NationStates Jolt Archive

Oh please. He was elected because he was "folksy". His inability to speak most people find endearing.

Are you talking about the first or second time, for the first time round this isn't true. Did you see my thread about that a while back? Disturbingly, he was very articulate and, well almost sensible, during his first campaign for president. This either means that this acting stupid thing is all an act, or that going into office involves so much stress or something that it turns you into a retard.

Well, considering the French won our Revolution for us, and the conflicts that directly catapulted us to superpowerdom were conflicts that the world ha been asking us to enter since the beigning.



Because they dont need to attack our homeland. They can kill us in theirs now.



Im sure you can back this up.



Debatable.



Actually no it hasnt and yes it is.



Great. Not only does the current president disagree with "updating" it (unless its to ban gay marriage) because he supports "strict constructionist judges", he also regularally violates it.

You got me on the French part.....
If you were a terrorist, why would you attack US soldiers, and not civilians in their homelands. Many attacks have been thwarted(I know people in the know....trust me) And yes, Top Al-Queda leaders have been killed left and right. Do you watch the news, or have internet? I'm not going to debate the Iraq War, and yes the economy has seen worse(The Great Depression), and I don't see Hoover vills and shanty towns around here today. No massive layoffs. Markets can and will eventually even out.

Oh please. He was elected because he was "folksy". His inability to speak most people find endearing.


Who?, and Sarah Palin is comming to mind here, why is she not the elected VP now, in that case?

If you were a terrorist, why would you attack US soldiers, and not civilians in their homelands.

Easier.

Many attacks have been thwarted(I know people in the know....trust me)

With all due respect, I dont really buy this, and its not very convincing. My cousin works in DC with the CIA, but I wouldnt ever pull him out as an appeal to authority.

And yes, Top Al-Queda leaders have been killed left and right. Do you watch the news, or have internet?

That does not mean "Al-Quada is hanging on by a thread".

I'm not going to debate the Iraq War, and yes the economy has seen worse(The Great Depression),

Actually the economy has taken a worse hit now than it did during the Great Depression.

and I don't see Hoover vills and shanty towns around here today.

No, because today those people just dont have homes.

No massive layoffs.


Uuuuuh.....

No, seriously there have been massive layoffs. All through Bush's term actually.

Markets can and will eventually even out.

No.

Oh god,you said something good about Preident Bush in here Ferrous Oxide

* hands him a flak jacket*

Good luck mate!

Actually the economy has taken a worse hit now than it did during the Great Depression.


I really wouldn't argue that. It's just, completely wrong. At least in terms of real economy.

I really wouldn't argue that. It's just, completely wrong. At least in terms of real economy.

"Real Economy"?


The stock market has fallen quicker and taken bigger hits than it did during the Great Depression. What the hell are you talking about when you say "real economy"?


We're on the verge of complete economic collapes. Id say thats pretty "real".

Easier.



With all due respect, I dont really buy this, and its not very convincing. My cousin works in DC with the CIA, but I wouldnt ever pull him out as an appeal to authority.



That does not mean "Al-Quada is hanging on by a thread".



Actually the economy has taken a worse hit now than it did during the Great Depression.



No, because today those people just dont have homes.




Uuuuuh.....

No, seriously there have been massive layoffs. All through Bush's term actually.



No.

Killing soldiers does not make much of an impact than killing civilians does. Don't expect you to believe me, I'm sure if you search deep enough on the internet you will find something........No! the Great Depression was worse! Everyone was dirt poor, there were Tremendous layoffs......go watch the history channel. Yes, businesses prosper and fail. You can't expect gov't to bail them out. Back in the day, the gov't never bailed out business, probably cause no one asked for bailouts.

Oh god,you said something good about Preident Bush in here Ferrous Oxide

* hands him a flak jacket*

Good luck mate!
too late. he's already riddled with holes

Killing soldiers does not make much of an impact than killing civilians does.

Yeah it does. Either way kills moral and people.

No! the Great Depression was worse! Everyone was dirt poor, there were Tremendous layoffs......go watch the history channel.

"Everyone" was not dirt poor and there were massive layoffs, but weve had those too.

Yes, businesses prosper and fail. You can't expect gov't to bail them out. Back in the day, the gov't never bailed out business, probably cause no one asked for bailouts.

Government helped out businesses all the time "back in the day"

Flying a plane into an office building, or bombing a subway filled with civilians makes more news than ".......soldiers died today" Thats what the terrorists want, attention.
The Great Depression was so much worse...Unemployment was so much higher, around 25% http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_e820TWj3zLE/SRv3jGKAzzI/AAAAAAAAB_s/U4y7i2XdoGE/s1600-h/unrate.jpg

Who?, and Sarah Palin is comming to mind here, why is she not the elected VP now, in that case?

Because, despite the "Palin bump" she wasn't the candidate. McCain was.

If that's not enough for you, because she would have been and EVEN WORSE President than GWB. If she'd been put up by the Republican convention, and faced the scrutiny McCain did ... Obama would have won even bigger.

Her "folksy" image died a gruesome and self-inflicted death when she went shopping on the campaign tab.

Because, despite the "Palin bump" she wasn't the candidate. McCain was.

If that's not enough for you, because she would have been and EVEN WORSE President than GWB. If she'd been put up by the Republican convention, and faced the scrutiny McCain did ... Obama would have won even bigger.

Her "folksy" image died a gruesome and self-inflicted death when she went shopping on the campaign tab.

I was trying to figure out why her folky attitude would win anybody over, personnally I found it annoying

So which administration has been as inefficient as Grant's, engaged in destructive and costly wars like Kennedy and Truman, the crookedness of Nixon, and the vindictiveness like Jackson all rolled in to one if not this one? Sure, it may not have been as bad as some others if you exclusively look at one single criterion. But Grant didn't engage in costly wars, and neither Kennedy nor Truman were incompetent like Grant was. And that's not counting this administration's lack of a response to Katrina.

Incidentally, I doubt I'm the only one that sees the blatant hypocrisy of you telling people to get over something.
Lincoln

http://www.heritage.org/research/HomelandDefense/bg2085.cfm Thwarted terrorist attacks...19 of them......Gee first thing that came up on google.

too late. he's already riddled with holes

It was suicide. If FO had a flak-jacket, he'd be wearing the grenades on the inside.

Sure, he invaded a country that didnt need to be invaded under false pretenses.

So did Polk, Wilson and Roosevelt


Sure, he totally botched the Katrina thing.

I think that falls on FEMA and FEMA =! George W. Bush


Sure, his total disregard for the internatonal community has probably helped terrorism more than hurt it.




Sure, the economy has been a disaster for the vast majority of his presidency.

