IS PRESIDENT BUSH THE WORST PRESIDENT IN HISTORY IF NOT THEN WHO WAS

[coldcon]

I think that this president has really screw thing up from sending job over seas to messing with the middle east
witch we will never get out of at any cost bull headed polices which help the few and mess or screw the other people example we have oil and screw out the middle east . drug companies sell drugs and make a furtune poor and old get srewed with paper work and confusing plans.
goverment spys on us so he can find out what ever makes w happy just messing up all the time

[-80guru]

Grant, Hoover, LBJ, Nixon, Wilson

[smokin68]

Carter,George Bush....neither could get the job done.

[coldcon]

.Grant better person better leader better president.hoover better person smarter. LBJ one of the best with getting legislation through voting rights nixion deatont very smart man good politicition bad person remeber having the commies fight against each other wilson about the same as w

[coldcon]

carter real good man real smart could not get any thing done can't say that about w oh can't get any thing done my bad

[-80guru]

Newt 08

[coldcon]

wilson was for the people and helped with the estabishment of new world order after ww1 they both went to priction

[coldcon]

will i still think he will go down as the worst president in history which i don't care about thing like that but he will go down as the worst president that got us in the worst mess that we can't get out of. so the next time you vote think am i going to vote for a person that going to get us in a mess that we can"t get out of an that i care about

[RoBoTeq]

Most historians agree that James Buchanan was the worst American president. Buchanan did very little to avert the upcoming division of the country just before the war between the states began.

Buchanan's own Democratic Party did not renominate him for a second term.

[wolfstrike]

Originally posted by RoBoTeq
Most historians agree that James Buchanan was the worst American president.



they just say that because he's Pat Buchanan's realative, they call him gay and everything.


Bush is pretty bad, he's done nothing but pass liberal Democrat agenda since he's been in office.

in many cases he's surpassed Clinton in corruption.

the only thing that was good is that we got some decent Supreme Court Justices (or so it seems so far).



who was worse then Bush?

* Clinton , he did nothing that was good for the nation but the media told fairy tales and a majority of people still believe them.

* Carter , but it probably wasn't his fault.

* Johnson

* FDR , founder of the new wold order, no respect for individual rights whatsoever, the government stole allot of power because of him

* Woodrow Wilson

[RoBoTeq]

Originally posted by wolfstrike

Originally posted by RoBoTeq
Most historians agree that James Buchanan was the worst American president.


they just say that because he's Pat Buchanan's realative, they call him gay and everything.
Where do you come up with this? I see no family connection between the two Buchanans.

I have already stated the reason that historians feel that James Buchanan was the worst American president. What the hell is this junk you are tossing into the conversation?



Bush is pretty bad, he's done nothing but pass liberal Democrat agenda since he's been in office.

in many cases he's surpassed Clinton in corruption.
I don't suppose you have any "for instances" of support for any of these accusations?



who was worse then Bush?

* Clinton , he did nothing that was good for the nation but the media told fairy tales and a majority of people still believe them.

* Carter , but it probably wasn't his fault.

* Johnson

* FDR , founder of the new wold order, no respect for individual rights whatsoever, the government stole allot of power because of him

* Woodrow Wilson


I have not seen one of these presidents on any historians list of bad presidents. Just because some of us don't like some things that a president has done does not make them a bad president.

Andrew Johnson most likely comes in second to James Buchanan.

[hvacpope]

Carter no doubt.

[RoBoTeq]

Originally posted by hvacpope
Carter no doubt.

As one who prefers a more conservative of middle government, I did not at all care for President Carters presidency. As I stated before though, that does not make Carter a bad president.

What in particular do you believe was so bad about Carter as president?

[dna]

James Buchanan's mansion is 10 minutes from my house. The guy has a kick ass lawn.

[Mr Bill]

I don't think we have seen the worst yet until Old Hillary if she makes it in. :D

[Special Ed]

you're relating to us historians' perspectives & opinions but not your own. I think the OP was looking for personal opinions not professional.

My opinion on worst pres.:

- L. Johnson, Carter, F. Roosevelt, Grant

My opinion on good pres.:

- Reagan, Washington, Lincoln (debatable)

The jury's still out on GW.

[bootlen]

The worst is easy...Jimma, hands down. Second worst, LBJ followed by FDR.

Best? Hmmm. RRR, then maybe Teddy R. But W's gonna be up there, too.

[smokin68]

"W" isn't even close to a great president. He got elected by a f'd up Florida ballot the first time(who's governor of Floriduh?), and beat Kerry by the lesser of two evils vote. He's easily the worst president since Carter, Reagan would've bi!ch-slapped that stupid grin off his face."W" will go down as either a mediocre or crappy pres 50 years from now.Worthless as tits on a bull.

[RoBoTeq]

Well, if we are only looking for personal opinions then we have to stay within those presidents while we have lived. In that case I will go with Kennedy having been the worst. The man not only lied as our president, he had medical records concealed in order to even run for presidency.

