Worst President Post WWII

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
vroom wrote:
Steveo, you do realize the consequence of arguing that Bush and Rummy can’t be held responsible for anything that goes wrong during their administration is that they don’t get personal credit for the hard work of the FBI or the CIA or more locally based authorities.

Sorry, keeping America safe is the job of the various subunits of the Department of Homeland Security. Bush really has very little to do with such day to day operations, does he?

If he does, I’m sure you’ll agree that he is personally responsible for the behavior at Abu-Graib.

Drop the pom-pom’s nancy-boy, nobody is buying it.

Listen you Bush haters will blame him for everything, give him no credit for anything, and bash him without end. However, Bush has kept America safe – the last time I looked, the FBI, Homeland Security, etc. is under the {b] Executive Branch [/b] of which he is the head. As Truman said, “the buck stops here.”
[/quote]

No. The buck doesn’t stop there. You just say that because it sounds good. You give Bush credit for keeping the US safe after 9/11 but you blame Clinton for 9/11.

You can’t have it both ways.

82

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
Oh, what a suprise! The liberal, communist, blame America first, left thinks that Bush stinks. Oh, what a surprise.[/quote]

Hey Steve, a question: What makes you assume that every anti-war or anti-Bush viewpoint comes from the left? Do you believe there are no conservative dissidents to this admin?

I have news for you and the other hawks on this thread who think this is a leftist piece: It’s Libertarian.

Ivan Eland is an American defense analyst and author. He is currently a Senior Fellow and Director of the Center on Peace and Liberty at the Independent Institute. Eland’s writings generally propose libertarian and anti-intervertionist policies.

…

[i]Ivan Eland is the author of the books Putting “Defense” Back into U.S. Defense Policy (2001) and The Empire Has No Clothes: U.S. Foreign Policy Exposed (2004). He has also written essays including forty-five in-depth studies on national security issues[1] and numerous popular articles. He addressed the subjects of American foreign, defense, and intelligence policies, military readiness and threat analysis, Sino-American relations, the Taiwan issue, terrorism and its effects on civil liberties, the lessons of the Vietnam War, WMD proliferation, National Missile Defense, the National Security Agency, the ABM Treaty, submarines, special operations forces, NATO expansion, and U.S. policy towards Iraq and Iran. Eland opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003.[2]

Eland is the assistant editor of the Independent Review and writes a regular column for the website Antiwar.com.[/i]

Steve, the author of this piece is more conservative than YOU are.

83

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
Funny, though, how you don’t answer simple questions, but continue your personal attack.[/quote]

What incentive do I have to actually spend time answering your questions? You have made up your mind; no amount of explanation I can provide will change it.

84

[quote]hspder wrote:
What incentive do I have to actually spend time answering your questions? You have made up your mind; no amount of explanation I can provide will change it.
[/quote]

Don’t be trying to apply any of that there sophisticated logic crap Doc, we ain’t having none of it!

85

[quote]
Wreckless wrote:
He was a traitor and should have been shot.[/quote]

Actually, he did get shot.

86

[quote]pookie wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
He was a traitor and should have been shot.

Actually, he did get shot.[/quote]

ROTFLMAO!

The fact so many people in the US idolize Reagan demonstrates that it’s all about perception… reality is pretty much irrelevant. That is why discussing what was the best or worst president will always descend into a discussion that is as objective and fact-filled as discussing which is your favorite color…

87

[quote]vroom wrote:
Don’t be trying to apply any of that there sophisticated logic crap Doc, we ain’t having none of it![/quote]

ROTFLMAO!

You now owe me a new keyboard. This one just got covered in Surge… :slight_smile:

88

[quote]metalsluggx wrote:
Zeppelin795 wrote:
Here is who Ivan Eland- of The Independent Institute - has picked for his nomination of the worst president post WWII.

Ok obviously this is an anti-war effort and propagada from the enemy to destroy our war effort. If this was Clinton I could agree, but not Bush, I mean I’m republican and Christian and so is he! He said so. Anyways stop sprewing this political crap because its pureley political and not the life we share.
[/quote]

Funny!

89

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
Oh, what a suprise! The liberal, communist, blame America first, left thinks that Bush stinks. Oh, what a surprise.

Yes, our President certainly is the worst. Here are some of his more egregious mistakes:

(1) He has kept the U.S. safe from terrorists since 9/11.

(2) His tax cuts have produced an excellent, sustained, economic recovery with plenty of job growth and income growth.

(3) He has removed one of the most evil men from ruling 50 million people in Iraq, with the potential of creating a U.S. ally in a vital region in the world.

