Worst President in History?

[jango]

Quote: (Originally Posted by BearFan)

What??????????? You gotta be shittin' me!
Bush and his administration made his decisions based on intelligence both from our CIA and from other intelligence sources worldwide, if I'm not mistaken.
The economy is not linked to the president! The economy runs in freakin' cycles! We've had many recessions and booms and all since it began. And guess what: I remember when Bush was campaigning for president, one of his stances was being prepared for the coming recession (whose severity was only compounded by September 11); I don't recall anything from Gore at the time. That says to me that Bush has people in his administration that understand how the economy works.
I'm pretty sure Bush is also trying to get help for Africans infected with AIDS.
Additionally, the United States has been despised worldwide for many years. Our global popularity has plummeted since the end of World War II. It certainly is not Bush that has destroyed our reputation. If I can point to any one thing that may've harmed this the most in the past, it's probably Vietnam (before we entered). Your assessment of global opinion of Clinton vs. that of Bush is "slightly" skewed.
But I do apolgize for any party-bashing that I may have done.

You're quickly becoming a moron on my rapidly growing list... Where to begin...

1. Bush made his decisions based NOT upon intelligence, but upon his own ill-fated preconceived notions that he was sent by God to destroy Hussein for trying to kill his daddy. Bush, as O'Neill proves, was planning to invade Iraq with preemptive strikes LONG before he even began gathering intelligence. Secondly, the fact that Bush ousted Saddam is not the most telling point in this debate. It is, however, the fact that Bush deceived the American people on multiple occasions, playing to their emotions and linking Hussein to 9/11. On top of all this, he abandoned what should have been the true target in the war on terror: bin Laden. Was Saddam a bad person? Of course. However, Bush's deceit, lies, and rampant corruption are the problem.

2. Yes, the economy runs in "freakin' cycles." However, it is up to the President and his advisors to alter the circle. Bush's tax cuts for the rich did nothing to stimulate the economy. His massive and fiscally irresponsible budget will do nothing but plummet the country into further debt. Keep in mind, the degree to which either success or failure of these cycles is reached depends on the President. Clinton turned the nation's worst budget deficit into the highest surplus. Bush has destroyed the surplus by giving tax breaks to the wealthiest one percent while cutting benefits to other groups, such as veterans. Bush has people in his inner circle that understand how the economy can benefit their friends, not the country.

3. Bush, as every other politician does, has stated that he wants to help people with AIDS in Africa. There is no action, simply talk.

4. Our "global popularity" going downhill was not a product of World War II. It was achieved in too many ways to number. From our insatiable lust for wealth and material goods in the 80s to our support of Israel against Palestine. There are far too many reasons and not nearly enough time to explain why everyone hates the US. Yes, the Vietnam War was a downside, but not the only problem. Bush on the other hand, has destroyed many relations with countries around the world. His "coalition of the willing" turned into Canada, Britain, and Israel... kinda. Compare this to the Gulf War, where his father had reasonable cause to attack and the differences are staggering. Bush has alienated the country from many allies and the lack of WMD only prove his motives.

5. "TIGHTER CONTROLS OF THE BORDER" ? What in the hell? Bush is opening the borders you moron. The color code is a disgrace to America, belittling our intelligence to a preschool color lesson. If homeland security is such a success... where are the WMD? Or bin Laden? or his top officials? Why is North Korea not the problem with nukes? If Saddam was 'duped' by his scientists, then they 'duped' the President, too.

[facelessman]

whoa

[american_bad_a$]

tremonti_Fed - i don't know where to start with you. you are so full of false ideas about the american government that i am getting sick.

tell me one lie that you can proove beyond a shadow of a doubt that bush told to the american people. and no, lack of wmd is not a lie. he just acted on bad information. is that a lie? i don't think so.

he was elected through florida. but that was not a fluke deal. gore had the majority of the polular vote. bush did not win by ill means.

what way should saddam have been taken out?

who cares about strip searches?? if it take a little embarrasment for me to undress in an airport to keep potential bombs out of airplains, then so be it. i can take a little embarassment if that makes the coutry safer. anyone who wouldn't is a pansy and selfish.

capital punishment - Genesis 9:6, "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God, has Godmade man."

Jango -

you said - "1. Bush made his decisions based NOT upon intelligence, but upon his own ill-fated preconceived notions that he was sent by God to destroy Hussein for trying to kill his daddy. Bush, as O'Neill proves, was planning to invade Iraq with preemptive strikes LONG before he even began gathering intelligence. Secondly, the fact that Bush ousted Saddam is not the most telling point in this debate. It is, however, the fact that Bush deceived the American people on multiple occasions, playing to their emotions and linking Hussein to 9/11. On top of all this, he abandoned what should have been the true target in the war on terror: bin Laden. Was Saddam a bad person? Of course. However, Bush's deceit, lies, and rampant corruption are the problem."

