NationStates Jolt Archive

George W Bush (R)
Slick Willie Clinton (D)
George H Bush (R)
Ronald Reagan (R)
Jimmy Carter (D)
Gerald Ford (R)
Tricky Dick Nixon (R)
Lyndon B. Johnson (D)
John F Kennedy (D)
Ike Eisenhower (R)
HArry Truman (D)


For me it is Reagan. Even W doesn't rise to his level of stupidity, bad policy, racism, greed, and in general, shit retardedness.

What about you?

someone recently mentioned LBJ as a bad guy...I dunno, he did pretty good to me. If you look at his overall policies, he wasn't bad> He just was too sissy to pull out of vietnam, whcih I mostly just find pitiful.

God knows the majority here are going to mention W. :headbang:

As for my vote, Well I'm going to break it down on who was worse on International Policy and Domestic Policy.

Worse on International Policy: Carter

Worse on Domestic Policy: Nixon. I mean he tried his best but it just didn't work out too well.

George W Bush.

*Looks around* First one to say W! YES! :D

George W Bush.

*Looks around* First one to say W! YES! :D

I knew it! :p

George W Bush.

*Looks around* First one to say W! YES! :D

*gives cookie*


You know, just because he is the first president you ever voted against doesn't mean he is the worst ever :D

*gives cookie*


You know, just because he is the first president you ever voted against doesn't mean he is the worst ever :D

Couldn't vote against him, I'm afraid. I was only 17 at the time. :(

Couldn't vote against him, I'm afraid. I was only 17 at the time. :(

OMFG! a THIRD of your life under this guy? how sad! but 2/3 of your life under Billary! That's not bad! 2/3 of your life under a president who smoked pot. You'll be fine after we get W out.:D

None of them really inspire me. (Though interest rates did reach about 20% under reagan, and I dream of that happening every day, it would be awesome).

So I'll just pretend that all the whacky conspiracy theory shit about why kennedy was really assasinated is true: that he was going to abolish the federal reserve -not sure why tho-; that he was going to spill the beans about area fifty one &c. : and say he was the best.

I've always been iffy on truman. Guy seemed out of his depth.

George W Bush (R)
Slick Willie Clinton (D)
George H Bush (R)
Ronald Reagan (R)
Jimmy Carter (D)
Gerald Ford (R)
Tricky Dick Nixon (R)
Lyndon B. Johnson (D)
John F Kennedy (D)
Ike Eisenhower (R)
HArry Truman (D)


1.Truman because of the nuclear bombing of Japan. No excuses for that - it was a unnecessary massacre of civilians.
2.Bush sr and Ronnie Reagan for reaganomics, welfare bashing, trade union bashing, contras etc.
3.Bush jr for war on terror/war for oil and patriot act.
4.Lyndon Johnson and JFK because of the Cuba missile crisis and Vietnam.
5.Nixon just on of psychiatric grounds.

I think that Ike, Carter and Bill Clinton performed better than the standard US president - not on the level of Jefferson, Lincoln and FDR, but hey...

Anyway, I do hope that the democrats will turn a bit left.

None of them really inspire me. (Though interest rates did reach about 20% under reagan, and I dream of that happening every day, it would be awesome).

So I'll just pretend that all the whacky conspiracy theory shit about why kennedy was really assasinated is true: that he was going to abolish the federal reserve -not sure why tho-; that he was going to spill the beans about area fifty one &c. : and say he was the best.

I've always been iffy on truman. Guy seemed out of his depth.
I think truman was a hardass. I dunno how good he was domestically but internationally he was pretty damned hard. Nuking Japan just to intimidate Russia? woooowe!

For me it is Reagan. Even W doesn't rise to his level of stupidity, bad policy, racism, greed, and in general, shit retardedness.

What about you?


That sounds just like Bush!!

Are you pro Bush by any chance?

Not a bit. Bush is trying to be a cooler Reagan. NEver noticed?

I think truman was a hardass. I dunno how good he was domestically but internationally he was pretty damned hard. Nuking Japan just to intimidate Russia? woooowe!

Yah. He was a hardass then. But then he blinked over korea.

He also wanted to nationalize the steel industry and spend 15% of the GDP on defence, but was worried about a wider war.

I get the feeling he couldn't make his mind up about the post war world order. Which is a shame, because he was one its architects.

Not a bit. Bush is trying to be a cooler Reagan. NEver noticed?

More tepid I think.

JFK.
Only right thing this guy did was shoot himself.
(Red Dwarf fans will understand...)

1.Truman because of the nuclear bombing of Japan. No excuses for that - it was a unnecessary massacre of civilians. Against a suicide-ready Japanese society?! You're joking! Any American attempt to invade the Japanese mainland would have cost millions of lives on both sides.

3.Bush jr for war on terror/war for oil and patriot act. Conspiracy theories abound!

4...JFK because of the Cuba missile crisis and Vietnam. Sure, hate JFK because the Russkies planted nukes within hundreds of miles within the American mainland. What was the outcome? Peace. Try the same strategy with any of the old war vets like Ike or FDR and we'd end up in global conflict (not that they were bad presidents)

Against a suicide-ready Japanese society?! You're joking! Any American attempt to invade the Japanese mainland would have cost millions of lives on both sides.

Conspiracy theories abound!

Sure, hate JFK because the Russkies planted nukes within hundreds of miles within the American mainland. What was the outcome? Peace. Try the same strategy with any of the old war vets like Ike or FDR and we'd end up in global conflict (not that they were bad presidents)

I think Risotta must be thinking about the bay of oigs. Not the missile crisis, which Kenneddy did okay with...

I think Risotta must be thinking about the bay of oigs. Not the missile crisis, which Kenneddy did okay with...

yeah, agreed about the bay of pigs... kennedy did great with the missile crisis, what with MAD in full effect. every president after that went for a full-on detente policy, and you can make the argument JFK led the way there.

Yah. He was a hardass then. But then he blinked over korea.

He also wanted to nationalize the steel industry and spend 15% of the GDP on defence, but was worried about a wider war.

I get the feeling he couldn't make his mind up about the post war world order. Which is a shame, because he was one its architects.
you know, the more I think about this post the more you impell me to go do a bit of research. I think he did get wobbly after the war. Korea was an easy one to get scared over. BUt I don't know much else about him which is odd for a guy with my degree, eh?

I don't "hate" any of them. Guess I just don't take policy decisions as personal insults.

Anyhow, I think, based on press reports, interviews, etc. that I'd probably not be personal friends with someone like Kennedy, Eisenhower or Ford, while I'd probably like LBJ, Ronnie R. and G.H.W. Bush. Just a gut feeling.

As bad as Ike, LBJ, Carter and Reagen were, I'm still going to have to go with W.

The GOP might as well have changed it's name to the Regressive Party under his administration.

Sooooooooo much damage to undo. :(

For me it is Reagan. Even W doesn't rise to his level of stupidity, bad policy, racism, greed, and in general, shit retardedness.

dubya gets my goat mostly with his arrogance

reagan's policy on climate control astounds me to this day - ie: the apocalypse is so close that there's no need to worry about the environment, as it won't have enough time to actually get really bad

but nixon has to take the cake!

Who do I hate most? Bush, for dragging MY country as well as his into an unnessecary war. But Johnson was a bit of twat as well what with the whole "lets support a despotic, psychotic, oppressive, super anti-commie South Vietnamese regime because it MUST be better than Vietnam as a communist state even though they would be completely independant from both China and the USSR" thing.


ahem.

dubya gets my goat mostly with his arrogance

reagan's policy on climate control astounds me to this day - ie: the apocalypse is so close that there's no need to worry about the environment, as it won't have enough time to actually get really bad

but nixon has to take the cake!

takes the cake for what?

I don't "hate" any of them. Guess I just don't take policy decisions as personal insults.

Anyhow, I think, based on press reports, interviews, etc. that I'd probably not be personal friends with someone like Kennedy, Eisenhower or Ford, while I'd probably like LBJ, Ronnie R. and G.H.W. Bush. Just a gut feeling.
I would love Ike. He was the younger of a large family of boys, and his daddy was a farmer. The didn't really like him going in th e army, but once he got famous they were proud and humble about him. Seemed like a good family.

Ford...No. George H...No. W..no. THey were all flyers. And Carter was a navy guy on nuke subs. No thanks. Ike tho and LBJ. THey really were men. Did their best and were ashamed when they couldn't.

Who do I hate most? Bush, for dragging MY country as well as his into an unnessecary war. But Johnson was a bit of twat as well what with the whole "lets support a despotic, psychotic, oppressive, super anti-commie South Vietnamese regime because it MUST be better than Vietnam as a communist state even though they would be completely independant from both China and the USSR" thing.


ahem.

yes. a communist vietnam totally devoid of any support from the chinese or the ussr...

just like the north koreans were totally devoid of any help from the chinese or the ussr...

I don't "hate" any of them. Guess I just don't take policy decisions as personal insults.

Anyhow, I think, based on press reports, interviews, etc. that I'd probably not be personal friends with someone like Kennedy, Eisenhower or Ford, while I'd probably like LBJ, Ronnie R. and G.H.W. Bush. Just a gut feeling.

I am betting you would like LBD and Ike. THey were real cowboys. Reagan and GH Bush were never covboys. REagan was never anything but an actor, GHWBush was a political appointee, and a pretty good one. But he was washingtoin elite.

takes the cake for what?

uh
for being my most hated? (the title of the thread...)

uh
for being my most hated? (the title of the thread...)

i was referring to your reasoning why he was your most hated... you offered it for both Dubya and 'ol Ron but none for Nixon

[QUOTE=Christmahanikwanzikah;12111531]i was referring to your reasoning why he was your most hated... you offered it for both Dubya and 'ol Ron but none for Nixon[/QUOTEI didn't even notice lol!

i was referring to your reasoning why he was your most hated... you offered it for both Dubya and 'ol Ron but none for Nixon

ah... zen

because i'm a fan of hunter s thompson ;)

"I did't inhail!" "well, it depends on what your definition of 'is' is..."

Clinton, the ol' slicky. I hated his policies, of course, being THAT slippery you gotta admire the guy some what. "Back in my days sonny, politicains didn't get caught! Bush needs to take a less or two from ol' Billy-boy..."

reagan's policy on climate control astounds me to this day - ie: the apocalypse is so close that there's no need to worry about the environment, as it won't have enough time to actually get really bad

but nixon has to take the cake!

That's cute, but no one outside a few lefties and Bill Moyers actually believe that about the Reagan Administration. Moyers had to admit it in a recent interview. Kinda funny.

By the way, I reccomend we remove Bush Jr. Although he may deserve it, he does hog all the hate. He distorts everything.

hah.

the "i dont like his policies so im going to lobby for impeachement" thing.

1.Truman because of the nuclear bombing of Japan. No excuses for that - it was a unnecessary massacre of civilians.
2.Bush sr and Ronnie Reagan for reaganomics, welfare bashing, trade union bashing, contras etc.
3.Bush jr for war on terror/war for oil and patriot act.
4.Lyndon Johnson and JFK because of the Cuba missile crisis and Vietnam.
5.Nixon just on of psychiatric grounds.

I think that Ike, Carter and Bill Clinton performed better than the standard US president - not on the level of Jefferson, Lincoln and FDR, but hey...

Anyway, I do hope that the democrats will turn a bit left.

...





Maybe when the republicans turn right, eh what?

Oh, and I comment on Bush once more:

Definition of a liberal (in my view): "BUSH IS EVIL!"

Definition of a conservative (once again, my view): "Get real, Bush is just an idiot. According to the bible pure evil has some brains."

nixon for many reasons - his apparent delusion of indestructibility, so not so much his flouting of the law but more the recklessness and (struggling for words) kid-with-an-ant-farm approach to the office

and all three for their military adventurism and strutting disregard for international opinion

Oh, and I comment on Bush once more:

Definition of a liberal (in my view): "BUSH IS EVIL!"

Definition of a conservative (once again, my view): "Get real, Bush is just an idiot. According to the bible pure evil has some brains."

im really wondering who the front runners for the GOP in 08 is going to be... i mean, the front runners for the Dems are both groundbreakers - Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

though i dont really see hillary ever getting into the white house... well, as president

nixon for many reasons - his apparent delusion of indestructibility, so not so much his flouting of the law but more the recklessness and (struggling for words) kid-with-an-ant-farm approach to the office

and all three for their military adventurism and strutting disregard for international opinion

You have some good points there...EXCEPT for international opinion. WHO CARES WHAT THE WORLD THINKS?!?! America (the U.S.A. for all you...uh...unusual folks) just needs to do what's right. Of course, maybe Nixon wasn't the BEST example...

im really wondering who the front runners for the GOP in 08 is going to be... i mean, the front runners for the Dems are both groundbreakers - Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

though i dont really see hillary ever getting into the white house... well, as president
Yeah, well, im MY opinion, both parties stink. They're too much alike.

You have some good points there...EXCEPT for international opinion. WHO CARES WHAT THE WORLD THINKS?!?! America (the U.S.A. for all you...uh...unusual folks) just needs to do what's right. Of course, maybe Nixon wasn't the BEST example...

its weird... under our isolationist periods we thrived the most but, internationally gained the least, while the latter could be said about the opposite of isolationism.