(4) He has nominated several Justices to the U.S. Supreme Court who will interpret the Constitution instead of legislating from the bench.

(5) He has expressed his love for God – which I know is a terrible example to others. Can you imagine the bad influence he will have on our kids – I mean, what will they think about a President that actually believes in following the 10 Commandments.

Need I go on? This is why the left cannot win elections, will not win elections, but will say and do anything to try to regain power.

Actually, I like the extremism. Keep it up – you will lose this coming election also.[/quote]

I’m not sure how you eqate a libertarian as the left but it just goes to show the level of brainwashing you’ve let yourself succumb to.

90

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Zeppelin795 wrote:
Here is who Ivan Eland- of The Independent Institute - has picked for his nomination of the worst president post WWII.

In all fairness, regardless of party affiliation, no President should be compared to any past President in terms of legacy until his term is up.

[/quote]

It is a fair point, but according to Eland I’d think Bush would have to turn water to wine. And considering his past indiscretions this is almost impossible.

91

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Great post, zep!!!

It must trully suck to realize that your candidates for President were “worse” than the “worst.”

Keep up the great work!!!

Seriously, any list of the worst Presidents post-World War II that doesn’t have either jimmycarter or richardnixon on the top, is invalid from the start.

Therefore, nice try.

I’m laughing at your party’s inability to defeat him.

You stink,

JeffR[/quote]

As usual a complete inane post, but what else to expect from a republican robot. You could never see anyone’s point of view in a objective manor as you are too busy licking Bush’s boots!
Follow the truth no matter where it leads is not at all part of your creed.

Oh yeah the party I voted for in the last 2 elections hasn’t came close but I’m okay knowing that I voted with my conscious instead of the lesser of 2 evils.

92

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

Oh yeah the party I voted for in the last 2 elections hasn’t came close but I’m okay knowing that I voted with my conscious instead of the lesser of 2 evils.
[/quote]

Please continue to vote your “conscious”, so the grown-ups don’t have to waste a vote cancelling out yours.

93

When did you ever vote for a grown-up?

94

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
When did you ever vote for a grown-up?[/quote]

Please work on your reading comprehension.

95

Does that bet include crack dealers and East Palo Alto? Just checkin’. =-)

96

[quote]hspder wrote:
vroom wrote:
Don’t be trying to apply any of that there sophisticated logic crap Doc, we ain’t having none of it!

ROTFLMAO!

You now owe me a new keyboard. This one just got covered in Surge… :-)[/quote]

We know it was NOT Surge on the keyboard, right, Mr. Phony Phds?

HH

97

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
Oh, what a suprise! The liberal, communist, blame America first, left thinks that Bush stinks. Oh, what a surprise.

Hey Steve, a question: What makes you assume that every anti-war or anti-Bush viewpoint comes from the left? Do you believe there are no conservative dissidents to this admin?

I have news for you and the other hawks on this thread who think this is a leftist piece: It’s Libertarian.

Ivan Eland is an American defense analyst and author. He is currently a Senior Fellow and Director of the Center on Peace and Liberty at the Independent Institute. Eland’s writings generally propose libertarian and anti-intervertionist policies.

…

[i]Ivan Eland is the author of the books Putting “Defense” Back into U.S. Defense Policy (2001) and The Empire Has No Clothes: U.S. Foreign Policy Exposed (2004). He has also written essays including forty-five in-depth studies on national security issues[1] and numerous popular articles. He addressed the subjects of American foreign, defense, and intelligence policies, military readiness and threat analysis, Sino-American relations, the Taiwan issue, terrorism and its effects on civil liberties, the lessons of the Vietnam War, WMD proliferation, National Missile Defense, the National Security Agency, the ABM Treaty, submarines, special operations forces, NATO expansion, and U.S. policy towards Iraq and Iran. Eland opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003.[2]

Eland is the assistant editor of the Independent Review and writes a regular column for the website Antiwar.com.[/i]

Steve, the author of this piece is more conservative than YOU are.[/quote]

  1. How does any of this make him right-wing or conservative?

  2. The man says Kennedy brought us within inches of a nuclear holocaust and then says that Bush’s actions are far more grievous, and you’re calling him independent? I’m not so hot on everything the Pres. has done, but he has clearly managed not to endanger the entire planet.

98

[quote]vroom wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
Listen you Bush haters will blame him for everything, give him no credit for anything, and bash him without end. However, Bush has kept America safe – the last time I looked, the FBI, Homeland Security, etc. is under the {b] Executive Branch [/b] of which he is the head. As Truman said, “the buck stops here.”