Not really his fault, the economy goes through cycles, he did nothing to worsen the economy


But, what makes him so bad, is that he views the Constitution as "suggestions" rather than what it is, the law of the land.
So Lincoln is your least favorite president right? Because he basically took a shit on the constitution

http://www.heritage.org/research/HomelandDefense/bg2085.cfm Thwarted terrorist attacks...19 of them......Gee first thing that came up on google.

You googled "thwarted terrorist attacks" and got the Heritage Foundation.

And you consider that proof of ... what?

That, right there, is a demonstration of your inability to think critically. Who are the Heritage Foundation? You don't care, right? It's "first thing up on Google."

So did Polk, Wilson and Roosevelt


Roosevelt? Which one?


I think that falls on FEMA and FEMA =! George W. Bush

It does when Bush appointed and commanded them


Not really his fault, the economy goes through cycles, he did nothing to worsen the economy

Yes he did. Poor economic policy combined with not changing already existing poor economic policy.

I find that "The economy goes through cycles" is an arguement the ight uses when their guy presides over a shitty economy.


So Lincoln is your least favorite president right? Because he basically took a shit on the constitution
No he didnt. I look foward to you trying and backing this up, considering the vast majority of what Lincoln did was Constitutional, if morally repulsive.

You googled "thwarted terrorist attacks" and got the Heritage Foundation.

And you consider that proof of ... what?

That, right there, is a demonstration of your inability to think critically. Who are the Heritage Foundation? You don't care, right? It's "first thing up on Google."

Uh...did you read the article, It proves my point, in a previous comment, I'll let you look for it. I don't care who they are, they published something that supports what I am saying.

This one is from FOX http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,335500,00.html ABC http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=1599331 LA Times http://articles.latimes.com/2003/jan/11/nation/na-padilla11

I See your point...No he was not a Good President, but since when has America cared about what the International community thinks? America did not become the greatest economic, military, and cultural entity that ever existed, based on what other nations thought we should do. Terrorism has not been helped, America has not been attacked since 2001, Terrorist actions are down all over the world, Al-Quaeda is hanging by a thread, and Iraq is under control. The economy has been worse, no it is not in shambles. I do agree, The constitution is the law of the land, and no one is above it. It is however, meant to be improved upon, and updated for a more modern era.

Okay, I'll bite.

1) We became an economic, military, and cultural powerhouse because of circumstances that had never existed before, do not exist now, nor are likely to exist again, namely that the Second World War wrecked the economy of every industrialized nation except ours, although the Soviet Union had quite a bit of economic might concentrated in Moscow and Stalingrad at war's end. But no matter; the point is that we didn't have to pay attention to what other nations thought we should do, to use your terms, not because that was somehow our means to greatness, but because we had 50% of the world's industrial productive capacity. We don't any more. As such, it would behoove us to listen to what other nation's have to say.

1a) Your argument is premised on the idea that we did not in fact care what people thought. In point of fact, we cared a great deal. We wanted people to be on America's side rather than the Soviet Union's side, so we cajoled and/or enticed them into being either on our side (Cuban Naval Blockade) or at least not explicitly on their side (Nixon's trip to China).

2) There are a lot of reasons why the United States might not have been attacked since Sept. 11, 2001. One of them is that because of our actions, Al-Queda either cannot or will not attack. Of course, there are other suggestions that spring to mind: Al-Queda likes us tying ourselves into Iraq and has no desire to spend money to get us to do more of what we're already doing so well, Al-Queda is planning an attack and we just don't know about it because it's still in the preliminary stages, etc. You've done nothing to convince me that your suggestion is more true than one of the alternate possibilities.

3) Maybe you and I have different understandings of the verb "to update", but updating the Constitution does not strike me as the most accurate way of putting what happens when the President, after swearing an oath to protect the Constitution, then turns around and suspends habeus corpus for citizens in times other than rebellion or invasion or wiretaps despite an explicit law passed and ratified by Congress and ratified over a presidential veto. "To suborn" seems a much better verb to use in this instance.

Moreover, I'd note that in a larger sense, your rebuttal of George Bush being the most terrible president consists of a discussion of foreign policy, the economy, and the relationship of the President to the Constitution by saying, in effect: "It's not as bad as what you think". I would note two things: one, even if it isn't as bad as we think, it still very well might be worse than the time under any other president; second, usually if you're saying this, you're just in denial about how bad what you're defending usually is. Every once in a while, the defense of the one against the complaints of the many have merit, but the vox populi usually has a very good bead on whether something is decent or not. You might want to rethink which situation that is right now.

:DOh Gods. The stupid. It Burns.

Thank you for insulting me in the opening line of your tirade so so I wouldn't be fooled by your title of so-called "Knights of Liberty". You have made an enemy with no advantage to yourself, which is a mark of a fool. Also, you said that I don't know history, but you gained that knowledge from only a single post.

Germany declared war on us. Because they were Japan's allies. It was a UN action to aid South Korea. You know, back when the US was part of the international community. Besides, youre all pro-Iraq war because Saddam was "teh ebil", but anti-helping South Korea? Even though Kim Il-Sung was not a nice guy either? Or are you only pro-attacking dictators and preserving freedom when it a Republican president doing it, you little partisan? 1. Kennedy put military advisors in Vietnam. Not troops. 2. Nixon only got us out after he escalated it and made it even more unpopular. You say we were right to invade Iraq because of the human rights abuses, yet then QQ about Bosnia? You really dont know anything about US history. Youre just being partisan, and trying (and failing) to pretend like all the democrat presidents failed when it came to war. Stop reading Coulter. Should I post the body count of the coups Reagan and his administration sponsored and orchistrated? So? No. He just gave rich Americans more tax relief. No. He didnt reform it. He boned it. Only if by "reform" you mean stripped funding and made them worse. They already had that funding. No. The judges he appointed are stooges. Nothing more. Nothing less. :rolleyes: Yeah, he really brought dignity to America by making everyone hate us, destroying our alliances, and utterly crushing our credibility to lie to start two wars, violating the Geneva convention, violating our own constitution, and bringing us down to the terrorists level. Thats because you dont know anything. L. O. Fucking. L.
Put down the Coulter, turn off Hanity and Limbaugh, and actually do some thinking.

Wars: (WWII): Yes, Germany was Japan's ally, but we focused on attacking them first since they were more of a technological threat. However, your point is valid that we had to go to war with them. It kind of validates Bush's idea to attack Sadaam, who was an ally of Bin Laden. (Korea): Yes, it was a so-called UN action back when the US controlled the UN.