You have some good points there...EXCEPT for international opinion. WHO CARES WHAT THE WORLD THINKS?!?! America (the U.S.A. for all you...uh...unusual folks) just needs to do what's right. Of course, maybe Nixon wasn't the BEST example...

i'm not saying you should be led by that opinion
but you only have the authority to do what's right within your own borders, as does every sovereign nation
iran is currently saying "who cares what the world thinks" and pursuing a nuclear program
what makes it right for america to ignore international opinion then act militarily "in defence of the free world"?
you did just admit i had a good point when i mentioned military adventurism

You have some good points there...EXCEPT for international opinion. WHO CARES WHAT THE WORLD THINKS?!?! America (the U.S.A. for all you...uh...unusual folks) just needs to do what's right. Of course, maybe Nixon wasn't the BEST example...

how about the combination of a string of terrible leaders (what's this thread called again?), the biggest nuclear arsenal in the world, and a knack for starting wars?

america declares itself the guardian of freedom and democracy - doesn't democracy have something to do with listening to the will of the people?

i'm not saying you should be led by that opinion
but you only have the authority to do what's right within your own borders, as does every sovereign nation
iran is currently saying "who cares what the world thinks" and pursuing a nuclear program
what makes it right for america to ignore international opinion then act militarily "in defence of the free world"?
you did just admit i had a good point when i mentioned military adventurism

Correct. And I personally think invading Iraq may have been stupid. We still should fight terrorism, just differently. We should have pulled-out when we caught Saddam, then it would have been a victory. Yet, if we pull out now, it will be a defeat :(... So we need to do two things: first aquire a means of funding the war (pumping out oil, ect.). Next we nned to show the terrorist we mean bussiness. We offer the guys on our list in Iraq 48 hours to leave, or else we WILL kill them. If they don't leave, we place bounties on their heads. Hey, it would be WAY cheaper then the way we're doing it.

how about the combination of a string of terrible leaders (what's this thread called again?), the biggest nuclear arsenal in the world, and a knack for starting wars?

america declares itself the guardian of freedom and democracy - doesn't democracy have something to do with listening to the will of the people?

What's the difference? The people are retarded, and the leaders are retarded.

Correct. And I personally think invading Iraq may have been stupid. We still should fight terrorism, just differently. We should have pulled-out when we caught Saddam, then it would have been a victory. Yet, if we pull out now, it will be a defeat :(... So we need to do two things: first aquire a means of funding the war (pumping out oil, ect.). Next we nned to show the terrorist we mean bussiness. We offer the guys on our list in Iraq 48 hours to leave, or else we WILL kill them. If they don't leave, we place bounties on their heads. Hey, it would be WAY cheaper then the way we're doing it.

you should have finished the job when bush sr went in 91
not let it fester for a decade then blunder in expecting garlands of flowers from grateful peons

you should have finished the job when bush sr went in 91
not let it fester for a decade then blunder in expecting garlands of flowers from grateful peons

I should have??!?!?

Correct. And I personally think invading Iraq may have been stupid. We still should fight terrorism, just differently. We should have pulled-out when we caught Saddam, then it would have been a victory. Yet, if we pull out now, it will be a defeat :(... So we need to do two things: first aquire a means of funding the war (pumping out oil, ect.). Next we nned to show the terrorist we mean bussiness. We offer the guys on our list in Iraq 48 hours to leave, or else we WILL kill them. If they don't leave, we place bounties on their heads. Hey, it would be WAY cheaper then the way we're doing it.

I should have??!?!?

by "you" i meant "america"
in just the same way as when you said "we" and "our" and "we're" you meant america

chill, winston!

by "you" i meant "america"
in just the same way as when you said "we" and "our" and "we're" you meant america

chill, winston!

Okay, okay.... Just for the record, if I personally was running the country I would have.

For me it is Reagan. Even W doesn't rise to his level of stupidity, bad policy, racism, greed, and in general, shit retardedness.

What about you?

someone recently mentioned LBJ as a bad guy...I dunno, he did pretty good to me. If you look at his overall policies, he wasn't bad> He just was too sissy to pull out of vietnam, whcih I mostly just find pitiful.

What a troll...

For 50 years, Carter, hands down. Maybe a good person, but a spectacularly bad president.

For 100 years, FDR, the Great Criminal.

What a troll...

For 50 years, Carter, hands down. MAybe a good person, but a spectacularly bad president.

For 100 years, FDR, the Great Criminal.

Carter, for simpleton idiot
LBJ is a close second runner up for redneck idiot
Bush for stubborn idiot
Clinton for preoccupied idiot

Maybe we should stop electing Southerners.

and a knack for starting wars?

Name one.

america declares itself the guardian of freedom and democracy

We do?

Care to point out where?

doesn't democracy have something to do with listening to the will of the people?

Yes, which is why we are a Republic, not a Democracy.

"Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself."
-- John Adams, Founding Father and second President of the US.

What's the difference? The people are retarded, and the leaders are retarded.

Yeah...

H'yuk! We iz sew dum!

Tell us all about the European software giants. And, that cure for Polio, sheer folly, that. And, what was it? 12 guys on the Moon? Anyone else been there?

*crickets chirping*

you should have finished the job when bush sr went in 91
not let it fester for a decade then blunder in expecting garlands of flowers from grateful peons

Yes, we should've. Instead we listened to the world and gave in to 12 years of Hussein thumbing his nose and killing his people. Then, there was France and Russia with under the table oil deals - they helped SO much.

By the way, care to post where anyone - except for critics - said anything about flowers?

Richard M. Nixon

Reagan and both Bushes.
Reagan set up all the international problems of today.
Made enemies of South America.
Made enemies in the Middle East.
Made enemies in Africa.
As well was a greedy son of a bitch and the first Neocon.

Bush senior did nothing execpt expand on Regan's policies.
Including failing to help topple Saddam the first damn time like we should have.

GWB 'Dubba'... Do I need to even say anything?


For 100 years, FDR, the Great Criminal.
:rolleyes: Right... Keeping this country from going communist or Fascist and rebuilding the economy while it was in the gutter. So evil. And before you say it.

For all future critics who will state that "He should have left the private sector to take care of it."

The private sector was a rotting corpse at that time, there was no way for it to fix itself.

Regan and both Bushes.
Regan set up all the international problems of today.
Made enemies of South America.
Made enemies in the Middle East.
Made enemies in Africa.
As well was a greedy son of a bitch and the first Neocon.

Bush senior did nothing execpt expand on Regan's policies.
Including failing to help topple Saddam the first damn time like we should have.

Dubba... Do I need to even say anything.

"Regan?"

"Dubba?"

Never heard of them...

George W Bush (R)
Slick Willie Clinton (D)
George H Bush (R)
Ronald Reagan (R)
Jimmy Carter (D)
Gerald Ford (R)
Tricky Dick Nixon (R)
Lyndon B. Johnson (D)
John F Kennedy (D)
Ike Eisenhower (R)
HArry Truman (D)


For me it is Reagan. Even W doesn't rise to his level of stupidity, bad policy, racism, greed, and in general, shit retardedness.

What about you?

someone recently mentioned LBJ as a bad guy...I dunno, he did pretty good to me. If you look at his overall policies, he wasn't bad> He just was too sissy to pull out of vietnam, whcih I mostly just find pitiful.


Uh...hey, smart guy, Truman wasn't president within the last 50 years.

Regan and both Bushes.
Regan set up all the international problems of today.
Made enemies of South America.
Made enemies in the Middle East.
Made enemies in Africa.
As well was a greedy son of a bitch and the first Neocon.

Bush senior did nothing execpt expand on Regan's policies.
Including failing to help topple Saddam the first damn time like we should have.

Dubba... Do I need to even say anything?


:rolleyes: Right... Keeping this country from going communist or Fascist and rebuilding the economy while it was in the gutter. So evil. And before you say it.

For all future critics who will state that "He should have left the private sector to take care of it."

The private sector was a rotting corpse at that time, there was no way for it to fix itself.

The vast bulk of our problems in the middle east, latin america and africa predate Reagan massively.

The vast bulk of our problems in the middle east, latin america and africa predate Reagan massively. Of course, but he sure made it worse.

The vast bulk of our problems in the middle east, latin america and africa predate Reagan massively.

Of course they do.

Of course, but he sure made it worse.

But then it's more convenient to blame the dead Republican, right? :rolleyes:

For me it is Reagan. Even W doesn't rise to his level of stupidity, bad policy, racism, greed, and in general, shit retardedness.Wow, I agree. Usually in threads like these people tend to forget him.

someone recently mentioned LBJ as a bad guy...I dunno, he did pretty good to me. If you look at his overall policies, he wasn't bad> He just was too sissy to pull out of vietnam, whcih I mostly just find pitiful.Not quite. There was the whole Gulf of Tonkin charade, which escalated the war, so it's not quite as simple as not pulling out.

Right...

Exactly.

Keeping this country from going communist or Fascist and rebuilding the economy while it was in the gutter. So evil.

Yeah.

So, instead, he let it go Socialist.

Obviously, in your spoon-fed leftist existance, you have no idea HOW FDR forced his policies on the US.

Maybe this will help;

"I hope your committee will not permit doubts as to constitutionality, however reasonable, to block the suggested legislation."
-- FDR to the House Ways and Means Chairman
Heck, why let that pesky Constitution get in the way of socialism, right?

The private sector was a rotting corpse at that time, there was no way for it to fix itself.

OK, since you've claimed this, how about you now PROVE IT.

chill, winston!

Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels reference?

Nixon hasn't been mentioned enough yet. He was like the Bush Jr. prototype.

Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels reference?

Nixon hasn't been mentioned enough yet. He was like the Bush Jr. prototype.

Referring to him as "Bush Jr." only highlights your ignorance, y'know.

Referring to him as "Bush Jr." only highlights your ignorance, y'know.

How else would I refer to him? Is that not the man's name (only shortened)?

How else would I refer to him? Is that not the man's name (only shortened)?No. The father is George Herbert Walker Bush, or George H. W. Bush. The son is George Walker Bush, or George W. Bush. They have different middle names.

Jimmy Carter was a joke. He was definitely the worse president we ever had.

Slick Willy was probably my favorite president. He was a skank banger, but he ran the country pretty well I thought.

W I don't think is as bad as people think. He knows his economics, but I have to say his foreign policy sucks. Not just in Iraq obviously, but in general.

How else would I refer to him? Is that not the man's name (only shortened)?

No, it isn't.

No. The father is George Herbert Walker Bush, or George H. W. Bush. The son is George Walker Bush, or George W. Bush. They have different middle names.

Thank you.

Slick Willy was probably my favorite president. He was a skank banger, but he ran the country pretty well I thought.

Clinton might have made a cool guy to hang with - great frat buddy - but, he was a crapunzel president. His policies were just to shove a finger - or other extremity - into the air to test the political wind and go with it.

Politician? He was a master.

President? He was apathetic. The presidency just gave him access to more girls.

President? He was apathetic. The presidency just gave him access to more girls.

And he displayed extremely poor taste.

http://news.softpedia.com/images/news2/Monica-Lewinsky-Back-To-School-2.jpg

And he displayed extremely poor taste.

http://news.softpedia.com/images/news2/Monica-Lewinsky-Back-To-School-2.jpg

Thanx a lot.

My eyes just imploded...

hate is such a personal thing.

i hate richard *spits* nixon because i was in highschool during watergate and watched the hearings on tv while i was off school in the summer. the revelation of how digustingly paranoidishly corrupt he was was hard for a 16 year old to take.

i hate ronald reagan because of the iran-contra scandal. he would come on the tv with a speech talking about how he was OF COURSE doing things to help free our hostages in lebanon but he couldnt talk about them. and i was stupid enough to believe him--he had that actors sincerity that was so warm. then to find out that that stupid old fuck's great plan was to trade arms to iran to get our hostages free. mind boggling evil stupidity

i hate george bush because of getting us into an unnecessary war in iraq that we cant get out of. everyone hates him for that. i also hate him for ruining our image in the world. for being so ham handed with foreign policy that even our friends hate us now.

Maybe this will help;

"I hope your committee will not permit doubts as to constitutionality, however reasonable, to block the suggested legislation."
-- FDR to the House Ways and Means Chairman
Heck, why let that pesky Constitution get in the way of socialism, right?You've demonstrated there might be doubts, but not that the suggested legislation actually violated the Constitution.

Its got to be that American one.

Thanx a lot.

My eyes just imploded...

I do my best. ;)

You've demonstrated there might be doubts, but not that the suggested legislation actually violated the Constitution.

FDR forced the House to go along with his unconstitutional, socialist programs with the complicity of a friendly Senate. He threatened that if the House didn't go along with him, he'd create gobs of federal judgeships, fill them with judges of his liking with the Senate gladly affirming their nominations, who will then shove the programs down America's throat via judicial fiat.

FDR should have spent the rest of his life in a wheelchair chained to a prison bunk.

Nixon.

FDR forced the House to go along with his unconstitutional, socialist programs with the complicity of a friendly Senate. He threatened that if the House didn't go along with him, he'd create gobs of federal judgeships, fill them with judges of his liking with the Senate gladly affirming their nominations, who will then shove the programs down America's throat via judicial fiat.

FDR should have spent the rest of his life in a wheelchair chained to a prison bunk.