You are such an idiot.[/quote]

I guess it takes one to know one…[quote]

This is exactly the type of thing that makes the President and Administration look bad when things like Abu-Graib happen.[/quote]

There you go again! How about getting rid of Saddam. Give him credit for that? [quote]

Why weren’t you saying things like this during that time? All we heard then was that he wasn’t personally responsible and there was no need for anyone to resign over the scandal.[/quote]

He wasn’t. He didn’t personally do anything at that prison. The general who was in charge – some woman – got the ax, and the evildoers went to prison. This is very different from the Islamic facists who chop off people’s heads. The Islamic facists don’t bring their people to justice. However, I never never never hear you say a single thing about the enemy. I think I know why. The reason is, you liberal dork, is that you think America is the enemy. You hate America – even though your economy would be worth a hill of moose dung without us. You hate America even though without us you would have been invaded long long ago.

Whew…I needed to get that off my chest. I feel sooooo much better now.[quote]

Obviously, based on your reasoning, you would think somebody should be held accountable at an upper level for failures that occur as well. Way to go, that’s forward thinking for you![/quote]

So what are you saying? Bush should have resigned because some soldiers made the Iraqi prisoners wear masks and run around naked. Oh, poor poor terrorists.

How about holding people accountable for chopping the heads off innocent civilians? How about being outraged about that? [quote]

I don’t expect you libs (especially you socialist Canadian libs) to like Bush, but frankly most of America could care less what you guys in moose country thinks anyway. Your country is just another Europe, except it is part of North America.

LOL. You are such a laughable and ignorant person. You continually throw labels around as if you can just stick them onto things and make it true. [/quote]

I call you a lib, because at best you are and at worst you’re a socialist. I don’t throw the labels, I affix them nicely when it fits. You talk like a lib, you probably walk like one – you know with swaying hips lol – therefore you are. [quote]

Please, grow up, wake up, or do whatever it is you need to do to start seeing the world around you in some manner related to reality.

You are an embarrassment to any groups you claim affiliation with.[/quote]

You know something, Vroom. You are the champion of using the most words and saying absolutely nothing on these threads. Perhaps you can try to economize your trashy verbiage. That way, you will still be saying nothing, but at least it will save some space.

BTW – You really need God in your life. You sound like a crochety old washer woman…

99

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:

Has anybody been blown up since? Do you even realize that the 9/11 attacks were due mainly to Clinton’s inaction in confronting terrorism?
…

Was Clinton sitting in his Texas ranch the month before the attacks? Was he reading in a class during the attacks? Did he continue to read after he was informed of the attacks?
Did he run for cover for several days?
No, that’s what your cowboy did.[/quote]

No Clinton was too busy hitting on WH interns for EIGHT YEARS – 8 YEARS while Al Qaida got stronger and stronger and sent their evildoers here for pilot training – ALL UNDER BILLY BOY!

Of course, you don’t want the facts now do you?

100

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
vroom wrote:
Steveo, you do realize the consequence of arguing that Bush and Rummy can’t be held responsible for anything that goes wrong during their administration is that they don’t get personal credit for the hard work of the FBI or the CIA or more locally based authorities.

Sorry, keeping America safe is the job of the various subunits of the Department of Homeland Security. Bush really has very little to do with such day to day operations, does he?

If he does, I’m sure you’ll agree that he is personally responsible for the behavior at Abu-Graib.

Drop the pom-pom’s nancy-boy, nobody is buying it.

Listen you Bush haters will blame him for everything, give him no credit for anything, and bash him without end. However, Bush has kept America safe – the last time I looked, the FBI, Homeland Security, etc. is under the {b] Executive Branch [/b] of which he is the head. As Truman said, “the buck stops here.”

No. The buck doesn’t stop there. You just say that because it sounds good. You give Bush credit for keeping the US safe after 9/11 but you blame Clinton for 9/11.

You can’t have it both ways.[/quote]

Sure I can because that’s what the FACTS show.

(1) Clinton in office for 8 years and the people responsible for 9/11 planned and plotted during that time and sent their people here for training to fly. All under Clinton’s watch.

(2) Bush takes office and is in office for 7 months and “bam” we get hit. Look at what Bush did right away. He rid the Earth of the Taliban and then got rid of Sadaam. This all within what 2 years or 3 years or so.

So, Billy Clinton in office for 8 years. We get hit.

Bush in for 3 years – he begins to wipe out the terrorists who flourished while “BJ” Clinton was getting his BJ’s in the WH for two terms.

This is not having it both ways – it is merely stating the facts. The facts, my friend, are just not on your side.