Worst President Post WWII

[CDM]

I would say President Clinton was soft on terror. Start with Operation Bojinka, then go to the Khobar Towers, the the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and then as mentioned before the USS Cole.

Op Bojinka Phase II raised the possibility of using airplanes to blow up buildings and I don’t recall any procedures put in place to prevent it happening in the future. The response to Khobar was to out some Iranian spies. The reponse to the US embassies was to shoot some missles into the desert and blow up a medicine factory in Sudan. And there was no response for the USS Cole. All in all, not a very impressive record.

[vroom]

[quote]lucasa wrote:
Sorry, thanks for outlining Wreckless’ thought process for me, I was clearly the fool. The ‘Bush’s wreckless attitude towards global warming makes him responsible’ version was totally confusing and your rendition cleared it right up.
[/quote]

I don’t know if I was outlining what Wreckless thinks, but it certainly is a plausible viewpoint under certain sets of assumptions.

I’m just kvetching because I’d rather see people thinking about things under varying assumptions instead of taking a political stance as if they have direct and personal access to the truth that nobody else has.

I’m guessing, like others around here, that you’ll fall back on political stances instead of realizing what I’m trying to point out.

[lucasa]

[quote]vroom wrote:

I don’t know if I was outlining what Wreckless thinks, but it certainly is a plausible viewpoint under certain sets of assumptions.[/quote]

I would say plausibility is subjective. I would also say that just because assumptions were made and a viewpoint achieved, doesn’t mean the assertion is correct.

I’m just kvetching because I’d rather see people thinking about things under varying assumptions instead of taking a political stance as if they have direct and personal access to the truth that nobody else has.

Once again, you assume that those who disagree with your views or ‘outlines’ aren’t thinking and that your insights represent some unseen truth that none of us has.

I’m guessing, like others around here, that you’ll fall back on political stances instead of realizing what I’m trying to point out.

1. Would there be a problem with me falling back on political stances? This is a political forum after all.

2. I don’t need to rely on political stances both law and common sense agree with me. As Pres. of the US, his responsibility is to the people and law, not the environment. Were he to choose not to ‘save the earth’, assuming he weren’t acting in opposition to his constituents and the law, he would not be any more responsible than anyone else who chooses not to (say Rainjack or John Kerry).

Further, brandishing a weapon like a bomb in a threat to kill one or several people constitutes a criminal act, knowingly allowing one or several people to commit suicide by running their car is a legal gray area, at best (esp. if you have yet to prove that exhaust will kill them). Responsibility is clear on the one hand and fuzzy at best on the other. Also, MAD is pretty much an instantaneous and irreversible sort of thing in comparison to global warming (presumably).

3. Suppose the next guy in office ‘fixes’ it, are you really going to be saying ‘That’s what Bush should’ve done’ or just that this should’ve been fixed a long time ago? If the world ends tomorrow, are you really going to be saying ‘If only Bush had ratified Kyoto (or done something else)!’? If you don’t believe in/agree with this stance, why are you still arguing it?

[Mikeyali]

[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.

[/quote]
Funny, I never saw George Bush standinga post with me and my buddies. In fact, thank you USAPATRIOT Act he helped keep us “safe” from terrorists by throwing us to the FBI, BATFE, ect, wolves. Hooray police state! Think we don’t live in a police state? Why was the national guard disarming citizens at GUNPOINT in New Orleans? Those damned chickenshit officers should be brought up on charges for failing to fulfill their oath to “support and defend the constitution”.

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

Agreed, this is certainly a step up from what a democrat could offer.

[quote]

(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. [/quote]

To me anyshit, this is the only saving grace of the man. Although I believe 50 million people is something of an exagerrated number. This alone makes him better than that scumbag of a father of his who abandoned the Kurds in '91.

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

I am not so sure of that. When Kelo v. New London gets overturned then we’ll talk. I have yet to see a judge not legislate from the bench. Conservative judges have the same lack of respect for the 1st Amendment that Liberal ones have. The only difference is on which speech they support.

[quote]
(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.[/quote]

That is kinda irrelevant to his job performance. I do agree that that piece was more “I hate Bush” propoganda. Bush has been much better than the two men before him. That merely goes to show however that we have a nation of chickenshit dumbfucks who care more about making sure they have the money to buy the coolest new toy for their kid for Christmas than the fact they their children are being indoctrinated into good little automatons in public schools.