Actualy sounds kind of like GWB's situation with a complacent friendly Senate

Actualy sounds kind of like GWB's situation with a complacent friendly Senate

Currently, Bush has a friendly House, too. But, he loses both in January.

So, just where is the similarity?

Lyndon Johnson was a snake son of a bitch. He was the lord of the welfare state, and he basically gave South Vietnam to the communists. (Not to mention he was the one behind Kennedy's assassination)

Bill Clinton, depending on my mood, pisses me off. Sometimes I think he's just an absolutely amiable fellow, but then I remember how he helped kill all those innocent Serbians and it grinds my gears.

Jimmy Carter is too pathetic for me to hate, rather I pity his presidency.

Actualy sounds kind of like GWB's situation with a complacent friendly Senate

As opposed to Carter or Johnson or Kennedy? Oh, wait...that's right...history can be ignored when it doesn't mesh with your politics.

Dubya is the easy answer... because of the obvious. Reagan was horrid as well for his disgusting economic policies and deficit spending that boggles the mind. LBJ and Vietnam is enough to condemn him, even if he did continue Kennedy's efforts to the Civil Rights Act. Nixon... damn how can anyone like Nixon?

Dubya is the easy answer... because of the obvious.

No, because most of the posters here can't remember anything before Clinton, if that.

No, because most of the posters here can't remember anything before Clinton, if that.

Well, given the topics discussed on NS I have to assume that posters know at least a LITTLE history.

For myself though, I am young enough that I don't actually REMEMBER anyone before Clinton, true. :p

Reagan and both Bushes.
Reagan set up all the international problems of today.
Made enemies of South America.
Made enemies in the Middle East.
Made enemies in Africa.
As well was a greedy son of a bitch and the first Neocon.

Bush senior did nothing execpt expand on Regan's policies.
Including failing to help topple Saddam the first damn time like we should have.



Ah yes, hindsight is always 20/20 (or these days, 20/15). At any rate, perhaps we should have toppled Saddam in 91. We could have, and that would have prevented today's problems. Coulda, shoulda, woulda, but but but...That was not the objective of the Desert operations.

Clinton's presidency was really shoddy--Somalia, Rwanda, Whitewater. And that stunt in the White House. A man with his kind of power, you'd think he'd find someone at least nominally attractive.

Currently, Bush has a friendly House, too. But, he loses both in January.

So, just where is the similarity?

The fact that he has had a friendly house ... for years ...

As opposed to Carter or Johnson or Kennedy? Oh, wait...that's right...history can be ignored when it doesn't mesh with your politics.

Or the fact that they were before my time so the similarity did not strike me as much ... but whatever you want to believe

Ah yes, hindsight is always 20/20 (or these days, 20/15). At any rate, perhaps we should have toppled Saddam in 91. We could have, and that would have prevented today's problems. Coulda, shoulda, woulda, but but but...That was not the objective of the Desert operations.

Clinton's presidency was really shoddy--Somalia, Rwanda, Whitewater. And that stunt in the White House. A man with his kind of power, you'd think he'd find someone at least nominally attractive.

Reagan's shitty policies are much more widespread then any foreign blunders Clinton commited. But hey, you say its simply hindsight when criticizing Reagan but then go and attack Clinton on Somalia, etc. Interesting. Then of course mention a stupid affair as if that equals something like Iran-Contra.

Hey, where's that stalwart bastion of conservatism, Eutrusca? Discussions like these make me nostalgic...

Hey, where's that stalwart bastion of conservatism, Eutrusca? Discussions like these make me nostalgic...

Deated

43

Reagan's shitty policies are much more widespread then any foreign blunders Clinton commited. But hey, you say its simply hindsight when criticizing Reagan but then go and attack Clinton on Somalia, etc. Interesting. Then of course mention a stupid affair as if that equals something like Iran-Contra.

and perhaps he forgot it was 41 who sent those guys there without the proper equipment. Like father like son.

Reagan's shitty policies are much more widespread then any foreign blunders Clinton commited. But hey, you say its simply hindsight when criticizing Reagan but then go and attack Clinton on Somalia, etc. Interesting. Then of course mention a stupid affair as if that equals something like Iran-Contra.

Tsk, tsk. Read my response again. I mentioned hindsight only in reference the Gulf operations against Saddam. But those with preconceptions and a closed mind will always read what they will.

And you're damn right, it was a stupid affair that left a serious moral stain on theis country and its leadership. The same goes for the crap that's happening today. No, we don't need to legislate morality, but we sure as Hell don't need to condone immorality, especially in public office.

And remind me where I mentioned Reagan...oh yeah, I didn't.

Or the fact that they were before my time so the similarity did not strike me as much ... but whatever you want to believe


Ignorance is bliss, eh?

And you're damn right, it was a stupid affair that left a serious moral stain on theis country and its leadership. The same goes for the crap that's happening today. No, we don't need to legislate morality, but we sure as Hell don't need to condone immorality, especially in public office.

It was only an issue because the media kept going on and on and on and on with the story, given their sensationalist tendencies. Then you have the Republicans who wouldn't shut up and demanded investigations and other such shit about something that shouldn't be that big a deal. This matter concerns Lewinsky, and the Clintons only, no one else. Plenty of previous presidents committed acts that were much more newsworthy then what Clinton did, it is not as if a president having a wandering eye is anything new.

And remind me where I mentioned Reagan...oh yeah, I didn't.

You were responding to a post that had Reagan as a big part it. I could only assume that you included him in your response. But fine. Replace Reagan with Bush Sr. and my point still stands.

Ignorance is bliss, eh?

Not particularly

Sense when did pointing out the similarity in something current = ignorance?

Got some sort of axe to grind or something?

Not particularly

Sense when did pointing out the similarity in something current = ignorance?

Got some sort of axe to grind or something?

"Since" perhaps?

No axe here, mate. You, on the other hand...

"Since" perhaps?

No axe here, mate. You, on the other hand...

I was not the one calling another poster ignorant for no apparent reason ...

I was not the one calling another poster ignorant for no apparent reason ...

The reason was beyond "apparent"...

The reason was beyond "apparent"...

No, Nothing I said in respect to this topic bespoke of ignorance , maybe different priorities in drawing similarities ... possible, but not ignorance.

But whatever ad-hominim all you want

The fact that he has had a friendly house ... for years ...

And Senate.

Again, where's the similarity?

Uh...hey, smart guy, Truman wasn't president within the last 50 years.


Of for Christ's sake. Does everybody on this forum have to be a nitpicker?:rolleyes: You are welcome to not look at him if you really have issues.;)

And Senate.

Again, where's the similarity?

Um they both had a "Friendly" in one of the checks to their power maybe? and that allowed them to push through some bad legislation? or some potentially bad legislation?

Personally I would like to see the house and the senate a different party from the Prez in any situation, they are suposed to work as checks for eachother

This matter concerns Lewinsky, and the Clintons only, no one else.

True, as long as it was just sex. Even then, it was also Hillary's and Chelsea's concern.

But, as soon as he committed perjury, it became the People's business.

The Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the United States breaking US law is something the People are concerned with.

Um they both had a "Friendly" in one of the checks to their power maybe? and that allowed them to push through some bad legislation? or some potentially bad legislation?

I don't recall seeing where Bush threatened an unfriendly house of Congress with creating many judgeships with which to force law by judicial fiat if the unfriendly house didn't comply with his unconstitutional wishes.

Care to point it out for me?

True, as long as it was just sex. Even then, it was also Hillary's and Chelsea's concern.

But, as soon as he committed perjury, it became the People's business.

The Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the United States breaking US law is something the People are concerned with.

Anyone who doesn't think the entire investigation, trial etc. was a complete waste of time and a disgusting display of partisan politics clearly is either ignorant or simply a blind Clinton hater. I have to say that I feel utter contempt for Ken Starr and really hope people will learn from having millions and millions of taxpayers dollars wasted from that whole stupid series of events. But I doubt it.

but then I remember how he helped kill all those innocent Serbians and it grinds my gears.

I would think twice before I ever made this claim again if I was you. I was tehre. I took photos of what they did. I took photos of what they were doing while they were working the ethnic Albanians over. They were not innocent.

Anyone who doesn't think the entire investigation, trial etc. was a complete waste of time and a disgusting display of partisan politics clearly is either ignorant or simply a blind Clinton hater.

Yeah, that must be it.

Anyone who accepts law-breaking by the President is a moron.

I have utter contempt for them.

For me it is Reagan. Even W doesn't rise to his level of stupidity, bad policy, racism, greed, and in general, shit retardedness.

What about you?



I have to agree but it's mighty close and W is coming up fast. Although it's pretty hard to take a Pres out of worst who committed TREASON by selling arms to the enemy. Johnson has to be in third for foreign policy but did do a lot for rights. Jimmy Carter was probably the best but "conservative christians?" don't like a real Christian.

I would think twice before I ever made this claim again if I was you. I was tehre. I took photos of what they did. I took photos of what they were doing while they were working the ethnic Albanians over. They were not innocent.

how did you happen to do that?

how did you happen to do that?


By being part of LANDCENT. That's about as far as I will willingly go with an explanation. But I was in and out of Yugoslavia all the way from the war, before we crossed the Sava, to just before we bombed Serbia to stop their attrocities in Kosovo.

Yeah, that must be it.

Anyone who accepts law-breaking by the President is a moron.

I have utter contempt for them.

Yeah, I'm sure the prosecuters all had such noble intents when they charged Clinton. I'm sure it was noble silence as well for when Reagan and Bush Jr. broke laws and ignored it. I'm sure politics had nothing to do with any of this. We'll focus on Clinton's huge supposed crime instead of much more serious ones committed by other presidents. It really is amazing what people focus on as important.

I'm sure it was noble silence as well for when Reagan and Bush Jr. broke laws and ignored it.

Cite the statute.

4.Lyndon Johnson and JFK because of the Cuba missile crisis and Vietnam.
Anyway, I do hope that the democrats will turn a bit left.

Cuban Missle Crisis? I think you are missing the key word here. CUBAN. The UN failed to handle the Cuban Missle Crisis, so JFK did. It's the Commies' fault, not our presidents'.

erm, how about the COngres specifically refusing the prezident permission to fund Contra operations, and so the president then found ways to finance said contras by selling weapons to Iran, who then gave money to the contras. Remember the Iran Contra scandal? Of course Reagan was senile by then so we believed him whe nhe said " i don't recall"

The Boland Amendment was an amendment to the House Appropriations Bill of 1982, which was attached as a rider to the Defense Appropriations Act of 1983. The House of Representatives passed the Boland Amendment 411-0 on December 8, 1982,[1] and it was signed by President Ronald Reagan on December 21, 1982. The amendment effectively outlawed US assistance to the Contras, while allowing overt efforts to stop military equipment to go to Nicaragua.

By being part of LANDCENT. That's about as far as I will willingly go with an explanation. But I was in and out of Yugoslavia all the way from the war, before we crossed the Sava, to just before we bombed Serbia to stop their attrocities in Kosovo.

ahhh ok. does that mean that your photos are classified or belong to the government?

anyway, greill was just being a troll. no one believes that the serbians were innocent except, well, the serbians.

ahhh ok. does that mean that your photos are classified or belong to the government?

anyway, greill was just being a troll. no one believes that the serbians were innocent except, well, the serbians.

yah, none of the stuff I shot is available for you to look at, sorry. I thought he was, but it raises my hackles when I hear someone say that. It was truly an evil event.

erm, how about the COngres specifically refusing the prezident permission to fund Contra operations, and so the president then found ways to finance said contras by selling weapons to Iran, who then gave money to the contras. Remember the Iran Contra scandal? Of course Reagan was senile by then so we believed him whe nhe said " i don't recall"


i dont think that it was so much the diverting of money to the contras that should have gotten him impeached. it was the secret selling of arms to IRAN that should have done it. iran was more an enemy then than it is now.

erm, how about the COngres specifically refusing the prezident permission to fund Contra operations, and so the president then found ways to finance said contras by selling weapons to Iran, who then gave money to the contras.

Doesn't hold water.

Congress provides the monies, but has no say on how it is spent. The executive decides how to spend the money given him by Congress.

The amendment effectively outlawed US assistance to the Contras, while allowing overt efforts to stop military equipment to go to Nicaragua.

"Effectively?"

Either it does or it doesn't. There is no "effectively."

sure okay.


House Amendment 461 to HR 2968 is summarized by the Thomas Bill Summary & Status (under Amendments) as

"An amendment to prohibit covert assistance for military operations in Nicaragua and to authorize overt interdiction assistance. The overt interdiction assistance consists of assistance furnished by the President on terms he may dictate to any friendly country in Central America to enable that country to prevent the use of its territory for the transfer of military equipment from or through Cuba or Nicaragua or any other country. The assistance must be overt. For this overt aid $30,000,000 is provided for FY'83 and $50,000,000 is provided for FY'84."

FDR forced the House to go along with his unconstitutional, socialist programs with the complicity of a friendly Senate. He threatened that if the House didn't go along with him, he'd create gobs of federal judgeships, fill them with judges of his liking with the Senate gladly affirming their nominations, who will then shove the programs down America's throat via judicial fiat.

FDR should have spent the rest of his life in a wheelchair chained to a prison bunk.

