a bloody thing!

Expanding government and budget deficit expansion, hardly something I would call smart economic policies.

If you borrow $500billion each year and pump it into the economy, I would be very concerned if it didn't do a bloody thing!

Expanding government and budget deficit expansion, hardly something I would call smart economic policies.
lol what would you call it then (I would agree with you)

lol what would you call them then (I would agree with you)

A really sad attempt to bring back some sort of re-invented neo-keynesian of 'borrow and hope' whilst doing absolutely jack shit in the mean time to restructure the economy as to allow it to get back onto the right footing and the private sector take off as the government is slowly retreated back to its original place.

Take labour costs - remove compuslory health care by employers in favour of raising the minimum wage by $1; remove overtime penalty rates, you're paid the same amount per hour regardless of whether you work 40 or 50 hours per week; individual contracts and the ability for unionised businesses to do mass firing and re-hiring of employees under individual contracts.

I'm sure if I did some more research, I would be able to find more to cut away at.

George Bush revived the American economy and took action to prevent another Enron or Worldcom, and he gets more than some credit for that.
...as evidenced by his support of AG Spitzer and his group?
Or as evidenced by the "fact" that Kenneth Lay is laid up now, being somebody's bitch?
That the kind of credit he deserves?

I dont know if anyone pointed this out already but the same could be said about the Christian Fundamentalists. The only difference, they are in charge of the countries and the Islamic Fundementalists are trying to stop them from makeing their ocuntries oil puppets like Iraq is now. Christian Fundementalists are just as bad except they have the worlds superpower behind them. I thought the last crusade was in the Middle Ages but I gueass I was wrong. Another has started and it was proclaimed by GWB. No matter how you put it you are supporting one religion over the other. Marx wasn't lieing when he said "Religion is the oppiate of the masses.". Its a faith. You can't prove it so why die fopr it! Ultimately your a moron if you waste your life and then find out that the god you believed in was fake and then you recieve whatever punishment the religion hands out for being a non-believer. Sheesh...I thought we had progressed past "My god is better than yours."
"My shake ... is better n' yours!" *booty call*

At least he's taken some action, unlike his father.
His father, "The Limp Wimp"