(Your personal attacks following the Korean comment): No, you can't treat all evil dictators the same. Bush's strategy for both countries worked. Sanctions didn't work on Sadaam, but they did on Kim Jung Il (by the way, his cousin's name is Menta Li Ill). No, I'm not a 'little partisian' although I do like baiting partisians like you by bringing up the whole dem/rep thing. Haha... and it was so easy.

Wars continued: (Vietnam): Yes, Kennedy sent advisors and he was going to pull out the advisors before he was killed. My original post said "Kennedy got us INVOLVED in Vietnam." Stop assuming I'm an idiot; you'll make us BOTH look ignorant. And I know that Nixon messed up the NVA before pulling out of Vietnam. What, did you expect a Republican president to just leave a fight (started by a Democrat and rigged so we would lose anyway) like a dog with his tail tucked between his legs? No. Nixon put the fear of God in them before bowing out with the Christmas Bombings and the like. I can just picture the dinks doing the duck and cover when Santa's sleigh passes over.
(Bosnia): Clinton got us involved to throw attention off his affair with Monika. We helped Muslims kill Christians (Although a rotten bunch of so-called Christians they were, with all the ethnic cleansing going on). Should we have gotten involved in Bosnia? Yes, but not why we did or how. Wars should be fought with the objective of WINNING and soldiers and generals allowed to do their jobs.

Supreme Court: You said the judges Bush appointed were stooges, and you failed to qualify your remark with any proof whatsoever. If your definition of stooge is "anyone who doesn't agree with my viewpoint" then, my ranting stooge, you are absolutely right.

Go ahead... jump up and down in your room, pull out what's left of your hair, scream obscenities, spit on your keyboard, watch CNN (the Communist News Network who makes everybody hate America by exaggerating our faults and ignoring our successes) so you can revive your faith in liberalism, and then get back to the keyboard and flame away, if it makes you feel better.

I'm fireproof.

"Sadaam, who was an ally of Bin Laden" and other crap

holy fuck. Love it when fools repeat the same bullshit repeatedly expecting that the non-moronic populace might start believing(maybe a few thousand more repetitions? :rolleyes:)

:

Wars: (WWII): Yes, Germany was Japan's ally, but we focused on attacking them first since they were more of a technological threat. However, your point is valid that we had to go to war with them.

We focused on Japan equally. In fact, we began attacking Japan before Germany. Major military operations were happening against Japan long befoe any major attacks on Germany. Your statement fails.

It kind of validates Bush's idea to attack Sadaam, who was an ally of Bin Laden. (Korea): Yes, it was a so-called UN action back when the US controlled the UN.

Saddam and Bin Ladin were not allies. They hated each other. Bush has admitted (now) there was no connection. This statement also fails.

(Your personal attacks following the Korean comment): No, you can't treat all evil dictators the same. Bush's strategy for both countries worked. Sanctions didn't work on Sadaam, but they did on Kim Jung Il (by the way, his cousin's name is Menta Li Ill).

1. Sanctions had nothing to do with Kim working with us.
2. What does his cousin have to do with anything?

No, I'm not a 'little partisian' although I do like baiting partisians like you by bringing up the whole dem/rep thing. Haha... and it was so easy.

Sure youre not kiddo.

Wars continued: (Vietnam): Yes, Kennedy sent advisors and he was going to pull out the advisors before he was killed. My original post said "Kennedy got us INVOLVED in Vietnam." Stop assuming I'm an idiot; you'll make us BOTH look ignorant.

Why stop assuming what is the truth?

And I know that Nixon messed up the NVA before pulling out of Vietnam. What, did you expect a Republican president to just leave a fight (started by a Democrat and rigged so we would lose anyway) like a dog with his tail tucked between his legs? No. Nixon put the fear of God in them before bowing out with the Christmas Bombings and the like.

1. Set us up to loose? Yes, that was Kennedy's plan all along, and Johnson's too! Make sure we'd loose! Stop reading Coulter.
2. Nixon didnt "put the fear of God in them". Not even close. If they were so afraid of us, they wouldnt have kep fighting and beaten us.

I can just picture the dinks doing the duck and cover when Santa's sleigh passes over.

Nice.

(Bosnia): Clinton got us involved to throw attention off his affair with Monika. We helped Muslims kill Christians (Although a rotten bunch of so-called Christians they were, with all the ethnic cleansing going on). Should we have gotten involved in Bosnia? Yes, but not why we did or how. Wars should be fought with the objective of WINNING and soldiers and generals allowed to do their jobs.

What? Clinton involved us in Bosnia BEFORE the Lewinsky scandle. Now I know youre not old enough to remember his administration.

Supreme Court: You said the judges Bush appointed were stooges, and you failed to qualify your remark with any proof whatsoever. If your definition of stooge is "anyone who doesn't agree with my viewpoint" then, my ranting stooge, you are absolutely right.

Qualify how theyre good and Ill be glad to point out how wrong you are jr.

Go ahead... jump up and down in your room, pull out what's left of your hair, scream obscenities, spit on your keyboard,

Im actually quite calm and sitting down. And I have a full head of hair.

watch CNN (the Communist News Network who makes everybody hate America by exaggerating our faults and ignoring our successes)

ROFL. Turn of Fox kid. Isnt Hanity on past your bedtime?

so you can revive your faith in liberalism, and then get back to the keyboard and flame away, if it makes you feel better.

Why would I need to revive my faith in something thats always worked?

I'm fireproof.

Factproof too it seems.

No he didn't. I look forward to you trying and backing this up, considering the vast majority of what Lincoln did was Constitutional, if morally repulsive.
Are you serious?
He suspended habeus corpus without Congress's approval
Split West Virginia off of Virginia without Congress
Refused to release a political prisoner after ordered by the Supreme Court
Deported a Copperhead senator, Clarence Vallandigham of Ohio
Ordered a blockade against what he considered to not be a sovereign nature, in direct violation of the Constitution

*snip*

I'm fireproof.

Well, there's certainly a lot of asbestos in your mind, I'll give you that much.

Are you serious?
He suspended habeus corpus without Congress's approval
Split West Virginia off of Virginia without Congress
Refused to release a political prisoner after ordered by the Supreme Court
Deported a Copperhead senator, Clarence Vallandigham of Ohio
Ordered a blockade against what he considered to not be a sovereign nature, in direct violation of the Constitution

Hmm.... I seem to be missing the link to the proof of this. COuld you post it again please?

Are you serious?
He suspended habeus corpus without Congress's approval

Doesnt need Congressional approval.


Split West Virginia off of Virginia without Congress

Does not need Congressional approval.

Refused to release a political prisoner after ordered by the Supreme Court

This is one.