And this is different from the way Bush and Cheney push the legislature how? Further, ever heard of the balance of power and how we have the USSC to work for that. FDR wasn't going to change the entire USSC was he? Quit the paranoid tripe of "socialism" as that is nowhere near what FDR did to the system. Please explain how well Corporate America was doing at the time and all of the programs they were employing to help the everyday man. Hell FDR only helped lead us in war and revive us from the Great Depression did he not? Besides,the question is 50 years an it's not your thread. 43 is still the worst and history will judge him accordingly. He's managed to accomplish near nothing in 6 years and the next two will be even worse for him. Want to talk about the coruts saying "Hey wait just a God damned minute?" Look at the cases the courts have reviewed over Bush. He's contatnly being rebuffed by that "pesky" consitution. Or as he calls it, "just a god damn piece of paper."

Yeah, that must be it.

Anyone who accepts law-breaking by the President is a moron.

I have utter contempt for them.

So you hate Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43, thanks for clearing that up.

I would think twice before I ever made this claim again if I was you. I was tehre. I took photos of what they did. I took photos of what they were doing while they were working the ethnic Albanians over. They were not innocent.

I don't mean to insult you, but why is it that the FBI, the Hague, the Wall Street Journal, and the Spanish team, among others, that were sent there didn't also find such evidence, but rather found mass graves made by Albanians of non-Albanians and Albanian "collaborators"? How come the German Foreign Office said ""Even in Kosovo, an explicit political persecution linked to Albanian ethnicity is not verifiable... The actions of the [Yugoslav] security forces [were] not directed against the Kosovo-Albanians as an ethnically defined group, but against the military opponent and its actual or alleged supporters." And supposing that there actually was a genocide, how can the destruction of Serbian public infrastructure and civilian locations, causing a massive refugee crisis of Serbians due to NATO bombing, be justified?

anyway, greill was just being a troll. no one believes that the serbians were innocent except, well, the serbians.

1. How am I trolling? By not agreeing with you?
2. I'm not Serbian. Therefore, your conclusion that only Serbians thinks Serbians are innocent is incorrect, and misguided.

W. He'll go down in history as the worst president ever.

I vote Reagan, for his priest and civilian-hunting death squads, and support for Pinochet and SA Apartheid.

His role in the fall of the USSR is very much overstated.

Worse on International Policy: Carter

Seriously, worse than Reagan? (see above reasons)

Greil, the FBI was never on the ground with me. Nor was the Wall Street Journal. The Albanians weren't great people, but the serbs were the ones doing the running over of people with tanks. As for the Hague, they didn't do much real investigation. Christ, in BiH we had to drag them unwillingly to mass graves. While they have a terrific reputation, they didn't seem very willing to actually do anything about it to me. Much of Europe seemed unwilling to stop that one. Perhaps you are looking at the same thing that happened in Bosnia? REluctance to stop ethnic cleansing covered by claims taht it never happened in the western press? I dunno. In BiH we had so much coverage of the atrocities taht it was hard to lie about. Kosovo however...was easy. Especially when they bombed the chinese embassy...

As for your opinion that we did a bad thing by stopping what was going on, well, you are welcome to your opinion. Everybody gets an opinioin, no matter how badly informed or thought out it is. But claiming the Serbs were victims there is just unfactual. They were the perps.

For me it is Reagan. Even W doesn't rise to his level of stupidity, bad policy, racism, greed, and in general, shit retardedness.

Put the crack pipe down, put your hands up and back slowly away from the keyboard.

The fact that you are capable of making such a statement proves that you aren't worth arguing with.

Let's just say that millions in Eastern Europe, not to mention here in the USA, know how ridiculous your opinion of President Reagan is.

For the record: I don't think I actually "hate" any President. I am embarassed and disgusted that that pantload from Little Rock disgraced the office of the President for eight years. I also think Jimmy Carter was a bad governor, a bad President (Afghanistan, Iran, "malaise"), and a truly contemptible ex-President. However, the President I think the worst of is LBJ. Not only was his don't-win-don't-even-try theory of war in Vietnam unforgiveably stupid and incompetent, but his so-called "Great Society" welfare state will take decades to fully recover from, if we ever do. I would like to personally slap the owner of every cemetery in Texas whose dead bodies provided the votes to get LBJ elected to the Senate in the first place.

George "Rapist" Bush
Dick "Murderer" Cheney (I count him as a president. He may as well be.)
George "Fuck you" Bush
Ronald "Satan" Reagan
Dick "Total Jackass motherfucker" Nixon
Franklin "Boohoohoo I'm a cripple" Roosevelt

Okay, maybe not that last one.

JFK, it pisses me off that we had a nymphomaniac meth-head in the White House, god bless Lee Harvey Oswald

Put the crack pipe down, put your hands up and back slowly away from the keyboard.

The fact that you are capable of making such a statement proves that you aren't worth arguing with.


You are funny:D
You've done a terrific job there of attacking Democratic Presidents while extolling your conservative heros. THere's nothing wrong with having an opinoin in politics, we all do. It's even fun to snarl about one thing or another.
But try not to attack people in here for simply giving their opinoins. It makes you look like an asshole.

Ronald Reagan was a lawbreaker, senile, stupid, and stumbled through his governorship and presidency messing up one thing after another. He totally destroyed the California mental system, and we've had crazy people on the streets ever since. Cops here cussed him for years. But of course, now it's all part of "self empowerment" right? They deserve to be living in garbage cans because they WANT to. NOt because they are crazy.

No, I'll stick by my choice. REagan was a scumbag. W isn't far behind.

JFK, it pisses me off that we had a nymphomaniac meth-head in the White House, god bless Lee Harvey Oswald

Ummm...men can't be nymphomaniacs. They can be satyriac.

Which are both old phrases for Hypersexuality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nymphomania)

Besides, we have an alcoholic potsmoking crack fiend draft-dodger in the white house right now, so I don't see what the problem is. Besides, if someone killed him I doubt you'd be happy. So screw you.

Not only are you callous, you are also horrifyingly misinformed.

1. How am I trolling? By not agreeing with you?
2. I'm not Serbian. Therefore, your conclusion that only Serbians thinks Serbians are innocent is incorrect, and misguided.

well either you are a troll or you just cant be bothered to read up on it enough to know the truth

i was an adult in the 90s. it was on the news every day. there may be some albanian atrocities that the serbs werent responsible for. *shrug* there are plenty of atricities that they are responsible for. they are not innocent.

in any case, i have no interest in debating if reality is real with someone who is either a troll or willfully ignorant.

And this is different from the way Bush and Cheney push the legislature how?

Cheny didn't "push" anything. The vice-president is a dead-end job, unless one can finesse it into a presidency down the road.

So, as concerns Bush, tell us all about the legislation that he shoved down on one house of Congress with the complicity of the other house.

I'm all eyes.

Further, ever heard of the balance of power and how we have the USSC to work for that.

Yeah, what of it?

FDR wasn't going to change the entire USSC was he?

Where did I mention the supreme Court? Please point it out.

What he was going to change was the number of federal judges. He was then going to nominate judges cozy to his intentions and the friendly Senate was going to approve every one of them, giving FDR a federal judiciary that he could direct to his own wishes.

Please explain how well Corporate America was doing at the time and all of the programs they were employing to help the everyday man.

Who gives a flip?

The idea of a corporation is to make a profit. That's it.

If "everyday man" needs help, he needs to look after it.

Besides,the question is 50 years an it's not your thread.

Oooo! Thread ownership! Gonna evict me?

I gave my answer to the thread's question and tossed in The Great Criminal FDR as a gravy.

Don't like it? Oh well.

43 is still the worst and history will judge him accordingly.

In fifty years, it is Carter. With Clinton as a close second. I'll put Bush as third.

But, as opposed to AlGore and Kerry, Bush was a godsend.

He's managed to accomplish near nothing in 6 years and the next two will be even worse for him.

Thanx! I'll be sure not to vote for him in '08.

Or as he calls it, "just a god damn piece of paper."

Cite or invention?

My money goes on the latter...

So you hate Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43, thanks for clearing that up.

Cite.

Besides, we have an alcoholic potsmoking crack fiend draft-dodger in the white house right now, so I don't see what the problem is. Besides, if someone killed him I doubt you'd be happy. So screw you.

Hint: Clinton has been out of office for six years.

You might want to check your definition of misinformed.

Johnson. There is no excuse for the mess he made of Vietnam.

Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan is anywhere near that bad, yet. And Afghanistan, at least, did attack the US first. So W.'s off the hook.

Cite.

I hate Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43

I swear I hate it when people demand citation in the fucking intenet. Is there anything so useless? I mean please.:rolleyes:

Hint: Clinton has been out of office for six years.

You might want to check your definition of misinformed.


um...dude, W has smoked pot, done cocaine, chased women while married, and basically been a shitheel. oh yeah, and he's an alcoholic, as are his two daughters. EVeryhting cited above has pretty much been cited, thanks.

I swear I hate it when people demand citation in the fucking intenet. Is there anything so useless? I mean please.:rolleyes:

Then, you are not all too aware of just what a cite is, are you?

By the way, you falsely attributed words to me.

Is this typical?

um...dude, W has smoked pot, done cocaine, chased women while married, and basically been a shitheel. oh yeah, and he's an alcoholic, as are his two daughters. EVeryhting cited above has pretty much been cited, thanks.

Really?

Where?

Got a link to something reliable?

The quote I addressed also said something about draft-dodging. That cinches it for referring to Clinton.

Which president do you hate the most in the past 50 years?

1 George W Bush (R)
2 Ronald Reagan (R)
3 George H Bush (R)
4 John F Kennedy (D)
5 Lyndon B. Johnson (D)
6 Gerald Ford (R)
7 Jimmy Carter (D)
8 Tricky Dick Nixon (R)
9 Slick Willie Clinton (D)
10 Ike Eisenhower (R)
11 Harry Truman (D)

Johnson. There is no excuse for the mess he made of Vietnam.

Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan is anywhere near that bad, yet. And Afghanistan, at least, did attack the US first. So W.'s off the hook.


didnt johnson have the same excuse that bush has today? he didnt want to be the first president to lose a war so he kept upping the troop levels in a futile attempt to turn the mess around.

its a sucky excuse but he inherited vietnam.

George W Bush (R)
Slick Willie Clinton (D)
George H Bush (R)
Ronald Reagan (R)
Jimmy Carter (D)
Gerald Ford (R)
Tricky Dick Nixon (R)
Lyndon B. Johnson (D)
John F Kennedy (D)
Ike Eisenhower (R)
HArry Truman (D)


For me it is Reagan. Even W doesn't rise to his level of stupidity, bad policy, racism, greed, and in general, shit retardedness.

What about you?

someone recently mentioned LBJ as a bad guy...I dunno, he did pretty good to me. If you look at his overall policies, he wasn't bad> He just was too sissy to pull out of vietnam, whcih I mostly just find pitiful.

Jimmy Carter.Fucking dumbass.Run away foreign policy,stagflation,shook hands with Yassir Arafat.Disastrous econimic policy of high taxes and stuff.Raging anti-Semite.Just plain stupid in a lot of cases.I disagree with your decision of Ronald Reagen.He was the only one to get it right with Soviets.He abandoned the Democrat policy of containment and kicked their ass for eight years until they went and just collapsed.Ecenomic policy very good,fixed everyhing with deregulation and created the 90s boom.

Honarary Mention Worst-George Bush.Islamic nutjobs attack America.What to do?Expel the Islamic nutjobs?Kill the them by sending troops in to shoot them?(He tried that once,but then quit,even though we won in about three hours).Nope!Ask the UN and France to help out by cutting off trade to a strategic US ally(Saddam).Befriend and make oil deals with the people financing the enemy(Saudis)Betray the only idelogical ally we actually have in the region(Israel)when they get attacked by said Islamic nutjobs.Ignore people planning to build nukes to give to terrorists(Iran)

Then, you are not all too aware of just what a cite is, are you?

By the way, you falsely attributed words to me.

Is this typical?


is your lack of a sense of humor typical? Are you for real? Do you take any special medications we should know about? The world wants to know:rolleyes:

Really?

Where?

Got a link to something reliable?

The quote I addressed also said something about draft-dodging. That cinches it for referring to Clinton.

No, fraid not. Clinto was actually in COllege in Europe and when his draft board found out that he was an honors student, they realized that sending someone that smart to a combat zone was a waste of talent. W on the other hand used his fathers pull to hide in the Air National Guard, where he learned to fly (badly) and then hid from any work the rest of the time.

Also,I would give the bronze medal of worst president on your list to Harry Truman,for essentailly surrendering Eastern Europe and China,letting the Soviets build a atomic bomb and effectively creating the entire cold war.Reagen would have just invaded,beat them,nuked moscow and avoided the entire half-century conflict with communism.

is your lack of a sense of humor typical? Are you for real? Do you take any special medications we should know about?

I've got a fine sense of humor.

But, to lame off on providing cites just because of the internet is a cop-out. If one provides links to reputable sources, then one's claims can be verified.

Why is there such an avoidance of substantiation?

The world wants to know

Nah. I'm not that important to the world.

cites are for people who don't know the information themselves. If you don't know it, why is it somehow my job to show you where it is? Go fid it yourslef. THen maybe you'll learn something. And if I am full of shit and claiing crappy factage, you can ignore me and get on with your life.

