Bush just said goodbye!
- Thread starter trekkerguy
- Start date
^LOL
You're in trouble now, Trekker....
Pot/Kettle Sir.
You not only accuse him of trolling, but manage to troll him at the same time. Knock it off.
Squiggyfm, adding insults to your arguments isn't going to get you anywhere. Leave them out.
Oh how soon you forget. Hitler.
You're in trouble now, Trekker....
Pot/Kettle Sir.
You not only accuse him of trolling, but manage to troll him at the same time. Knock it off.
Squiggyfm, adding insults to your arguments isn't going to get you anywhere. Leave them out.
I don't think there is one person, in the free world, outside of the United States that can believe the American people elected this idiot not once but twice.
Are there any other examples of collective stupidity that can be evidenced on such a scale?
I suspect not.
Oh how soon you forget. Hitler.
Too late. I already called my divorce attorney.
*blows nose into Kleenex*
Too late. I already called my divorce attorney.
*blows nose into Kleenex*
Awww, baby. Don't be like that. I'll rub your feet and make dinner for you, OK?
I was just joshing around, it was just such a wonderful post. Ok?
Make-up sex, now?
Since we're harping on ex-Presidents here, what about the Reagan Administration's relationship with Saddam Hussein? What a funny, funny joke that was.
Oh STOP! You have no proof whatsoever!Since we're harping on ex-Presidents here, what about the Reagan Administration's relationship with Saddam Hussein? What a funny, funny joke that was.
Awww, baby. Don't be like that. I'll rub your feet and make dinner for you, OK?
I was just joshing around, it was just such a wonderful post. Ok?
Make-up sex, now?
Make up foot rub first. Then we'll talk about the rest.
Awww, baby. Don't be like that. I'll rub your feet and make dinner for you, OK?
I was just joshing around, it was just such a wonderful post. Ok?
Make-up sex, now?
Make up foot rub first. Then we'll talk about the rest.
Well that's even better!
Since we're harping on ex-Presidents here, what about the Reagan Administration's relationship with Saddam Hussein? What a funny, funny joke that was.
Back then, Saddam Hussein was a useful and effective tool to use against Iran.
Nothing wrong with using him.
I wonder what people here will say if during Obama's inauguration speech he thanks President Bush for keeping the U.S. safe for the last 7 years?
Thank him for what, exactly? The biggest attack on American soil since 1941? An illegal war? Letting his cronies send the world's economy to the crapper, and then flushing it? Illegally detaining American citizens indefinitely?
Please, give us a fucking break. Bush was a joke, too bad you haven't cottoned on to it yet
Baaack on topic,
This morning as i was reflecting on Bush's place in history it occurred to me that generally speaking Bush will probably not rank among the worst presidents if only for the two following reasons:
1) The passage of time will take a lot of the emotion out of the equation.
2) You look at our worst presidents, they are generally do nothing presidents or presidents that let congress be stronger than they were. Men like Harding, Andrew johnson, Buchanan, Grant, they pretty much did nothing for their terms, ignored the issues of the time and called it a day.
Now whether or not you like Bush or not, I think we can all agree that he was certainly an active President, doing a lot of things, heavily involved around the world. We may not have liked all of his solutions, but he certainly came up and tried to implement many solutions on a variety of issues and still to this day will stand by many if not most of his actions and decisions.
He might be more like Polk, who after he left office, had no allies and everyone hated his guts, but because he was so involved and had such an impact on so many issues, his stock has risen over the years.
but then again... I guess we will just have to see.
This morning as i was reflecting on Bush's place in history it occurred to me that generally speaking Bush will probably not rank among the worst presidents if only for the two following reasons:
1) The passage of time will take a lot of the emotion out of the equation.
2) You look at our worst presidents, they are generally do nothing presidents or presidents that let congress be stronger than they were. Men like Harding, Andrew johnson, Buchanan, Grant, they pretty much did nothing for their terms, ignored the issues of the time and called it a day.
Now whether or not you like Bush or not, I think we can all agree that he was certainly an active President, doing a lot of things, heavily involved around the world. We may not have liked all of his solutions, but he certainly came up and tried to implement many solutions on a variety of issues and still to this day will stand by many if not most of his actions and decisions.
He might be more like Polk, who after he left office, had no allies and everyone hated his guts, but because he was so involved and had such an impact on so many issues, his stock has risen over the years.
but then again... I guess we will just have to see.
Yeah, it was Clinton who ignored Richard Clarke, tossed the memo entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Targets in The United States" out the window, and who's major contribution to fighting terrorism was to try and restart that failed Star Wars program. Clinton didn't do enough, that is true. I am very critical of Clinton in regards to dealing with Bin Laden. But the country would not have supported an invasion of Afghanistan and neither would have Newt and his boys, who would have cut funding. Infact many of the invasion plans we had for Afghanistan were written by former Clinton Administration officials. Clinton was not aggressive enough. But Bush was grossly incompetent. No one wanted or expected Clinton to go after Bin Laden. Everyone expected and wanted Bush to.
And how soon you forget that none of that would have happened had Bush, Phil Gramm, John McCain, Alan Greenspan, and to some extent Bill Clinton not pushed for massive deregulation of the finacial markets. If you have a fat kid in the kitchen, someone needs to be there to make sure his hands are out of the cookie jar. Bush encouraged what Dodd and Frank were doing. He wanted it all the way back in 2004 when he ran on the platform of an "ownership society". According to him, owning a home was a right not a privilage. And he wanted to make sure all Americans had the opportunity to own a home, regardless of income. Any warning he gave Congress was half-hearted at best.
The blame for the terrorist attacks of 2001 go back at least as far as Carter, who was ineffective during the Iran Hostage Crisis. Reagan fled from Beirut when attacked and Clinton barely responded to the first WTC attack. The first Bush at least repelled to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, but his failure to take out Saddam just added to the impression that the United States lacked any real will to fight; the terrorists assumed they could attack us with impunity.
The "blame for the terrorist attacks of 2001", by the measuring stick you seem to be using, goes back to the FDR Administration, when they went against the principles of non-intervention that we had been operating under, and opened the door for our involvement in WWII - and our interference in countries all over the world afterward. One could choose to see the establishment of Israel as provocation.
But I would argue that is the wrong measuring stick to use. One can almost always find a historical reason to justify whatever one wants. The true blame for 9/11 lies with some group of evil, power hungry men who are probably somewhere in Pakistan right now, and with 20 agents who complied with fulfilling their plans.
Should we interfere less in foreign affairs? I would say definitely - and, perhaps fortunately in some ways, we may not be able to afford doing as much of that anymore. But if I'm poking you with a stick, and you threaten and kill other people to try to make me stop, I didn't make you kill them. You decided that their lives were worth less than stopping me from poking you.
I disagree with those points, however the problem does go farther back than Carter; which is why I said "at least."
That goes without saying; I was referring to the failure to deal with the growing problem.
Similar threads