Deported a Copperhead senator, Clarence Vallandigham of Ohio

With the suspension of Habeus Corpus he has this right,.

Ordered a blockade against what he considered to not be a sovereign nature, in direct violation of the Constitution

Also allowed, as it was not only a civil war, but he is commander in chief.


As you can see, most of your beefs with Lincoln are not legit.

Really? So it's not about actual ability to govern, it's about how well you can speak?

It's important to speak well, especially as a leader of a country.

There are still right-wingers who think Bin Laden and Hussein were allies?! Good God, how deep in the sand can your head go?

It's important to speak well, especially as a leader of a country.

Especially when you already cant govern, so the inability to speak just adds to the mocking.

There are still right-wingers who think Bin Laden and Hussein were allies?! Good God, how deep in the sand can your head go?

Apperantly not deep enough to suffocate.

if you insist....

The section of the Constitution you quoted, regarding the decision by the House (Amendment 12, for what it's worth) deals with what happens if, after the electors vote, no one person has a majority of the electoral votes. Then and only then does the House determine the victor. That's what the section you quoted deals with. It describes what is to happen if there is no one ticket that received a majority of the votes.

However in Bush v. Gore, the electors had not voted yet. The case was about determining the results of the Florida election, to determine how the Florida Electors WOULD VOTE. The House couldn't decide that election because it never met the criteria for it. Bush received the majority of the electoral votes, therefore the House had no power over the results.

And the decision of Bush v. Gore was probably the correct one.

Riiight. But other electors, in fact all electors but those of Florida, were ready to vote. Ergo, due to Florida's Electors inability to cast their votes, the Election should have gone to Congress, where Bush would most likely have won anyways, but at least it would be Constitutional.

The whole damn case was Undemocratic. Jeb Bush rigged the ballots in Democratic counties, such as Palm Beach County, where if you voted for Gore, it showed that you voted for Buchanan. Then he refused the recount, rather his secretary refused it, geez, I wonder, who pressured her? The US Supreme Court should not have taken the case, AND order Florida to recount, which they could have done. Instead they chose to vote for and elect Bush. The majority of American Lawyers think that this is the worst decision that any Supreme Court ever made. You're a Supreme Court Judge, and you don't have the brainpower to figure out that Jeb Bush would rig Florida for George Bush? Come on! They 5 knew the case was rigged, they knew it was Unconsitutional and they voted on it anyways!

Does not need Congressional approval.

I don't know about that. Creating new states out of old states is not technically legal, I believe, and you certainly need Congress. In Section 3 of Article IV it says
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
I don't know exactly what went down. Maybe the West Virginians were recognized as the legitimate Virginian government, sort of like the Taiwanese? I'd be interested to see how its creation was explained.

There are still right-wingers who think Bin Laden and Hussein were allies?! Good God, how deep in the sand can your head go?

Bin Laden and Hussein were allies. They regularly spent time together and had gay sex, didn't you know that? And during sex they just kept on mumbling "oh Bush, oh give it to me good". :D (For the nutjobs: I am being, utterly, totally, completely, 100% sarcastic in this post, but for this sentence.)

I

I don't know exactly what went down. Maybe the West Virginians were recognized as the legitimate Virginian government, sort of like the Taiwanese?

Essentially.

Back on subject:

True. Bush is definately not the worst president, let alone in the top 3 or 5. Remember, the economic situation isn't his fault. Clinton's tax plan ruined the great trickle-down economics that Reagan had started, and the deficit Clinton left Bush didn't help.

(If you really still think Clinton left office with a surplus - do some research. And not from MSDNC, but rather from a credible source like the United States Treasury Department itself.)

You can't blame Bush for the war either, 83% of Americans supported the war the day we invaded. True, it may have been for different motives than originally suspected, but the saving of thousands of innocent people's lives was probably worth the trouble.

Bush is not the worst president. How about James Buchanon, literally sitting around watching the nation sectionalize? What about Andrew Jackson's failed policies, the National Bank from the past, our racist presidents, our murderers and assassination-planners (Johnson)? A little economic trouble, which really is Clinton's fault, is not enough to plant Bush as such a bad leader.

Back on subject:

True. Bush is definately not the worst president, let alone in the top 3 or 5. Remember, the economic situation isn't his fault. Clinton's tax plan ruined the great trickle-down economics that Reagan had started, and the deficit Clinton left Bush didn't help.

(If you really still think Clinton left office with a surplus - do some research. And not from MSDNC, but rather from a credible source like the United States Treasury Department itself.)

Why dont you prove this statement. You make the claim, you back it up.

Why dont you prove this statement. You make the claim, you back it up.

Really? You're too lazy to type "Clinton surplus myth" into Google? Fine.

"While not defending the increase of the federal debt under President Bush, it is aggravating seeing Clinton's record promoted as having generated a surplus. It never happened. There was never a surplus and the cold hard facts support that position. In fact, far from a $360 billion reduction in the national debt in FY1998-FY2000, there was an increase of $281 billion."
http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

"There was never a $5.6 trillion surplus at the end of the Clinton Administration. There was at the end of FY 2001, however, about $3.3 trillion in debt held in federal treasuries, and about $5.7 trillion worth of total debt, including that existing in trust funds and other government accounts."
http://www.theneweditor.com/index.php?/archives/3063-The-5-Trillion-Surplus-The-Myth-that-Refuses-to-Die.html

"Myth #10: The Clinton tax increase boosted the economy in the 1990s and led to a budget surplus.

Fact: The Clinton tax increase delayed the economy's resurgence...the Clinton Administration's Office of Management and Budget projected budget deficits of more than $200 billion for the next 10 years."
http://www.heritage.org/research/socialsecurity/bg1467.cfm

You can do some research yourself, you know?

Really? You're too lazy to type "Clinton surplus myth" into Google? Fine.

"While not defending the increase of the federal debt under President Bush, it is aggravating seeing Clinton's record promoted as having generated a surplus. It never happened. There was never a surplus and the cold hard facts support that position. In fact, far from a $360 billion reduction in the national debt in FY1998-FY2000, there was an increase of $281 billion."
http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

"There was never a $5.6 trillion surplus at the end of the Clinton Administration. There was at the end of FY 2001, however, about $3.3 trillion in debt held in federal treasuries, and about $5.7 trillion worth of total debt, including that existing in trust funds and other government accounts."
http://www.theneweditor.com/index.php?/archives/3063-The-5-Trillion-Surplus-The-Myth-that-Refuses-to-Die.html

"Myth #10: The Clinton tax increase boosted the economy in the 1990s and led to a budget surplus.