Busting some pretentious jerk who is claiming things that are not true, by slamming him with a bunch of cites after you look them up is one of life's great pleasures. But to demand that I back up what I say is...going about it ass backwards. My job is to make the claims.Your job is to proof my claims false:D

No, fraid not. Clinto was actually in COllege in Europe and when his draft board found out that he was an honors student, they realized that sending someone that smart to a combat zone was a waste of talent. W on the other hand used his fathers pull to hide in the Air National Guard, where he learned to fly (badly) and then hid from any work the rest of the time.

Give it a rest.

Clinton pulled strings to get out of serving and avoid Viet Nam. He had special consideration and left the country.

Did Bush pull some strings to avoid Viet Nam? Yeah. But, at least he wore the uniform. Clinton can't even make that claim.

But, you condemn Bush and praise Clinton.

cites are for people who don't know the information themselves. If you don't know it, why is it somehow my job to show you where it is?

Because it's your argument.

Your argument, your homework.

Go fid it yourslef.

Hardly.

How about this?

The guy on NationStates with the handle Rooseveldt enjoys sexual relations with bicycle pumps.

Now, by your words, YOU have to find information to refute this; you do not demand that I provide the proof toback up what I say. After all, "go find it yourslef."

But to demand that I back up what I say is...going about it ass backwards. My job is to make the claims.Your job is to proof my claims false:D

This must be that humor thing...

And this is different from the way Bush and Cheney push the legislature how? Further, ever heard of the balance of power and how we have the USSC to work for that. FDR wasn't going to change the entire USSC was he? Quit the paranoid tripe of "socialism" as that is nowhere near what FDR did to the system. Please explain how well Corporate America was doing at the time and all of the programs they were employing to help the everyday man. Hell FDR only helped lead us in war and revive us from the Great Depression did he not? Besides,the question is 50 years an it's not your thread. 43 is still the worst and history will judge him accordingly. He's managed to accomplish near nothing in 6 years and the next two will be even worse for him. Want to talk about the coruts saying "Hey wait just a God damned minute?" Look at the cases the courts have reviewed over Bush. He's contatnly being rebuffed by that "pesky" consitution. Or as he calls it, "just a god damn piece of paper."

Okay I agree totally with this Myseneum guy.FDR was one of our most diabolical presidents.First off,the New Deal was a disaster.Look at the welfare state he created.Do you think that programs like Social Security have been anything but destroying the economy in this country?Social Security is a UNCONSTITUTIONAL giant income stealing machine disguised as a "charity".The government grabs your money before you even see it and essentially gives you an IOU on it.There is no gaurantee that the money will ever help a senior.Mostly,your cash goes into stuff like building missiles or schools somewhere in africa.Youl never know exactly where.When you reach 70 or something the government gives you a average 2%(real facts.look them up)return on your "investment".I wasnt alive during the 40s,or even the 70s,so maybe Im wrong,but It did nothing to restore the economy.Warren G Harding did.More than that,WW2 did.Also,his policy of refusing to sell oil and steel to japan crippled our resource industry,ruining our industry.He paid farmers not to sell food,destroying agriculture in middle america and resulting in the depoulation of kansas and nebraska.He gave people pseudo-jobs working on government projects,crushing the private sectors efforts to rebuild itself in the process.Oh and by the way,his winning the war consisted of doing everything in his power to get Pearl Harbor bombed,messing with the Japanese because they didnt believe in his crypto-communist agenda,they believed in capitalism.He also was behind the cannibalization of our air forces to support France and Britian,something we never should have worried about.Moreover,this is what cost us the Pacific fleet,his chopping up its defenses to support foreign powers.His legacy included allying with communist Soviet Union,then running away and surrendering eastern europe in his zeal for socialism.We should have simply said to the nazis not to attack america,built up our own military a lot just in case,and let the germans defeat russia,helping us in the process.We had no reason to support france or britain.All in all,he created a legacy america is only started to recover from under reagen,our greatest president.

hands down, reagan. his cold war policies created misery for people who had NOTHING to do with the totalitarian government they were plagued with. after watching people in the former USSR lying in the streets with gangrene and visiting orphanages in which children...infants, have easily preventable diseases, his "lets cause total economic collapse for the entire soviet world!" idea pisses me off. having visited russia I obviously bear no more love for the soviets - desecrated holy sites and gulags and all that sucked horribly too, but I still loathe him, with that as the most concrete reason. the fact my room mates at the college from hell (http://www.tkc.edu) had this poster didn't make it any better:

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0009IWFM4.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

I thought it was a joke, but no, that's an actual movie. with fans. oh...fans...:headbang:

The guy on NationStates with the handle Rooseveldt enjoys sexual relations with bicycle pumps.


Bad use of factage> It's true and everybody knows it. BEsides, I, the source of said factage, are here. So I can verify that I do indeed enjoy sex with bycicle pumps.

THAT is effective use of humor, boy. Don't let us down again.

This must be that humor thing...

gone through a speech and debate course lately? :D

Also,his policy of refusing to sell oil and steel to japan crippled our resource industry,ruining our industry.He paid farmers not to sell food,destroying agriculture in middle america and resulting in the depoulation of kansas and nebraska.He gave people pseudo-jobs working on government projects,crushing the private sectors efforts to rebuild itself in the process.Oh and by the way,his winning the war consisted of doing everything in his power to get Pearl Harbor bombed,messing with the Japanese because they didnt believe in his crypto-communist agenda,they believed in capitalism.He also was behind the cannibalization of our air forces to support France and Britian,something we never should have worried about.Moreover,this is what cost us the Pacific fleet,his chopping up its defenses to support foreign powers.His legacy included allying with communist Soviet Union,then running away and surrendering eastern europe in his zeal for socialism.We should have simply said to the nazis not to attack america,built up our own military a lot just in case,and let the germans defeat russia,helping us in the process.We had no reason to support france or britain.All in all,he created a legacy america is only started to recover from under reagen,our greatest president.

I just can't believe you believe all this stuff. I mean, there are some crazy views supported here but this one s definitely the most far out I have ever heard. You got any more of that grass man? Pass it over!;)

Okay I agree totally with this Myseneum guy. FDR was one of our most diabolical presidents.

First off,the New Deal was a disaster. Look at the welfare state he created. Do you think that programs like Social Security have been anything but destroying the economy in this country? Social Security is a UNCONSTITUTIONAL giant income stealing machine disguised as a "charity". The government grabs your money before you even see it and essentially gives you an IOU on it. There is no gaurantee that the money will ever help a senior. Mostly,your cash goes into stuff like building missiles or schools somewhere in africa. Youl never know exactly where. When you reach 70 or something the government gives you a average 2%(real facts.look them up)return on your "investment".

I wasnt alive during the 40s,or even the 70s, so maybe Im wrong, but It did nothing to restore the economy. Warren G Harding did. More than that,WW2 did.

Also,his policy of refusing to sell oil and steel to japan crippled our resource industry, ruining our industry.

He paid farmers not to sell food, destroying agriculture in middle america and resulting in the depoulation of kansas and nebraska.

He gave people pseudo-jobs working on government projects, crushing the private sectors efforts to rebuild itself in the process.

Oh and by the way,his winning the war consisted of doing everything in his power to get Pearl Harbor bombed, messing with the Japanese because they didnt believe in his crypto-communist agenda, they believed in capitalism.

He also was behind the cannibalization of our air forces to support France and Britian, something we never should have worried about. Moreover,this is what cost us the Pacific fleet, his chopping up its defenses to support foreign powers.

His legacy included allying with communist Soviet Union, then running away and surrendering eastern europe in his zeal for socialism. We should have simply said to the nazis not to attack america, built up our own military a lot just in case, and let the germans defeat russia,helping us in the process. We had no reason to support france or britain.

All in all, he created a legacy america is only started to recover from under reagen, our greatest president.

for gods sake! use paragraphs and SPACES after punctuation marks.

see how much easier it is it read?

you cant expect anyone to read an unreadable post.

well either you are a troll or you just cant be bothered to read up on it enough to know the truth

i was an adult in the 90s. it was on the news every day. there may be some albanian atrocities that the serbs werent responsible for. *shrug* there are plenty of atricities that they are responsible for. they are not innocent.

in any case, i have no interest in debating if reality is real with someone who is either a troll or willfully ignorant.

I find it interesting that you call me a troll, but then proceed to insult me.

Also, the news media lied to you, and it worked since few people bothered to actually corroborate facts, thus effectively validating its unfounded statements by their monopoly. Here are a few examples of the misinformation regarding Kosovo:

The Washington Post said that, according to NATO sources, 350 Albanian might be buried in mass graves in western Kosovo. These were based on sources that NATO refused to identify, and, getting down to specifics, only four bodies near a large ash heap were mentioned.

Bernard Kouchner, the chief administrator of Kosovo under the UN, stated that 11,000 people had been found in mass graves in Kosovo, murdered by the Serbians, and listed as his source the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Republic of Yugoslavia. But the ICTY denied having said anything of the sort.

The FBI came with 107,000 pounds of criminal investigative material in Kosovo to provide evidence against Milosevic. They left with no evidence.

The Los Angeles Times claimed that countless bodies had been dumped down wells by Serbians. But they could only validate that one man had been dumped down one well in one village, and he was with three dead cows and a dog. His cause of death and nationality were not certain. "No other human remains were discovered," said the Times, and they ran nothing afterwards.

The US and NATO claimed that the worst example of murder by the Serbians was in the Trepca mine, where people were either stuffed inside or burnt in the hydrochloric acid vats. No evidence of either was found by the ICTY.

Spanish forensic expert Emilio Perez Puhola stated that his team found no mass graves, and that the media assertions were just "machinery of war propaganda."

There was, overall, only a few hundred bodies found by "mass graves", which is termed as anything more than one person grouped together. There was no evidence of mass execution or torture on these scant few bodies. With all of this evidence in mind, and the obvious deception on the part of the west and its media, it is ridiculous to dogmatically assert Serbian guilt of a genocide that did not happen.

So you hate Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43, thanks for clearing that up.

Would someone please cite where either of the Bushes, but especially this most recent one, broke the damn law? Not just innuendo, but actual citations. Please.

Would someone please cite where either of the Bushes, but especially this most recent one, broke the damn law? Not just innuendo, but actual citations. Please.The wiretapping, perhaps?

The wiretapping, perhaps?

What statute?

I am embarassed and disgusted that that pantload from Little Rock disgraced the office of the President for eight years.
Where is the logical consistency in disliking Clinton but liking Reagan? Clinton's policies were mostly a continuation of Reagan's.

Carter, 'nuff said.

I'd like to see him hang.

Eisenhower, Reagan, and Clinton were decent. Carter im kinda neutral about, although he was a bloody peanut farmer which just screams diabolical to me.

Now for the dislikes. Truman tried to nationalize the steel industry. JFK I dislike because hes only considered great because he got his skull blown apart, although his handling of the cuban missile crisis was good. LBJ escalated us far into the cesspool known as Vietnam and helped expand the federal government into the leviathan it is today. Nixon had some fairly decent sucess in some matters but his flouting of the laws is disgusting even today. Ford I dislike because he pardoned Nixon and he was a general all around bumbler. Bush the first lied about new taxes. And the new Bush has stuck in the quagmire in Iraq and some of his legislation smacks of authoritarianism to say the least.

Oh and FDR's economic policies didnt help crap. In 1937 we hit another major recession that was likely the result of his excessive interference in the economy. WW2 got us out of the depression: Nothing more, nothing less. I will however concede that he did restore confidence for the people.

Stalin

Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?

That's about the only thing I remember from when I studied History.

Changing it to fit George W. Bush isn't easy:

See, see, GWB, how many kids did you eat for tea? - too extreme
Gee, Gee, GWB, when will the troops come back o'er the sea?

Anyone got any better ideas? For any of your most hated presidents.

Click Here (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=miserable+failure)

Also,I would give the bronze medal of worst president on your list to Harry Truman,for essentailly surrendering Eastern Europe and China,letting the Soviets build a atomic bomb and effectively creating the entire cold war.Reagen would have just invaded,beat them,nuked moscow and avoided the entire half-century conflict with communism.
But that was what everyone was expecting us to do, Stalin was expecting us to why do you think he rushed for Berlin so fast? To grab whatever secrets Germany had before we came and took it from him. Anyway we didn't have enough nukes to destroy all of Russia.

The reason why so many high ranking Germans fled to US lines was because they were hoping to lend a hand in the counter offensive.

%#&@(%*&#@(%*&#@(%#&@(&%2.
WHAT THE ****?

Carter, 'nuff said.

I'd like to see him hang.
For what?
You'd have to DO something to deserve being hung.
Carter didn't do anything really, that was the whole point.

Nixon then W. Bush.

I have a feeling that the next president will be percieved as a massive failure, just as Carter was. He will be faced with the same insurmountable problems.

Carter for worst president of all time.

Reagan for best president in the last 50 years.

1.Truman because of the nuclear bombing of Japan. No excuses for that - it was a unnecessary massacre of civilians.
2.Bush sr and Ronnie Reagan for reaganomics, welfare bashing, trade union bashing, contras etc.
3.Bush jr for war on terror/war for oil and patriot act.
4.Lyndon Johnson and JFK because of the Cuba missile crisis and Vietnam.
5.Nixon just on of psychiatric grounds.