Prove it. saddam threatened america. bush acted under bad intelligence. but taking him out, was not wrong.

tighter border controls?? he is doing it you bastard!!

i am so tired i can't think strait, so i am sure i did not put in all the info i have on the subject, so this will just have to do.

[RMadd]

Quote: (Originally Posted by jango)

1. Bush made his decisions based NOT upon intelligence, but upon his own ill-fated preconceived notions that he was sent by God to destroy Hussein for trying to kill his daddy. Bush, as O'Neill proves, was planning to invade Iraq with preemptive strikes LONG before he even began gathering intelligence. Secondly, the fact that Bush ousted Saddam is not the most telling point in this debate. It is, however, the fact that Bush deceived the American people on multiple occasions, playing to their emotions and linking Hussein to 9/11. On top of all this, he abandoned what should have been the true target in the war on terror: bin Laden. Was Saddam a bad person? Of course. However, Bush's deceit, lies, and rampant corruption are the problem.

While it may be accurate to say Bush wanted revenge against Saddam, or to finish what his father didn't feel obligated to finish, they did base their arguments on intelligence. When Powell went before the UN, did he not use military intelligence to make his case?

Quote: (Originally Posted by jango)

2. Yes, the economy runs in "freakin' cycles." However, it is up to the President and his advisors to alter the circle. Bush's tax cuts for the rich did nothing to stimulate the economy. His massive and fiscally irresponsible budget will do nothing but plummet the country into further debt. Keep in mind, the degree to which either success or failure of these cycles is reached depends on the President. Clinton turned the nation's worst budget deficit into the highest surplus. Bush has destroyed the surplus by giving tax breaks to the wealthiest one percent while cutting benefits to other groups, such as veterans. Bush has people in his inner circle that understand how the economy can benefit their friends, not the country.

Has any other president, other than FDR "resurrected the economy"? Even his didn't work until the start of WWII. And if you've been watching the Dow lately, it's been going up. Usually that's a pretty good (understatement) indicator of how the economy's doing. And Clinton didn't bring the US out of debt; he merely balanced the budget for a year or two. That's because he didn't have to suddenly face any war that wasn't in Congress' plans.

Quote: (Originally Posted by jango)

and the lack of WMD only prove his motives.

No it doesn't. It proves that the intelligence acquired from the CIA and other international sources was faulty. And that, as I've said, Saddam didn't even know he was being played by his top scientists.

Additionally, there is no need for your outrageous insults. I believe it was Marcos who pointed out a week or so ago that many of us Republicans appeared more inclined to bash Democrats than did Democrats against Republicans. Since then, I've been trying to control my Democrat-bashing, which I feel I've done a pretty good job of. I'm attempting to present my views on these matters, and while you did offer reasonable objections to those views, your incessant, immature name-calling has significantly lowered my regard for your opinion.

[RMadd]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Tremonti_Fed)

but that's the kind of stuff you'll never read in the news, since the media is 85% pro-Bush.

It is most definitely not. The American media, at least, has been widely proven to take the liberal stance on many issues. Granted, many supported Bush immediately following 9/11, conveniently enough when his approval rating was sky-high and all the liberal Democrats were agreeing with him.

[Lechium]

Kids, listen to Jango. He took his time to write out the way things are mostl likeley are like, and seems to me that he's pretty correct.

Anything smark usually falls onto deaf ears, now doesnt it?

[Steve]

Quote: (Originally Posted by jango)

and the lack of WMD only prove his motives.

Can you prove that Bush created false intelligence reports in order to justify war with Iraq? If so, then maybe I'll believe this. The president acted on intelligence he received from his sources. If the intelligence was wrong, blame the sources.

[RMadd]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Lechium)

Kids, listen to Jango. He took his time to write out the way things are mostl likeley are like, and seems to me that he's pretty correct.

Quote: (Originally Posted by Steve)

Can you prove that Bush created false intelligence reports in order to justify war with Iraq? If so, then maybe I'll believe this. The president acted on intelligence he received from his sources. If the intelligence was wrong, blame the sources.

I swear, I must've said that in every post of mine, Steve. And Lech, what about all the time those of us who support Bush have taken to type lengthy posts of support? Just b/c you may think they're "most likely" right (you're not even 100% confident in him or yourself), doesn't mean they are. Should I say that, because I have 100% confidence in what I'm saying, I am definitively correct?