Fact: The Clinton tax increase delayed the economy's resurgence...the Clinton Administration's Office of Management and Budget projected budget deficits of more than $200 billion for the next 10 years."
http://www.heritage.org/research/socialsecurity/bg1467.cfm

You can do some research yourself, you know?

Your arguement is two wingnut blogs and the heritage foundation? Youll have to do better.


Until I see some real facts, not a right wing blogger fapping off over his fantasies that Clinton is teh worstest president evah, Im going to go with you being wrong.

Your arguement is two wingnut blogs and the heritage foundation? Youll have to do better.


Until I see some real facts, not a right wing blogger fapping off over his fantasies that Clinton is teh worstest president evah, Im going to go with you being wrong.

So because you don't like my evidence it's wrong?

"I see the evidence for the Holocaust, but it's from Jewish sources so I can't believe they're reliable."

Really, that's what it's come to? I've provided my evidence, it's your job to refute it.

Clinton's tax plan ruined the great trickle-down economics that Reagan had started

Thank god for that, I shudder to think what our economy would be like had that particular economic theory not been put down like the rabid dog it was

So because you don't like my evidence it's wrong?

"I see the evidence for the Holocaust, but it's from Jewish sources so I can't believe they're reliable."

When your evidence is utterly uncredible (a blog ffs!) or stupidly partisan to the point of making things up (heritage foundation) it doesnt convince.

Its not wrong because I dont like your evidence. I dont like your evidence because its wrong.


Really, that's what it's come to? I've provided my evidence, it's your job to refute it.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/

Thank god for that, I shudder to think what our economy would be like had that particular economic theory not been put down like the rabid dog it was

Really? Because last time I checked, it was working pretty darn well. For everybody, not just the rich or just the poor. Because of Clinton, one side will forever be screwed in American politics: the rich or the poor. We can't both be happy because Clinton killed the successful trickle-down economics.

Really? Because last time I checked, it was working pretty darn well. For everybody, not just the rich or just the poor.

And you can back this up with something other than fantasy and Reagan personality cult lines, right?

(If you really still think Clinton left office with a surplus - do some research. And not from MSDNC, but rather from a credible source like the United States Treasury Department itself.)

Oh, like the Congressional Budget Office?

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9912/11-2008-Figure1.gif

Really? Because last time I checked, it was working pretty darn well.

Yeah, all that stagflation under Regan did a HELL of a job for the US economy.

Because of Clinton, one side will forever be screwed in American politics: the rich or the poor. We can't both be happy because Clinton killed the successful trickle-down economics.

Hey, wanna see something cool?

http://rodrik.typepad.com/dani_rodriks_weblog/WindowsLiveWriter/clip_image002%5B21%5D.gif

Holy crap, the rich AND the poor BOTH do better under democrats than they do under republicans! On average, every single income level, from the very poor, to the very rich, has seen higher growth under democrat presidents than republican ones.

Now, true, those points almost converge at the 97ish percentile, however they are still higher, by a hair, under democrat presidents. The fact is, that every single percentile of income sees more growth when democrat presidents are in power.

Every.

Single.

One.

Oh, like the Congressional Budget Office?

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9912/11-2008-Figure1.gif

Obviously left wing lies. Only the Heritage Foundation and Billy Bob the right wing blogger have the courage and insight to tell the truth!

Quote:
(Your personal attacks following the Korean comment): No, you can't treat all evil dictators the same. Bush's strategy for both countries worked. Sanctions didn't work on Sadaam, but they did on Kim Jung Il (by the way, his cousin's name is Menta Li Ill).

Quote of Knights of Liberty (who obviously doesn't believe in liberty of thought because he loves flaming)
"1. Sanctions had nothing to do with Kim working with us.
2. What does his cousin have to do with anything?"

1. Then what did? Unless you think that he was ALREADY working with us when he was launching ballistic missiles towards Japan.
2. It was a joke. Kim Jung Il's cousin is Menta Li Ill... you know, not right in the head, like Kim Jung Il. But I bet you are dying to have tea with him.

Also, why do you keep referring to me as a child? You have no idea what my age is, so again, stop assuming things or you will make an ass of yourself.

Im glad you dropped all the other BS you were spouting, but it would have been nice of you to admit your ignorance.



1. Then what did? Unless you think that he was ALREADY working with us when he was launching ballistic missiles towards Japan.

He was actually talking to us. And he never intended for those missiles to hit Japan. Hell, he probably never intended to get use the missiles. It was about international respect. And the US even sitting down and talking to him gave him that sense of respect.

The sanctions did nothing. They didnt hurt Kimmy, just his people. Which doesnt work, because the only person Kim cares about is Kim.

2. It was a joke. Kim Jung Il's cousin is Menta Li Ill... you know, not right in the head, like Kim Jung Il. But I bet you are dying to have tea with him.


Oh, ok I didnt know it was a joke. I didnt get it because I thought jokes were supposed to be funny.

Also, why do you keep referring to me as a child? You have no idea what my age is, so again, stop assuming things or you will make an ass of yourself.

Your ignorance of recent history, coupled with your views and your debating style gives me a pretty good idea how old you are.

Quote:
Also, why do you keep referring to me as a child?

Maybe because it's shit like this?

but they did on Kim Jung Il (by the way, his cousin's name is Menta Li Ill).

Which demonstrates that you're so painfully culturally unaware as to try to pass off this shitty joke, not knowing that in Korea, the family name comes first, and that "Kim Jung Il"'s personal name is not "Kim" it's "Jung Il" and "Kim" is his family name, so his cousin would not be named "Something Il" but rather "Kim Something".

Which generally makes you look stupid.

Maybe because it's shit like this?



Which demonstrates that you're so painfully culturally unaware as to try to pass off this shitty joke, not knowing that in Korea, the family name comes first, and that "Kim Jung Il"'s personal name is not "Kim" it's "Jung Il" and "Kim" is his family name, so his cousin would not be named "Something Il" but rather "Kim Something".

Which generally makes you look stupid.

And apperantly Im dying to have tea with the both of them.


I wonder if hes insulting tea?


Because I fucking love tea.

A note to newbs: watch how things work here, then post. Hmm, I should've done that when I started posting, oh well. At least I'm ok now.

As for the deal working with Kim Jong Ill, with whom I would totally have tea, as long as I get to pick which cup I drink out of. The reason it worked was because the US offerred food to North Korea and Kim Jong Ill wanted food more then nukes. Iran however HAS food, so you have to find something that Iran wants more then nukes, and then the Kim Jong Ill logic will work. As for Kim Jong Ill not giving a shit about the population, perhaps, but do realize that hungry people revolt a lot more often then well-fed people. And Kim Jong Ill doesn't like a revolution, in fact he hates this song, which I'll play at our tea ceremony: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7CStvwUOAg

I would go even further. He is a profound enemy of the 1776 revolution and every principle this country used to stand for. He usurped the office in the first place, and has behaved as a traitor ever since.