I think that Ike, Carter and Bill Clinton performed better than the standard US president - not on the level of Jefferson, Lincoln and FDR, but hey...

Anyway, I do hope that the democrats will turn a bit left.

Yeah, if we didn't nuke them then hundreds of thousands of our soldiers would have died and millions of Japanese would have died also.

Not gonna argue for the rest excluding number three because they're stupid.

All and all, you fail.

George W Bush (R)
Slick Willie Clinton (D)
George H Bush (R)
Ronald Reagan (R)
Jimmy Carter (D)
Gerald Ford (R)
Tricky Dick Nixon (R)
Lyndon B. Johnson (D)
John F Kennedy (D)
Ike Eisenhower (R)
HArry Truman (D)


For me it is Reagan. Even W doesn't rise to his level of stupidity, bad policy, racism, greed, and in general, shit retardedness.

What about you?

someone recently mentioned LBJ as a bad guy...I dunno, he did pretty good to me. If you look at his overall policies, he wasn't bad> He just was too sissy to pull out of vietnam, whcih I mostly just find pitiful.

Ok, i will list the worst to the least worse.

1. Bill Clinton: He was an over all prick. He visited St. Marys a few times after he was outof the office and my dad said he was a prick when he met him there. Plus he screwed up this nation when it came down to ecomonics and foreign affairs.

2. Jimmy Carter: He was the model for Clinton. He is what Clinton strived for in politics.

3. Kennedy and Truman are on the even playing level. They would start something and then would end it before actually finishing it(except for Kennedys major issue of the Cuban Missil Crisis).

Then you would have the rest in a heated tie. Sorry, but all i have seen out most of the Democrats is failure....

Let's see.....I hated Regan, Bush, Bush Jr, but I hate Dubya the most. I would give alot to have Clinton back in office

1. Bill Clinton: He was an over all prick.
Basicly True.

He visited St. Marys a few times after he was outof the office and my dad said he was a prick when he met him there.....
I'd have to know what kind of person your dad is first.


Plus he screwed up this nation when it came down to ecomonics.
The country was doing quite well pre 9/11 from what I saw, and it's been more and more unstable since however.

and foreign affairs.... Yeah, he did something called, 'minding his own damn business'. He was a much better diplomat than Bush ever was.

Just compare GWB's visit to Vietnam to Clinton's.

When Clinton came there were crowds.

When Bush came... No one noticed.

Bush jr. I wish I was being an uneducated twit, but he really is the most incompetent man ever to hold the office.

Carter and Ford were duds.

Carter and Ford were duds.Some presidents may be considered incompetent, but only current Bush is considered evil by the rest of the world.

Some presidents may be considered incompetent, but only current Bush is considered evil by the rest of the world.


Than I cry for the world as they have lost all common sense. Is Bush a good president? No! Is he evil? FUCK NO! Hitler and Stalin were evil.

What statute?The Fourth Amendment.

That's about the only thing I remember from when I studied History.

Changing it to fit George W. Bush isn't easy:

See, see, GWB, how many kids did you eat for tea? - too extreme
Gee, Gee, GWB, when will the troops come back o'er the sea?

Anyone got any better ideas?

I quite like the old 'The only Bush I trust is my own'.

It works better if you are a member of the female persuasion.

Raegan. What I find most tragic about the whole thing is that all of his decisions have come around and bit the US in the arse in the last few years, too.

"Hmm let's fund the Mujah'adeen and arm them and such"
"Argh the Taliban are quite hard to fight"

"Hmm let's generally piss off most of the Arab League"
"Argh our pretty towers"

"Hmm let's needlessly insult anyone left of far-right"
"Grrr! The liberal media! Let's insult any kind of non-biased news, making it hard to tell propaganda from fact!"

"Hmm let's fuck with South America a bit"
"Onoz! Chavez, the Bolivian one, and indeed most of the countries down there!"

"Let's slightly blur who our allies are by funding extra terrorism"
"Cheers, we've only just sorted out the IRA"

etc. etc.

Carter for worst president of all time.

Reagan for best president in the last 50 years.
Are you super rich or just a huge moron?

Are you super rich or just a huge moron? Maybe he's both.

Basicly True.

Cool.


I'd have to know what kind of person your dad is first.

My father is a person who accepts all until he meets them. Basically he is a person who gives others the benifit of the dounbt. He gave Clinton that. ANd clinton acted like an idiot/prick to everyone that was tryingto be nice to him. That included my father, and he was disappointed. I myself warned him about Clinton....


The country was doing quite well pre 9/11 from what I saw, and it's been more and more unstable since however.

That is completely and utterly not true. It was good because of the system we have(economics-capitalism), however, Clinton tried to nationalize many resources in this nation and i find that dangerous.

Yeah, he did something called, 'minding his own damn business'. He was a much better diplomat than Bush ever was.

Oh i agree Bush sucks, but clinton sucked more, because he didnt give a damn. He could care less howthings turned out as long as he looked good for the weaklings of the world who would get on their knees for dictators....

Just compare GWB's visit to Vietnam to Clinton's.

When Clinton came there were crowds.

When Bush came... No one noticed.

And the point of this is what? Read what i said up there, you do realize that nation is NOT a democracy, right? Its still a communist nation. And you wonder why Bush wasnt "supported"....hmmmm

Are you super rich or just a huge moron?

Or maybe he lives in reality. :D
I am not super rich or a moron, but i will not follow the Democrats of this nation(or republicans for that matter).

Give it a rest.

Clinton pulled strings to get out of serving and avoid Viet Nam. He had special consideration and left the country.

Did Bush pull some strings to avoid Viet Nam? Yeah. But, at least he wore the uniform. Clinton can't even make that claim.

But, you condemn Bush and praise Clinton.

<ahem>

I praise neither. But the one that makes me the angriest is the man who PLAYED AT wearing the uniform. He didn't even serve honorably. The man couldn't find time to actually serve in his ANG units because he was too busy running around working on political campaigns.

Don't get me started on Junior Birdman Bush. Just because the schmuck wore the uniform does not mean he acquitted himself with any honor at all.

Worst President in the last 60 years.

George W. Bush. For reasons that should be clearly evident.

Than I cry for the world as they have lost all common sense. Is Bush a good president? No! Is he evil? FUCK NO! Hitler and Stalin were evil.And? Hitler and Stalin invaded other countries for personal reasons and didn't care for the individual's rights. So does Bush.

That is completely and utterly not true. It was good because of the system we have(economics-capitalism), however, Clinton tried to nationalize many resources in this nation and i find that dangerous.
Yes... or maybe he actually turned around your stupendous debts from Raegan and Bush Sr. with a bit of economic foresight, just before that progress was annihilated completely by Dubya's irresponsible economic policies and two pointless wars.
Oh i agree Bush sucks, but clinton sucked more, because he didnt give a damn. He could care less howthings turned out as long as he looked good for the weaklings of the world who would get on their knees for dictators....
Urmm... yes, because pissing off the whole of Europe, as Bush has done, really shows the key signs of 'giving a damn'...
And the point of this is what? Read what i said up there, you do realize that nation is NOT a democracy, right?
Nor's China, and Bush is perfectly happy to give its president a rim job.

How democratically free a state is doesn't really affect how the general population feels about people, now, does it?

If I was living in Zimbabwe, I'd still think Bush was a complete tit.
Its still a communist nation.
No, it isn't. It's a vaguely socialist nation. It's communist by name but not by nature.
And you wonder why Bush wasnt "supported"....hmmmm
Obviously his administration's poor grasp of what the rest of the world is like and hence what they should say to us and how the US should act plays not a single role in him being protested against, really, doesn't it?

Because it's not like he'd get protests in capitalist democracies like the UK and the rest of Europe, now, is it?

Oh no... wait... that's exactly the opposite of the truth...

Cool.

Quite.



That is completely and utterly not true. It was good because of the system we have(economics-capitalism), however, Clinton tried to nationalize many resources in this nation and i find that dangerous. Off topic but Bush is trying to privatize everything in this nation and I find THAT dangerous. A laissez-faire system will doom this nation into a caste system.


Oh i agree Bush sucks, but clinton sucked more, because he didnt give a damn. He could care less howthings turned out as long as he looked good for the weaklings of the world who would get on their knees for dictators.... Dictators? We've been on our knees to the same group of Dictators since Bush Sr.


And the point of this is what? Read what i said up there, you do realize that nation is NOT a democracy, right? Its still a communist nation. Not it's not, besides it's irrelevent, see Yootopia's post.


And you wonder why Bush wasnt "supported"....hmmmm
Clinton was a good public speaker, the people in Vietnam came because he had the ability. Everyone knows how stupid Bush is so no one cared.

But, as opposed to AlGore and Kerry, Bush was a godsend.

How has Bush's presidency been anything but an unmitigated disaster?

But, you condemn Bush and praise Clinton.
Hypocrite!

Okay I agree totally with this Myseneum guy.FDR was one of our most diabolical presidents.
He and Truman won the fucking war! Imagine if Churchill got this kind of disrespect in Britain. :rolleyes:

That is completely and utterly not true. It was good because of the system we have(economics-capitalism), however, Clinton tried to nationalize many resources in this nation and i find that dangerous.
Please give me a list of resources or industries that Clinton tried to nationalise. Because to me Clinton looks about as socialist as Ronald Reagan.

Both Republicans and Democrats are capitalist parties. The US will probably always be capitalist.

1.Truman because of the nuclear bombing of Japan. No excuses for that - it was a unnecessary massacre of civilians.
2.Bush sr and Ronnie Reagan for reaganomics, welfare bashing, trade union bashing, contras etc.
3.Bush jr for war on terror/war for oil and patriot act.
4.Lyndon Johnson and JFK because of the Cuba missile crisis and Vietnam.
5.Nixon just on of psychiatric grounds.

I think that Ike, Carter and Bill Clinton performed better than the standard US president - not on the level of Jefferson, Lincoln and FDR, but hey...

Anyway, I do hope that the democrats will turn a bit left.
1. Ah, next time we'll lose WWWIII because we're afraid of civillian casualties...
2. Agree.
3. Agreee.
4. Don't blame Nam on Johnson...
5. Disagree.

The answer is going to be pretty obvious. Unless Dick isn't tricky enough to escape again.

You cannot put GWB or Clinton in this poll yet, it is too soon, typically one must wait approximately 20 years before you can truly analyze a president.

But either way, the worst president and most hated president in the last 50 years goes to Carter. If there is ever a president I would support assassination for it his him, with Nixon being a close second.

Carter, 'nuff said.

I'd like to see him hang.

Yeah... He's such a disrespectable person after all.

http://www.cartercenter.org/

He was by no means the best president, but by all means is he the best ex-president.

Yeah... He's such a disrespectable person after all.

http://www.cartercenter.org/

He was by no means the best president, but by all means is he the best ex-president.

Absolutely, and a fine and TRULY christian man. The goodness of this man truly warms my heart. Mr. Carter was simply not a good President, sad to say.

Although not the worst of last half of the 20th Century. That "honor" solely goes to Richard Milhous Nixon. A genuine scaliwag.

Not a bit. Bush is trying to be a cooler Reagan. NEver noticed?

Do you mean to imply that his pretzel-choking, Italian police-impacting, Segway-tipping, Merkel-fondling sweetness is trying to be cooler than the jellybean-loving Gipper?

Yes, i'm aware there's much, much more to the Shrubya litany that i could exemplify, but i really don't feel like it at the moment.

1.Truman because of the nuclear bombing of Japan. No excuses for that - it was a unnecessary massacre of civilians.


The fire bombing of Tokyo killed as many.

Clinton was the first since before LJB to "turn a profit", or actually, to stop borrowing money from the Federal Reserve Bank; GWB inherited an economy that was generating a hundred billion dollar annual tax surplus--he had so completely turned around national spending that even during his administration, the annual budget deficit reached a record US$300+ Billion. National spending had exceeded tax reciepts every year, spiraling upward beginning with Reagan:

1st term of Reagan: the average annual national budget deficit (=additional principle loan of capital from the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank) was about US$180B;

2nd term of Reagan: the average annual budget deficit [AABD] was nearly US$220B;

1 term of Bush Sr: AABD nearly US$250B;

1st term of Clinton: AABD nearly US$300B;

By the end of Clinton's second term, tax receipts actually exceeded national expeditures. Fiscal year 2001 was projected to produce a record US$100B budget surplus; GWB gave it away by eliminating the capital gains taxes on stock market windfalls;

By the end of GWB's 1st term, the surplus had been replaced by record deficits: annual budget deficit exceeding US$400B.

That's how much money Bush's government is borrowing from the bank every year--more than 400 billion US dollars.

The total principle of the loan accumulated over 40 years is now about 9 trillion US dollars. The consequences are that the government must pay the interest on that debt that accumulates every year. In a great historical irony, annual interest payments on the national debt have similarly followed the levels of annual deficit; thus, the interest that is payable every year on a $9 trillion principle debt is about $400 billion. What is even more ironic is that US annual military spending has also escalated similarly. The only buck in the trend was the two years that Clinton didn't borrow any money.