[Lechium]

Quote: (Originally Posted by BearFan)

I swear, I must've said that in every post of mine, Steve. And Lech, what about all the time those of us who support Bush have taken to type lengthy posts of support? Just b/c you may think they're "most likely" right (you're not even 100% confident in him or yourself), doesn't mean they are. Should I say that, because I have 100% confidence in what I'm saying, I am definitively correct?

...maybe cuz most people who support Bush, just reiterate what out lovley media tells us, and there's nothing special about that at all?

[RMadd]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Lechium)

...maybe cuz most people who support Bush, just reiterate what out lovley media tells us, and there's nothing special about that at all?

Sorry, the media doesn't really support Bush. They're far more liberal-minded when it comes to social issues than is Bush. And if, in fact, I'm repeating Republican rhetoric, are you not just repeating Democrat rhetoric?

[Steve]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Lechium)

...maybe cuz most people who support Bush, just reiterate what out lovley media tells us, and there's nothing special about that at all?

Is Fox News the only channel you watch (I highly doubt it, but asking to prove my point)? If not, then what do you watch? All the major media networks are liberal, and most primetime reporters are anti-Bush. You ever hear Tom Brokaw or Peter Jennings? How about those on CNN?

And talking about reiterating what the media tells us... what do you think all the democrats have been doing this past year? People against Bush simply rehash all the stories about the election fraud, military service records, etc. etc. etc. as their argument as to why Bush shouldn't be in office. It's no different for either party.

[american_bad_a$]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Steve)

Is Fox News the only channel you watch (I highly doubt it, but asking to prove my point)? If not, then what do you watch? All the major media networks are liberal, and most primetime reporters are anti-Bush. You ever hear Tom Brokaw or Peter Jennings? How about those on CNN?

And talking about reiterating what the media tells us... what do you think all the democrats have been doing this past year? People against Bush simply rehash all the stories about the election fraud, military service records, etc. etc. etc. as their argument as to why Bush shouldn't be in office. It's no different for either party.

bravo, steve.

[archie bunker]

Quote: (Originally Posted by jango)

You're quickly becoming a moron on my rapidly growing list... Where to begin...

1. Bush made his decisions based NOT upon intelligence, but upon his own ill-fated preconceived notions that he was sent by God to destroy Hussein for trying to kill his daddy. Bush, as O'Neill proves, was planning to invade Iraq with preemptive strikes LONG before he even began gathering intelligence. Secondly, the fact that Bush ousted Saddam is not the most telling point in this debate. It is, however, the fact that Bush deceived the American people on multiple occasions, playing to their emotions and linking Hussein to 9/11. On top of all this, he abandoned what should have been the true target in the war on terror: bin Laden. Was Saddam a bad person? Of course. However, Bush's deceit, lies, and rampant corruption are the problem.

2. Yes, the economy runs in "freakin' cycles." However, it is up to the President and his advisors to alter the circle. Bush's tax cuts for the rich did nothing to stimulate the economy. His massive and fiscally irresponsible budget will do nothing but plummet the country into further debt. Keep in mind, the degree to which either success or failure of these cycles is reached depends on the President. Clinton turned the nation's worst budget deficit into the highest surplus. Bush has destroyed the surplus by giving tax breaks to the wealthiest one percent while cutting benefits to other groups, such as veterans. Bush has people in his inner circle that understand how the economy can benefit their friends, not the country.

3. Bush, as every other politician does, has stated that he wants to help people with AIDS in Africa. There is no action, simply talk.

4. Our "global popularity" going downhill was not a product of World War II. It was achieved in too many ways to number. From our insatiable lust for wealth and material goods in the 80s to our support of Israel against Palestine. There are far too many reasons and not nearly enough time to explain why everyone hates the US. Yes, the Vietnam War was a downside, but not the only problem. Bush on the other hand, has destroyed many relations with countries around the world. His "coalition of the willing" turned into Canada, Britain, and Israel... kinda. Compare this to the Gulf War, where his father had reasonable cause to attack and the differences are staggering. Bush has alienated the country from many allies and the lack of WMD only prove his motives.

5. "TIGHTER CONTROLS OF THE BORDER" ? What in the hell? Bush is opening the borders you moron. The color code is a disgrace to America, belittling our intelligence to a preschool color lesson. If homeland security is such a success... where are the WMD? Or bin Laden? or his top officials? Why is North Korea not the problem with nukes? If Saddam was 'duped' by his scientists, then they 'duped' the President, too.

your organized little list is nice an slippery but i'd like to see the nice little shitty things the other smart presidents have done wrong that would take up to much typing time ya think?????

[american_bad_a$]

damn skippy.

[RMadd]

Steve Is My Hero!!!!!