If this was a political movie, it would be called "The Madness of King George Part 2: The Revenge".

Back on subject:

True. Bush is definately not the worst president, let alone in the top 3 or 5. Remember, the economic situation isn't his fault. Clinton's tax plan ruined the great trickle-down economics that Reagan had started, and the deficit Clinton left Bush didn't help.

(If you really still think Clinton left office with a surplus - do some research. And not from MSDNC, but rather from a credible source like the United States Treasury Department itself.)

You know what you did wrong there?

You cited a source that you hadn't consulted yourself.

You actually directed other posters to a legitimate authority (Treasury is a legitimate authority on the deficit/surplus condition of the economy,) which disproves your point.

Quite aside from the fart-balloon gag of the sources you cited when asked to cite sources, that is an absolute, blue chip case of

Suicide by Appeal to Authority!

We don't see that too often around here. Nice work.

Quote:
(Your personal attacks following the Korean comment): No, you can't treat all evil dictators the same. Bush's strategy for both countries worked. Sanctions didn't work on Sadaam, but they did on Kim Jung Il (by the way, his cousin's name is Menta Li Ill).

Quote of Knights of Liberty (who obviously doesn't believe in liberty of thought because he loves flaming)

Knights of Liberty was officially warned for flaming. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14247889) So you're right about that.

If you click on the multiquote icon:http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/gg49/3-laws-of-Hobotics/multiquote_off.giffor each post you want to reply to, then the http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/gg49/3-laws-of-Hobotics/quote.gif button for the last post you want to quote (or the Reply button down left of the thread), then your reply box will have a lot of stuff in square brackets which will come up as a boxed quote.

If that's too complicated, just click the http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/gg49/3-laws-of-Hobotics/quote.gif button on the post you want to reply to, and type your reply beneath the square-bracketed stuff in your reply box (text entry "Reply to Thread.)

More people will read your reply if they can click the little green arrow and see the post it replies to.

I am not your friend. I disagree with your opinions on Presidents, but I also think you deserve a chance. NSG does have a left-wing bias, we need clear-speaking and unashamed right-wingers to have any chance of proper debate.

So, welcome.

Knights of Liberty was officially warned for flaming. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14247889) So you're right about that.

I wonder if this is gloating....?

Its got to be something, because its completely irrelevent. Maybe I should lecture you on how gloating is improper?

I wonder if this is gloating....?

No. I am linking to the ruling, for the benefit of a new user who may not be aware of the Moderation sub-forum.

Its got to be something, because its completely irrelevent. Maybe I should lecture you on how gloating is improper?

Lecture away. There's no rule against it.

I tried to politely point out to you that you were breaking a rule, and you (as you put it IN APPEAL TO MODERATION) told me to "shove it."

Next time, I won't lecture you. I see that you are a bad student.

So, bad student, let's hear your lecture.

Next time, I won't lecture you. I see that you are a bad student.


Being a bad student and ignoring some random schmo on the internet when he tells me Im mean is two different things.


I also like how you sigged me.

There have been those presidents with their corrupt agendas mixed with their unjustified wars surely. I don't deny that fact.

But it is the Bush administration that has completely eradicated the Constitution and your civil liberties. Did you know that right now, under the Bush Administration, you can be ripped away from your own home, taken to a dark prison, and tortured relentlessly without telling you why? And the only thing they have to say is that you are a wanted terrorist.

That doesn't sound like a good leader to me.

People seriously need to get over this "Bush is the worst president EVAAAAAAAAR!" shite.I agree. They really need to stop deluding themselves, don't they, FO?
Bush is not a bad president.
Bush is a horrible excuse for a president.
See the difference?

No. I am linking to the ruling, for the benefit of a new user who may not be aware of the Moderation sub-forum.


Interesting. Out of all the possible ways to point out the moderation rules to the newbie, you choose the one that involves KoL getting warned, due to your efforts.

But of course you are not gloating. And I'm never sarcastic.

Interesting. Out of all the possible ways to point out the moderation rules to the newbie, you choose the one that involves KoL getting warned, due to your efforts.

But of course you are not gloating. And I'm never sarcastic.

Seems a tad interesting doesnt it?


Ive already asked the Mods to remove the link from his sig. Im not petty enough to report his post here.


But after that link is removed, hes going on ignore.

I agree. They really need to stop deluding themselves, don't they, FO?
Bush is not a bad president.
Bush is a horrible excuse for a president.
See the difference?

Back on topic. Can we just say no more Supreme Court Justices electing the President? Or get rid of the EC all together? Or do we need another Bush to prove the failure of the EC? (Yes Gore won the Popular Vote :D)

Back on topic. Can we just say no more Supreme Court Justices electing the President? Or get rid of the EC all together? Or do we need another Bush to prove the failure of the EC? (Yes Gore won the Popular Vote :D)

Post count 666. Grats.

Seems a tad interesting doesnt it?


Ive already asked the Mods to remove the link from his sig. Im not petty enough to report his post here.


But after that link is removed, hes going on ignore.

Well this seems a bit petty to me:

"The words "partisan little worm" and "dipshit" are directed at a poster who has done nothing but put a strong partisan opinion, which is entirely on-topic."

I mean partisan little worm, geez that was in a classroom discussion and in Law School Discussion, and warning over "dipshit" alone kinda seems unfair. But I will not question the Mods, for they maintain this forum and deserve the outmost respect. However bothering the Mods with something like "dipshit" doesn't seem, shall we say, oh boy I don't want to be on thin ice with the Mods, well KoL you get my point.

Edit: put it this way: if people call me "dipshit" I vow not to report to the mods and gloat about it :D

Post count 666. Grats.

I hate you. You had to mention that, didn't you?

I hate you. You had to mention that, didn't you?

Of course I did.

Of course I did.

I hereby, bestow on KoL - the NSG's MPLPA - Most Predictable Liberal Poster Award! :D

I hereby, bestow on KoL - the NSG's MPLPA - Most Predictable Liberal Poster Award! :D

Aweosme. I think Im going to sig this.

Aweosme. I think Im going to sig this.

Since it's so aweosme I give you copyright permission. :p

Actually I enjoy reading your posts, especially when you're taking heat and you get so passionate. And on that note, I'm outta here. :D

There, I said it. People seriously need to get over this "Bush is the worst president EVAAAAAAAAR!" shite. He's mediocre at worst.
A mediocre in the most powerful place in difficult times is one of the worst disasters ever.