So, with annual tax receipts exceeding US$2 trillion, the interest paid to the bank every year amounts to nearly a fourth or a fifth of all tax dollars collected. (Think of that, next time when paying your taxes.)

Unfortunately, when Clinton first "balanced" the budget (read: stopped borrowing more from the bank), he "borrowed" from the social security savings, planning to pay that money back when real surpluses were achieved; however, that money was not repaid because GWB tax-cutted it away. The net loss to Social Security savings, if I recall, was greater than US$100 billion. That's going to detrimentally affected the support of the baby-boomers when they retire in 2010~2015.

Tangentially, it is projected that these retirees will stabilize their investments by liquidating stocks, causing a market crash; the loss of income tax revenue, coupled with the dramatic increase in social security expenses, is projected to unsustainably burden the solidity of the US ecomony, given the present and projected deficits. In real terms, this means that the US$ will continue to plummet in global markets, making all US$ holders poorer: less able to use your dollars for international purchases such as imports or tourist travel, etc. Retired people who depend on their subsidy will receive scaled-back benefits, or nothing at all. Social programs will be eliminated.

Furthermore, for those of us who no longer, or never did, live in the United States, the depression of the US$ negatively affects most currencies. Here in Taiwan, for example, the New Taiwan dollar is unofficially pegged to the US$, for the sake of keeping Taiwan's exports affordable to Americans, so our local currency plummets alongside, and most asian currencies follow this practice. It can be argued that this is a short-sighted solution because of the bleak prospects for the US$ in the next decade. The export-based economies of the Asia-pacific region are well-advised to develop their Europeans markets to eventually enable them to transfer their dependence away from the US market (and US$ valuation).


So, back to the topic: who's the worst? GWB for being the guy in the box now, spearheading this collapse, or Bush Sr for being the brains behind it all since 1980? Hmmm..

I'll go with the guy in the box--let's get him first!

Excuse my ignorance, but why do people bash Carter? What was so terrible about his presidency?

Yes... or maybe he actually turned around your stupendous debts from Raegan and Bush Sr. with a bit of economic foresight, just before that progress was annihilated completely by Dubya's irresponsible economic policies and two pointless wars.

Its not working because even our allies are cowards and dont back us(excluding a few allies that DID back us). I dont think you understand along with Dharmalaya that our president DOESNT control our economics, the people of this nation do with their buying and spending, you can also blame the Democrats of the past that raised every god-damn thing in the book, taxes, spending in our government(you could say the same for Bush and republicans too), so blaming one man is rediculous and stupid. Period.

Urmm... yes, because pissing off the whole of Europe, as Bush has done, really shows the key signs of 'giving a damn'...

Hey he extended his hand and THEN warned other nations to either help or get pushed out of the way, does this mean you support the terrorist and repressive regimes?

Nor's China, and Bush is perfectly happy to give its president a rim job.

He did, when, proof?

How democratically free a state is doesn't really affect how the general population feels about people, now, does it?

Nice twisting. Never said that. Nice Red Herring.

If I was living in Zimbabwe, I'd still think Bush was a complete tit.

Thats because your government there only allows certain info in your land, which could go in response to your line above too.

No, it isn't. It's a vaguely socialist nation. It's communist by name but not by nature.

Whats the difference? They are both repressive and want to control what private persons want to do with their lives...as long it doesnt harm others.

Obviously his administration's poor grasp of what the rest of the world is like and hence what they should say to us and how the US should act plays not a single role in him being protested against, really, doesn't it?

Nope, guess not. :rolleyes:

Because it's not like he'd get protests in capitalist democracies like the UK and the rest of Europe, now, is it?

Oh no... wait... that's exactly the opposite of the truth...

Nice mocking and stupid humor, lovely negotiations you can set up huh to save the world, good thing your not our leader.....oh wait, good thing Kerry or Gore is then...too bad Clinton was.....

Quite.

Ah.


Off topic but Bush is trying to privatize everything in this nation and I find THAT dangerous. A laissez-faire system will doom this nation into a caste system.

Sorry, got off topic....i fidn it more freeing that i decided what to do with the resources i got. I prefer a capitalist/laissez-faire system to a repressive socialistic system.....

Dictators? We've been on our knees to the same group of Dictators since Bush Sr.

Actually long before that, you can thank the "good-hard-working" Democrats for that....

Not it's not, besides it's irrelevent, see Yootopia's post.

And like i stated to him(read above), they are no different.


Clinton was a good public speaker, the people in Vietnam came because he had the ability. Everyone knows how stupid Bush is so no one cared.


You mean he knew how to pull in suckers? :fluffle:
Hahahaha! Sorry had to add that smiley.

I have yet to see a single person admit someone of their own political stripe was a bad President.

In answer to an above question. I don't hate President Carter, I simply thought and still think he was in over his head as President. It does not make Jimmy Carter a bad man, just a bad President.

LBJ took all of the positives he had and flushed them right down the toilet with Vietnam and that idiot SecDef Robert McNamara. It's funny how much Rumsfeld and GWB remind me of this pair, except that W doesn't want to leave Iraq and he has no desire to accept culpability for his tragically bad foreign policy led by his head cheerleader Condi "Ferragamo" Rice. I can hardly wait until she returns to academia, though I pity her students.

It will be a genuine toss up whether GWB or Nixon will be the worst President in the current era. Given twenty years or so of near history, Nixon still holds the crown though GWB sure is trying to take it away.

Oh, and despite all of the Clinton bashing going on here. He was a good President. "Daddy" Bush wasn't all that bad a President either. To me the jury is still out on Ronald Wilson Reagan. He is not near the great man that everyone seems to think he was, and despite my personal distaste for him, he was not the total troll many of my friends think he was. I will say I think Reagan's Domestic and social policy was an unmitigated disaster. But, he had a pretty good foreign policy, except in spots.

Excuse my ignorance, but why do people bash Carter? What was so terrible about his presidency?

I made a thread about him once wondering the exact thing.

The sheer vitriol was unsettling.

Here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=466034&highlight=carter)

Wow i just read about half the first page and i can already say the majority of those who have posted in the first page are complete idiots. I won't even go into the reasons why because they are far to obvious.

Wow i just read about half the first page and i can already say the majority of those who have posted in the first page are complete idiots. I won't even go into the reasons why because they are far to obvious.

Wow I just read your entire post and I can already say that you are completely inbred, but I won't even go into the reasons why because they are far too obvious.

Dubya.

Because it's not like he'd get protests in capitalist democracies like the UK and the rest of Europe, now, is it?
He always does, actually. Huge ones.


Sorry, got off topic....i fidn it more freeing that i decided what to do with the resources i got. I prefer a capitalist/laissez-faire system to a repressive socialistic system.....
It's not like Americans are faced with laissez-faire vs. socialism. Neither Democrats nor Republicans will give you either one, especially not socialism.

Wow I just read your entire post and I can already say that you are completely inbred, but I won't even go into the reasons why because they are far too obvious.
Ditto.

Its not working because even our allies are cowards and dont back us(excluding a few allies that DID back us).
No, we're not cowards, we've just learned that you can't solve terrorism with vast amounts of soldiers. The problems with the IRA, various Algerian groups and the various groups in Germany were solved by dialogue. When we tried to shoot at them, they shot back. When we talked to them, they talked back, and things were solved a hell of a lot faster.
I dont think you understand along with Dharmalaya that our president DOESNT control our economics, the people of this nation do with their buying and spending, you can also blame the Democrats of the past that raised every god-damn thing in the book, taxes, spending in our government(you could say the same for Bush and republicans too), so blaming one man is rediculous and stupid. Period.
Your president is the commander in chief of the armed forces. He could have said "bugger having a war just when our economy is recovering from the late '80s" and have saved your state economically. That's why he's to blame.

That, and the fact that his administration supported a great raft of tax cuts etc., although I do agree that you can't just blame him when there are many others in the government.
Hey he extended his hand and THEN warned other nations to either help or get pushed out of the way
Here in Europe we don't really suffer fools gladly. You had our sympathy for about a week after September 11th. This was then utterly wasted when your president started off on some kind of crusade, and wanted the unconditional support of Europe.

We've had our fair share of wars, and we know about the military history of Afghanistan from our own bloody experiences - why would we want to fight to settle personal scores as puppets of the US, when we have our own issues at home?
does this mean you support the terrorist and repressive regimes?
No, I just support the pinko socialist scum in Europe over the US, due to their diabolically evil respect for human rights and horrendous ideas about maybe talking to terrorist leaders rather than just blowing them up and creating martyrs.
He did, when, proof?
*sighs*

I meant metaphorically.
Nice twisting. Never said that. Nice Red Herring.
Sorry, you were the one to bring it up as something significant, I'm afraid.
Thats because your government there only allows certain info in your land, which could go in response to your line above too.
I'm pretty sure that I'd hear about the Iraq war even if I was living in the recently 'liberated' region of Capitalististan, where there was no news but capitalist propaganda, and I'd still be against it.
Whats the difference? They are both repressive and want to control what private persons want to do with their lives...as long it doesnt harm others.
That they're not actually communists, nor is Vietnam particularly repressive compared to most of the asian states...
Nope, guess not. :rolleyes:

Because it's not like he'd get protests in capitalist democracies like the UK and the rest of Europe, now, is it?
Well that's exactly my point... he gets protests all around the world. You were trying to claim that only communist, politically repressive nations would get any kind of protests against him. That's just not true.
Nice mocking and stupid humor, lovely negotiations you can set up huh to save the world, good thing your not our leader.....oh wait, good thing Kerry or Gore is then...too bad Clinton was.....
What do you mean by this ill-written garbage, may I ask?

No, we're not cowards, we've just learned that you can't solve terrorism with vast amounts of soldiers. The problems with the IRA, various Algerian groups and the various groups in Germany were solved by dialogue. When we tried to shoot at them, they shot back. When we talked to them, they talked back, and things were solved a hell of a lot faster.

I am sorry, you do realize that the Irish, German are different groups then the radical Islam governments or even the groups(none government)?? Plus, i think you forget how everytime the Europeans THINK they resolved an issue with talk it bites them in the butt later(IE Hitler and various French and other European leaders who were corrupt in the pas and now) Sorry a time for talking and a time for action.

Your president is the commander in chief of the armed forces. He could have said "bugger having a war just when our economy is recovering from the late '80s" and have saved your state economically. That's why he's to blame.

Wow that is laughable. Sorry, but to have our leader run away or turn away from threats JUST BECAUSE of what MIGHT happen is wrong.

That, and the fact that his administration supported a great raft of tax cuts etc., although I do agree that you can't just blame him when there are many others in the government.

I dont think you realize how important tax cuts are...sad really. Also, i want taxes, but not repressive ones or overtaxation.

Here in Europe we don't really suffer fools gladly. You had our sympathy for about a week after September 11th. This was then utterly wasted when your president started off on some kind of crusade, and wanted the unconditional support of Europe.

So our nation was suppose to bow down to the terrorist groups AND the government that supported them in Afganistan? Your sick...you make me vomit. If my nation did that again like what Clinton did when the first attacks on the towers went off, i wouldof wanted to impeach him too(just like i did with Clinton, but not for the sex thing, but for his lack of leadership).

We've had our fair share of wars, and we know about the military history of Afghanistan from our own bloody experiences - why would we want to fight to settle personal scores as puppets of the US, when we have our own issues at home?

You from Britian? I think it sounds like it from your history, but i could be wrong. Whether your from GB or Russia, both failed on the sheer fact that you didnt get support from the exiled and freedom fighters who were fighting the repressive government there(Taliban).

No, I just support the pinko socialist scum in Europe over the US, due to their diabolically evil respect for human rights and horrendous ideas about maybe talking to terrorist leaders rather than just blowing them up and creating martyrs.

I figured you would support the repressive and controlling socialist society who would rahter coddle and support terrorist regimes...

*sighs*

Know the feeling...

I meant metaphorically.

Then say that next time, we cant read your mind.

I'm pretty sure that I'd hear about the Iraq war even if I was living in the recently 'liberated' region of Capitalististan, where there was no news but capitalist propaganda, and I'd still be against it.

Well the way BBC sends it message out i wouldnt be suprised if you get a distorted view...

That they're not actually communists, nor is Vietnam particularly repressive compared to most of the asian states...

Really? You see no difference between socialism or communism intheir basic ideals? Hmmm. And have you visited Vietnam of late? I have had a uncle who has....they are not as a nice of government as you think....but theya re better then the Chinese or other socialistic nations...

Well that's exactly my point... he gets protests all around the world. You were trying to claim that only communist, politically repressive nations would get any kind of protests against him. That's just not true.

Or nations that dont give the whole wide range of facts maybe...

What do you mean by this ill-written garbage, may I ask?

Nice personal attack. Wasnt needed. Not going to answer this one.

I am sorry, you do realize that the Irish, German are different groups then the radical Islam governments or even the groups(none government)?? Plus, i think you forget how everytime the Europeans THINK they resolved an issue with talk it bites them in the butt later(IE Hitler and various French and other European leaders who were corrupt in the pas and now) Sorry a time for talking and a time for action.

No he doesn't. He just has to remember a lot more history than we do (that is, if we ever get taught history in our miserable school system). You recall a fellow named Chamberlain just to make your point, but you don't look at the wider context in which leaders in Europe of both liberal and conservative bents have avoided wars by solid diplomacy. You definitely make the mistake of being far too eager to pull the trigger on war. I know your type, I served with some of them for 22+ years in the service.