We have places like California where the people willingly gave up their “assault weapons” so long as they can stay out of jail long enough to find out who will win American Idol.

[quote]
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]

Do you truly feel that you are “winning” with republicans in power? Republicans who believe in small government while making it their business to handle major league baseball?

[/end rant]

Mike

[Mikeyali]

[quote]pookie wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Bush has committed the resources of our nation to go after these guys all over the world.
[/quote]

Come on man, that isn’t fair and you know it. You’re talking about finding one guy in a flea bitten piece of hell. I mean shit, the janitor in Caddyshack put all of his resources into getting that fuckin’ gopher and couldn’t do it, so how in the world in Bush going to get Bin Laden thousands of miles away?

Mike

[vroom]

[quote]lucasa wrote:
I would say plausibility is subjective. I would also say that just because assumptions were made and a viewpoint achieved, doesn’t mean the assertion is correct.[/quote]

Have I tried to say that it was correct? You are making a lot of assumptions about what I’m trying to say, which are counter to what I’ve told you I’m saying.

Once again, you assume that those who disagree with your views or ‘outlines’ aren’t thinking and that your insights represent some unseen truth that none of us has.

Not at all. What’s funny here is that I’m not advocating a position that needs to be resisted, because accepting what I’ve said would have no political ramifications.

In particular, I’m not trying to present any particular insight, at least not on the apparent topic of disagreement.

1) Would there be a problem with me falling back on political stances? This is a political forum after all.

Well, considering I’m not promoting or pushing a view counter to any political stance, it would probably be pointless, wouldn’t it?

2) I don’t need to rely on political stances both law and common sense agree with me. As Pres. of the US, his responsibility is to the people and law, not the environment. Were he to choose not to ‘save the earth’, assuming he weren’t acting in opposition to his constituents and the law, he would not be any more responsible than anyone else who chooses not to (say Rainjack or John Kerry).

Well, somewhere in there both the welfare of the people and environmental laws are tied up with, get this, the environment, so I question your assessment. However, having a responsibility for an outcome is not dependent on having a mandate to be responsible for it.

I don’t see why you are getting your knickers in a not. If someone is the reason something does or does not happen, due to purposeful action, then they simply have some responsibility for something happening or not happening.

That is the almost the definition of responsibility. Perhaps you are arguing about having a responsibility in the sense of a duty to care for? I’m certainly not trying to impose such a duty of care on the President.

[quote]3) Suppose the next guy in office ‘fixes’ it, are you really going to be saying ‘That’s what Bush should’ve done’ or just that this should’ve been fixed a long time ago? If the world ends tomorrow, are you really going to be saying ‘If only Bush had ratified Kyoto (or done something else)!’? If you don’t believe in/agree with this stance, why are you still arguing it?
[/quote]

What is your malfunction. If the next guy in fixes the problem, then the previous guy couldn’t be responsible for creating an insurmountable obstacle could he?

I’m not trying to pin the blame on Bush, or say that he is in fact responsible. It could turn out that he is, but I don’t think it will. The thing is, neither of us knows.

You seem to think I’m trying to pin something on Bush. You seem to be looking for something in my meaning that simply is not there. That’s actually a much more interesting issue…

[Zap_Branigan]

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
pookie wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Bush has committed the resources of our nation to go after these guys all over the world.

Come on man, that isn’t fair and you know it. You’re talking about finding one guy in a flea bitten piece of hell. I mean shit, the janitor in Caddyshack put all of his resources into getting that fuckin’ gopher and couldn’t do it, so how in the world in Bush going to get Bin Laden thousands of miles away?

Mike[/quote]

I agree with you. We may never find him but at least we are trying.

[pookie]

[quote]Mad Titan wrote:
so pookie (that just sounds wrong)[/quote]

I know, I know…

who told you we weren’t in saudi arabia ???

Are you saying you’ve got forces over there that are actively working to overthrow the House of Saud? I’d be a little skeptical, to put it mildly.

you seem to be behind the power curve but there are resources going after osama this is coming from someone who was actually in afghanistan not going off of bs from cnn or some other media outlet

Canada has about 2000 soldiers currently in Afghanistan, fighting the Talibans in the southern mountains. Are those the “resources” you speak ok? That mission has gone from peacekeeping to active combat lately; but there’s not much talk of hunting for Osama.

[pookie]

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
I agree with you. We may never find him but at least we are trying.[/quote]

Just spread the rumor that he’s going out with Jennifer Aniston.

The paparazzis will find him before the weekend.