Think his administration was inefficient? There have been far worse; Grant's govt. comes to mind. Don't like the Iraq War? Well you'd better start hating on JFK and Truman as well, because they took the US into Korea and Vietnam, two far more destructive wars.
Actually I wouldn't blame Truman about Korea - after all, the US intervened with a green light from the UN. I hate to defend the US vs my "fellow comrades" (btw, I never liked chinese or korean communism), but that must be said.
We might argue about FDR and WW2, though.

Upset about the economy? It wasn't Bush; it took years of neglect from all around the world to get it to this state, Bush didn't just wave his hand and destroy the world economy.
Problem is, the Shrub did nothing but worsen the situation. And that happened because he and his cabinet always refused to listen to more qualified people.

The Bush bashing was starting to get pathetic. I agree that bashing Bush is pathetic... it's what we in Italy call "shooting at the Red Cross" (that is, shooting at something that can't defend itself).

Interesting. Out of all the possible ways to point out the moderation rules to the newbie, you choose the one that involves KoL getting warned, due to your efforts.

Not due to my efforts. Due to KoL calling another poster "a worm" and calling them "dipshit."

Defend that, or shut up.

But of course you are not gloating. And I'm never sarcastic.

I'm not gloating. Unless you can see any part of what you quote which is not purely informative, to the newbie, of how things work here.

This is a moderated forum. Moderation must be seen to be done, so I referred the newbie to the place where that judgement was made.

Shofercia, I have much respect for you, as I know you by your posts. Indeed, Knights of Liberty is a great poster too.

But if either of you think it's OK to flame a poster, any poster, even in the midst of an otherwise cogent reply ... think again. I'll report you, if you do that. I'll report Jocabia, if they do that. I'll report Katganistan, if they do that.

It's a blatant infraction of the rules, and it will not stand.

Oh, fer cryin' out loud.

Bunnysaurus, Shofercia, KoL, give it a rest. It's o-ver.

Shofercia, it doesn't actually matter how KoL's slip back into his old habits came to mod attention, but to put your concerns to rest: I saw KoL's post earlier and would eventually have got around to it whether Bunnysaurus posted in Moderation or not.

When my adult kids squabble about trivia I have been known to squirt them with a soda siphon. Beware!

Go on Ardy......you know they want it.

Go on Ardy......you know they want it.

I'm waiting for Fris to finish his work on the RSP, Remote Strangling Protocol, through which mods will be able to reach out through the internet and strangle particularly offensive posters.

When he gets it to beta I'll see if he can do a modification for the RSSP, Remote Soda-Siphon Protocol.

I'm waiting for Fris to finish his work on the RSP, Remote Strangling Protocol, through which mods will be able to reach out through the internet and strangle particularly offensive posters.

When he gets it to beta I'll see if he can do a modification for the RSSP, Remote Soda-Siphon Protocol.

Mmm, soda. :)

My original post said "Kennedy got us INVOLVED in Vietnam."

No, that was Eisenhower.
Stop assuming I'm an idiot; you'll make us BOTH look ignorant. And I know that Nixon messed up the NVA before pulling out of Vietnam.

No, he didn't. What he did mess up was Cambodia.

The only reason I ever liked Bush is that he ticked off most the people in the world.

I'm appalled by FeO's lack of understanding of American politics. Obama can't take office till January. He can try to rally Congress, but nothing can be done when Bush explicitly says that he won't make any big moves.

About Democrats starting the war in Vietnam, I won't disagree, even if that statement is false, because I do not know whether they did or not. I will say that the Democratic Party has CHANGED and the Republican Party has not.

The only reason I ever liked Bush is that he ticked off most the people in the world.

I'm appalled by FeO's lack of understanding of American politics. Obama can't take office till January. He can try to rally Congress, but nothing can be done when Bush explicitly says that he won't make any big moves.

About Democrats starting the war in Vietnam, I won't disagree, even if that statement is false, because I do not know whether they did or not. I will say that the Democratic Party has CHANGED and the Republican Party has not.

Rusty has repeatedly referred to American politics as the worst system imaginable, so his ignorance of it's minutiae is hardly remarkable.

About Democrats starting the war in Vietnam, I won't disagree, even if that statement is false, because I do not know whether they did or not. I will say that the Democratic Party has CHANGED and the Republican Party has not.

In a sense, both parties have changed in that they've both evolved to take the other's previous place on the political spectrum. They seemingly switched places in many respects.

Rusty has repeatedly referred to American politics as the worst system imaginable, so his ignorance of it's minutiae is hardly remarkable.

Actually Potato Boy's made it clear he neither knows anything accurate about Australian, much less American politics nor can he be arsed to. All his posts to date have been nothing but constant emo-sturbation that wishes Bush, Blair and Howard were still in charge.

About Democrats starting the war in Vietnam, I won't disagree, even if that statement is false, because I do not know whether they did or not. I will say that the Democratic Party has CHANGED and the Republican Party has not.
Hang on. The Republican party, when it was introduced, had an almost-friendly relationship with organized labor. It started off claiming to be the party of the free white worker. The Republican party is now antithetical to labor.

The Republican party took off under Lincoln, whose precedents, particularly that of Gen. Grant v Confederate States of America, were all for a stronger federal government with more limited authority for the states. Now, almost all remaining states-rightists are within the Republican party, and federalism in the Republican party is almost completely dead.

The Republican party, during the reconstruction era, lead the charge in getting blacks to vote. The modern Republican party leads in suppressing the black vote.

The Republican party was if anything a force for equality between blacks and whites. In 1948, Strom Thurmond led the charge of racist democrats and Segregationists out of the Democratic party. In 1964, Nixon introduced the "Southern Strategy" to gain support in the racially charged South.

The amendment allowing a federal income tax - which everybody understood would be graduated to fall most heavily upon the rich - was proposed by Taft, a Republican president. Today, the Republican party whines a lot about the income tax.

We used to talk about "liberal Republicans." Not anymore.

Rusty has repeatedly referred to American politics as the worst system imaginable, so his ignorance of it's minutiae is hardly remarkable.

Well it depends. American Politics overall are not the worst system imaginable. However certain aspects of American Politics are the worst democratic system imaginable, here are a few examples:

Electoral College - no other democracy has it, why do you think? It is by its very notion undemocratic as the vote of someone living in a swing state counts 10 times more then the vote of someone living in California. Also, without the EC, Gore would be president, not Bush, and voting turnout would be higher!