Wow that is laughable. Sorry, but to have our leader run away or turn away from threats JUST BECAUSE of what MIGHT happen is wrong.

Sorry to disappoint you, but George W. Bush and his pals were wrong from the beginning and they will be remembered just as unkindly as Lyndon Baines Johnson and Secretary of State Robert McNamara (Vietnam Era, read about it, you might find it edifying). Mr. Bush and his friends were in the minority in the government and even managed to piss off Colin Powell, whom they used badly as a shill before the UN. Under no stretch of the imagination was this second conflict in Iraq remotely necessary. It was a war of choice, not necessity. Gerry Ford certainly disagreed with it in strong terms and now that mass of sheep called the American people are finally sick of the shenanigans this man and his chosen circle of neoconservative true believers have perpetrated. Those who I know are true conservative Republicans even detest this man's actions, because they know it will take a decade or more to fix not only the party, but the country.

There is no reason to go to war PRE-EMPTIVELY. It was never the policy of the United States before and by the grace of God I hope we never pursue such irrational policy again.


I dont think you realize how important tax cuts are...sad really. Also, i want taxes, but not repressive ones or overtaxation.

Get thee to a library and read John Kenneth Galbraith and Milton Friedman, economists from opposing schools of thought that believe (or believed) pursuing Keynesian economics is foolish. The term "penny wise and pound foolish" comes to mind. But I'm fairly certain you are not ready to REALLY discuss regressive versus progressive tax policy.


So our nation was suppose to bow down to the terrorist groups AND the government that supported them in Afganistan? Your sick...you make me vomit. If my nation did that again like what Clinton did when the first attacks on the towers went off, i wouldof wanted to impeach him too(just like i did with Clinton, but not for the sex thing, but for his lack of leadership).

No, but there is a place for diplomacy. I can tell you right now that the military will not solve the issue of terrorism, it cannot. I see you still believe the old saw that Saddam Hussein supported Al-Qaida, long after your own President and Vice-President have grudgingly ADMITTED on the record that Hussein had nothing to with Al-Qaida. You are at best, ill-informed and at worst disingenuous. He certainly is not sick, he strikes me as an educated fellow.

Oh, yay...another guy who can't stand Clinton, you supported his impeachment due to a lack of leadership? Last I checked, that does not meet the bar for "High Crimes and Misdemeanors,' frankly the whole impeachment thing was an embarassment and you will note that MANY of the Congresscritters who went up to Washington, who were the House Impeachment managers LOST SPECTACULARLY in their re-election bids, post three ring circus.


You from Britian? I think it sounds like it from your history, but i could be wrong. Whether your from GB or Russia, both failed on the sheer fact that you didnt get support from the exiled and freedom fighters who were fighting the repressive government there(Taliban).

You sir, have demonstrated a spectacular amount of ignorance. You cling to unsupportable positions with made up facts. You accuse the BBC of some sort of liberal brainwashing and say the news in Europe is propaganda. The news in the US is better? Fox News...the rabid right wing cable news channel, or CNN the king of liberal spin? How about the craptastic AM talk radio shows that disguise their programming as factual when it is generally just a dose of entertainment with really nothing more?

My God the kids these days. Read facts, think critically and don't follow other people like a sheep to the slaughter pen.


I figured you would support the repressive and controlling socialist society who would rahter coddle and support terrorist regimes...

Examine the United States son. There are plenty of socialist programs here that co-exist with capitalist programs to the betterment of society. As far as the statement above, the United States has installed at various points in it's history; dictators, strong men, thugs, and has assassinated or attempted assassination on quite a number of world leaders. Remember the Shah of Iran, our ally? We turned on him and we got the Grand Ayatollah Khomeini and the subsequent Islamic Republic that Iran is now. Nice job, eh? Saddam Hussein was our friend, just ask Donald Rumsfeld, we turned on him and he will soon be at the literal end of his rope. Daniel Ortega? Remember him? No? Fidel Castro? Bautista? The list is much longer I assure you.

Iraq is a mess of our making. Once again we have proven to be too anxious to pull out our military penis without proper forethought and proper groundwork. War should be always the last card played and when it becomes necessary to go to war, the post war needs to be planned.


Well the way BBC sends it message out i wouldnt be suprised if you get a distorted view...

:rolleyes:

I'd say, Rooseveldt.

:D

I'd say, Rooseveldt.

:D

:D :D :D

Hate? Nah he is not worth it.

I would say least liked are George W Bush and Dick Nixon
I didn't care for Carter the President. However, Carter the Elder Statesman is a decent guy.
I don't like Clinton because of Rwanda. I knew a couple people.

the rest? Meh. Average to less than.....

FDR forced the House to go along with his unconstitutional, socialist programs with the complicity of a friendly Senate. He threatened that if the House didn't go along with him, he'd create gobs of federal judgeships, fill them with judges of his liking with the Senate gladly affirming their nominations, who will then shove the programs down America's throat via judicial fiat.

FDR should have spent the rest of his life in a wheelchair chained to a prison bunk.


If you guys haven't noticed, in a Republic or in a Democracy, it is impossible for the President to FORCE anyone to vote for ANYTHING. You can appoint people who are likely to approve of your policy (ie. the judges) but he can't force them to vote any certain way. Look at John Paul II he did the same thing wiht the cardinals (appoint the people who were most likely to support him) but was he a bad leader? His ability to influence that amount of people is a mark of a great leader. And if you get you spoon-fed republican history out of the way, socialism saved your country; it saved Canada too. If FDR had not grabbed control like he had, who knows what you might be today? Oh and just for intrest sakes, if FDR was PM of Canada, he could force people to vote certain ways, its called party whip.

Honestly? Until Bush the Younger took the stage, my least-favourite President was Ronnie Reagan.

I am sorry, you do realize that the Irish, German are different groups then the radical Islam governments or even the groups(none government)??
Translation: Those terrorists are different because they're not Islamist!!!

Plus, i think you forget how everytime the Europeans THINK they resolved an issue with talk it bites them in the butt later(IE Hitler and various French and other European leaders who were corrupt in the pas and now)
Translation: Look, these governments are the same as terrorists!

Fool. The Europe of before WWII can't be compared to the Europe of post-WWII. That war, in terms of politics, changed everything.

Sorry a time for talking and a time for action.
Translation: And this is no time for thinking! Testosterone!

I'm still not convinced, mainly because you have given no reasons as to why this is such a time.

Wow that is laughable. Sorry, but to have our leader run away or turn away from threats JUST BECAUSE of what MIGHT happen is wrong.
Iraq didn't threaten America. And yes, some prices are too high to pay for the satisfaction of the presidents' (and his armchair supporters') testosterone.

So our nation was suppose to bow down to the terrorist groups AND the government that supported them in Afganistan?
No, you should have accepted their offer to hand over bin Laden. Rather than bombed and invaded them.

You from Britian? I think it sounds like it from your history, but i could be wrong.
Look at his location. (Hint: England is in Britain)

Whether your from GB or Russia, both failed on the sheer fact that you didnt get support from the exiled and freedom fighters who were fighting the repressive government there(Taliban).
The Northern Alliance couldn't really be described as freedom fighters, so much as a bloodthirsty band of warlords who really couldn't be trusted with a dirt farm, not a country. And many of them are extremely Islamic too.

I figured you would support the repressive and controlling socialist society who would rahter coddle and support terrorist regimes...
Listen to his arguments, and get education. I live in Europe. We're not repressed. And we're certainly not supporting terrorists; we're stopping them effectively, even if that is less dramatic.

Know the feeling...
Really? Maybe you should present some reasoned arguments and listen to Yootopia's.

Well the way BBC sends it message out i wouldnt be suprised if you get a distorted view...
Yes, by reporting a daily barrage of entirely true information, they are undermining the war effort and unfairly turning people against it. :rolleyes:

Really? You see no difference between socialism or communism intheir basic ideals?
No, he means that Vietnam is a country like China, communist in name but capitalist in practice. Which goes to show what a failure communism is.

Or nations that dont give the whole wide range of facts maybe...
Given the ignorance you have shown, about Europe and about Afghanistan, you are in no position to lecture us.

We've even seen studies that prove Bush supporters to be less informed than his opponents (e.g. believing Hussein to possess WMDs, etc.)

No, he means that Vietnam is a country like China, communist in name but capitalist in practice. Which goes to show what a failure communism is.Or, perhaps, the silliness of naming things communist that aren't.

Translation: Those terrorists are different because they're not Islamist!!!


Translation: Look, these governments are the same as terrorists!

Fool. The Europe of before WWII can't be compared to the Europe of post-WWII. That war, in terms of politics, changed everything.


Translation: And this is no time for thinking! Testosterone!

I'm still not convinced, mainly because you have given no reasons as to why this is such a time.


Iraq didn't threaten America. And yes, some prices are too high to pay for the satisfaction of the presidents' (and his armchair supporters') testosterone.


No, you should have accepted their offer to hand over bin Laden. Rather than bombed and invaded them.


Look at his location. (Hint: England is in Britain)


The Northern Alliance couldn't really be described as freedom fighters, so much as a bloodthirsty band of warlords who really couldn't be trusted with a dirt farm, not a country. And many of them are extremely Islamic too.


Listen to his arguments, and get education. I live in Europe. We're not repressed. And we're certainly not supporting terrorists; we're stopping them effectively, even if that is less dramatic.


Really? Maybe you should present some reasoned arguments and listen to Yootopia's.


Yes, by reporting a daily barrage of entirely true information, they are undermining the war effort and unfairly turning people against it. :rolleyes:


No, he means that Vietnam is a country like China, communist in name but capitalist in practice. Which goes to show what a failure communism is.


Given the ignorance you have shown, about Europe and about Afghanistan, you are in no position to lecture us.

We've even seen studies that prove Bush supporters to be less informed than his opponents (e.g. believing Hussein to possess WMDs, etc.)

Applause

On behalf of the few Americans who studied history (or so it seems if this board is a representative sample), we hereby apologize for our ignorant brethren. Earabia seems to have stuck his nose squarely up the fringe element's collective butts and because it makes him comfortable and happy, he defends his narrow world view with vitriol and blind ignorance.

I weep. I love my country, but it is frustrating to see supposedly educated men and women become holocaust deniers, neo-conservatives and fringe righties. There is nothing moderate about the US anymore.

If you guys haven't noticed, in a Republic or in a Democracy, it is impossible for the President to FORCE anyone to vote for ANYTHING. You can appoint people who are likely to approve of your policy (ie. the judges) but he can't force them to vote any certain way. Look at John Paul II he did the same thing wiht the cardinals (appoint the people who were most likely to support him) but was he a bad leader? His ability to influence that amount of people is a mark of a great leader. And if you get you spoon-fed republican history out of the way, socialism saved your country; it saved Canada too. If FDR had not grabbed control like he had, who knows what you might be today? Oh and just for intrest sakes, if FDR was PM of Canada, he could force people to vote certain ways, its called party whip.

In support of Lightmoonia:

Hating FDR, a man who was so popular that he won FOUR TERMS of office as President. My grandparents who are still alive (89 and 83 years old), who are true conservatives, loved FDR. They voted for him all four times. I have spoken with all manner of people who were adults in that time, and they rightly acknowledge that FDR saved the US.

Ignorant people who did not live through those times have absolutely no business speaking out against the guy who brought this country out of the Great Depression. It's best they just go on creating the economic conditions for the next huge financial crash in petty ignorance.

Just for the record, Roosevelt's margins of victory were absolutely huge.

1932- 89% Electoral College, 67% Popular Vote
1936- 98.5% Electoral College, 61% Popular Vote
1940- 84.5% Electoral College, 55% Popular Vote
1944- 81.5% Electoral College, 54% Popular Vote

This was against multiple opponents, the most popular of which was Wendell Wilkie in 1940. It is unlikely the US will ever see such lopsided margins of victory ever again.

Be ignorant all you like, but FDR was a popular President and never was seriously challenged by anyone.

Or, perhaps, the silliness of naming things communist that aren't.

Communist!

This should definitely have a poll, but I'll put in my opinion:

George W. Bush - straight up.

Definitely the worst president in my lifetime, and I'd say the worst in the last 50 years too. Maybe the worst in history, but it's hard to judge that sort of thing at the time.

This should definitely have a poll, but I'll put in my opinion:

George W. Bush - straight up.

Definitely the worst president in my lifetime, and I'd say the worst in the last 50 years too. Maybe the worst in history, but it's hard to judge that sort of thing at the time.

Hate is strong emotion. I find contempt and distaste for Il Douche personally. Not only for various reasons including ones listed by Sean Wilentz (http://www.rollingstone.com/news/profile/story/9961300/the_worst_president_in_history), but also because of the Personality Cult that worships him to the point of willful disregard of pragmatism.

Come on Earabia, I didn't type all that shit for you not to see it!!

I weep. I love my country, but it is frustrating to see supposedly educated men and women become holocaust deniers, neo-conservatives and fringe righties. There is nothing moderate about the US anymore.
Yeah, wtf happened to your country?

I'd say, Rooseveldt.

:D

Damn, you stole my line.

Good on you.:D