The Horse Race Media Coverage - although few democracies have this, it seems retarded and a bit dipshitty to have the newspapers/TV channels cover the election in such a way as to get themselves the most viewers, instead of informing the most viewers on policies of each party. The Internet Independent Websites that are bi-partisan, like Real Clear Politics, have the most unbiased version of events. Why can't TV and newspapers do the same? Shouldn't law require them to not blatantly lie? Since when did lying become protected under journalism? *sees ghost of Murdoch* Ahh right.

Campaign Finance Reform - essentially made to keep third parties from running, while lauded becuase it gives everyone a fair chance, one of the best examples of hypocracy ever.

Hang on. The Republican party, when it was introduced, had an almost-friendly relationship with organized labor. It started off claiming to be the party of the free white worker. The Republican party is now antithetical to labor.

The Republican party took off under Lincoln, whose precedents, particularly that of Gen. Grant v Confederate States of America, were all for a stronger federal government with more limited authority for the states. Now, almost all remaining states-rightists are within the Republican party, and federalism in the Republican party is almost completely dead.

The Republican party, during the reconstruction era, lead the charge in getting blacks to vote. The modern Republican party leads in suppressing the black vote.

The Republican party was if anything a force for equality between blacks and whites. In 1948, Strom Thurmond led the charge of racist democrats and Segregationists out of the Democratic party. In 1964, Nixon introduced the "Southern Strategy" to gain support in the racially charged South.

The amendment allowing a federal income tax - which everybody understood would be graduated to fall most heavily upon the rich - was proposed by Taft, a Republican president. Today, the Republican party whines a lot about the income tax.

We used to talk about "liberal Republicans." Not anymore.

Let us not forget the rise of the Religious Right, and the general rightward shift of the party after Ronald Reagan.

Actually Potato Boy's made it clear he neither knows anything accurate about Australian, much less American politics nor can he be arsed to. All his posts to date have been nothing but constant emo-sturbation that wishes Bush, Blair and Howard were still in charge.

[Rust imitation] KEVIN RUDD IS EVIL. BRING ME BACK JOHN HOWARD! [/Rust imitation]

emo-sturbation

Where do you come up with this stuff? :p

Let us not forget the rise of the Religious Right, and the general rightward shift of the party during Richard Nixon.

Fixed :D

Fixed :D

Really, why do you say that? Not being confrontational, just curious. Nixon and Ford were pretty moderate by today's standard.

Oh, fer cryin' out loud.

Bunnysaurus, Shofercia, KoL, give it a rest. It's o-ver.

Shofercia, it doesn't actually matter how KoL's slip back into his old habits came to mod attention, but to put your concerns to rest: I saw KoL's post earlier and would eventually have got around to it whether Bunnysaurus posted in Moderation or not.

When my adult kids squabble about trivia I have been known to squirt them with a soda siphon. Beware!

How many sodas do we get for calling people worms? What if someone's last time was Worm, and you called him worm, would you still get a soda?

ALL HANDS BRACE FOR IMPACT!!!

Ok, ok, I stop! I behave now. :$

Really, why do you say that? Not being confrontational, just curious. Nixon and Ford were pretty moderate by today's standard.

The shift in the Republican Party occurred while Nixon and his cronies were in power. That's just history. And Nixon gave a mandate to the current health care companies that ruin America today, to start up and make a profit at the expense of everyone else. Nixon gave the president the EPA, just as Congress was on the verge of passing it. That move is what's currently giving Bush power for his polluting the environment beyond belief. I gotta congratulate Bush, due to his very recent (this month) environmental shit, he's now the first US president I'm giving negative points to. Also, the current Republican strategy of going for specific groups, rather then the overal voting spectrum, and thus dividing American society, started out under Nixon and was finalized under Reagan.

Let's not forget how crafty Nixon was at lying. For instance he told the Chinese where the Russian missiles were, but at the same time told the Russians where the Chinese tanks were, thus actually helping the US in the Cold War by getting the USSR and China at each other. And both sides trusted him. The same could be said in the US; he acted like a moderate, but behind the scenes, he was extremely conservative - Cheney would love his domestic policy, the one where "if the president does it, it's legal".

The shift in the Republican Party occurred while Nixon and his cronies were in power. That's just history. And Nixon gave a mandate to the current health care companies that ruin America today, to start up and make a profit at the expense of everyone else. Nixon gave the president the EPA, just as Congress was on the verge of passing it. That move is what's currently giving Bush power for his polluting the environment beyond belief. I gotta congratulate Bush, due to his very recent (this month) environmental shit, he's now the first US president I'm giving negative points to. Also, the current Republican strategy of going for specific groups, rather then the overal voting spectrum, and thus dividing American society, started out under Nixon and was finalized under Reagan.

Let's not forget how crafty Nixon was at lying. For instance he told the Chinese where the Russian missiles were, but at the same time told the Russians where the Chinese tanks were, thus actually helping the US in the Cold War by getting the USSR and China at each other. And both sides trusted him. The same could be said in the US; he acted like a moderate, but behind the scenes, he was extremely conservative - Cheney would love his domestic policy, the one where "if the president does it, it's legal".

I certainly didn't intend to imply that I thought Nixon was a good President, or a good human being for that matter, but I'm not entirely buying Nixon being a closest conservative, he was always regarded as part of the moderate wing of the party, but you raise some good points.

I certainly didn't intend to imply that I thought Nixon was a good President, or a good human being for that matter, but I'm not entirely buying Nixon being a closest conservative, he was always regarded as part of the moderate wing of the party, but you raise some good points.

Thank You. Nixon wasn't as right wing as Goldwater, but his policies enabled Goldwater to come to power in the face of Reagan. Thank you for making me clear it up :D

I think the main problem is that name of this topic is "Bush is not a BAD president" while it keeps being argued he is not worst.
Well worst he may not be, in history of politics there are many clusterfu*ks, but bad?
I don't think there is any doubt. Any president who's first term starts with biggest budget surplus in history and ends with bigest budget deficite in history can't really be called anything but bad.
And thats completly setting a side a war, foreign relationships disaster, hurricane disaste missmanagement, recession and scandal apon scandal.
BY any objective standard he is a bad president.

I think the main problem is that name of this topic is "Bush is not a BAD president" while it keeps being argued he is not worst.
Well worst he may not be, in history of politics there are many clusterfu*ks, but bad?
I don't think there is any doubt. Any president who's first term starts with biggest budget surplus in history and ends with bigest budget deficite in history can't really be called anything but bad.
And thats completly setting a side a war, foreign relationships disaster, hurricane disaste missmanagement, recession and scandal apon scandal.
BY any objective standard he is a bad president.

So if I'm a CEO of a major oil company, my standard is not objective?! That's discrimination against CEOs, I demand a bailout to set things right!

emo-sturbation

You just coined that...