Kennedy felt he was better then the people he was supposed to be serving. Lying was second nature to the man because he did not respect others enough to feel they deserved the truth from him.

Following right after Kennedy would be Johnson. Hell, Johnson is still a candidate for being involved in Kennedy's assasination. There were so many people who had so much dirt on Johnson that even though being president meant more to him then life itself, he was not able to run for a second term.

Nixon was a good president who went overboard and needed to step down for the good of the country. Unlike Clinton, when Nixon got caught in an act that disgraced our nation, he stepped down.

Ford didn't have a chance to be great or bad.

Carter was a lousy administrator and I don't believe he belonged in the presidency, but I cannot state that I feel he was a bad president. Inept; yes, but not bad.

Reagan was great.

Bush was very good with a lot of lost potential in his second run.

Clinton was a used car salesman that too often embarrased the U.S. with his personal antics. Like Carter, I cannot state he was bad, just too much of a popularity contest president to be as affective as I prefer a president to be.

W. Bush I did not think much of until we were attacked. While still not the best speaker or the most intellectual, President Bush does utilize those he has put into position to advise him. Most of all, President Bush has the guts to do what he feels is right for the U.S. despite the popularity polls. He is definitely the leader we need for these troubled times.

[Mr Bill]

Originally posted by RoBoTeq
Most of all, President Bush has the guts to do what he feels is right for the U.S. despite the popularity polls. He is definitely the leader we need for these troubled times.

Yep, and this is what the Bush haters hate, they are used to having a Cesar milk toast Brother Bill that will do whatever makes "HIM" look better, while GW is doing what is best not what is popular.

[skrewt]

I believe the worst president in history has not served yet. He/She will be the next democrat president.
They will immediately pull troops out of Iraq and the country will degrade into civil war and genocide.
Al Queda will swell it's ranks due to declaring victory and the killings on American soil will begin on a wholesale level.

[evildberg]

Skrewt,
I hope you aren't right but I think you have a point there

[Mr Bill]

Originally posted by evildberg
Skrewt,
I hope you aren't right but I think you have a point there

Yep, I agree he does have a point, matter fact he might have a fact.

[hvacpope]

Originally posted by RoBoTeq

Originally posted by hvacpope
Carter no doubt.

As one who prefers a more conservative of middle government, I did not at all care for President Carters presidency. As I stated before though, that does not make Carter a bad president.

What in particular do you believe was so bad about Carter as president?

how bout the hostages crisis, Bush would had erased the ayatollahs from the map, the best he could came with was the oil embargo, what a joke! then he turned around and Castro shoved his ass with 200,000 inmigrants in the ill fated Mariel boat lift among them 25,000 hard core crimminals, what a piece of garbage that Jimmy boy was!

[ralphtheplumber]

Originally posted by RoBoTeq
What in particular do you believe was so bad about Carter as president?
How many examples would you like?

How about being largely responsible for the current mess in Iran?

How about the highest inflation since the civil war?

How about nearly single-handedly bankrupting American agriculture with that Soviet grain embargo?

Any of those?

[tonys]

Carter dropped the ball on Iran. How can anyone debate that.

But, the major blame for the problems in that rat-infested country goes towards the Iranians themselves.

the majority 'want' a theocracy, and (unlike in the US where you get a religious fundamentalist as leader every century or so), they got what they asked for.

[scrogdog]

I think the fact that the Iran hostages were released on the day that Reagan was inaugurated is a fairly telling stat on the Carter presidency.

Personally, I do not agree with the man’s politics most of the time, but I would say that he was probably one of the nicest guys to ever hold office. I think he was a very well meaning man who did not have the intestinal fortitude to play the kinds of games one needs to play to succeed in Washington.

So, in my lifetime… it would depend on what you mean by worst. Least qualified to hold the office? That would be Carter. Scumbag? Nixon. Interestingly, Nixon may have also been the most qualified to hold the office in my lifetime. Too bad he was a scumbag.

The best overall in my lifetime is easily Reagan.

[tonys]

I believe the further you get from Reagan's time,
the more you realize how solid a job he did.

He dealt with all the BS going on domestically and internationally - and, took down the Communists for good measure.

...G'Dub'Ya is trying to write a similar script with these Isalmo nuts, but - it may fail Big-Time due to the simple fact:

'Russians' have some class and value ($$$) for life.

Reagan knew this.

'Islamists' are just looking for their warped paradise and that boat full of virgins.

G'Dub'Ya doesn't want to admit this - out loud.

[MadeinUSA]

Originally posted by skrewt
Al Queda will swell it's ranks due to declaring victory and the killings on American soil will begin on a wholesale level. This won’t happen, because if it ever did, you would see the largest genocide of Muslims in this country carried out by the citizens of this country in the history of mankind.

You would see us have the game cowboys vs. Muslims.

The strength and determination of us being a free country is a strength others will not test and carry out on this soil on a large scale.

edit:
Worst president was carter.



[Edited by madeinusa on 03-27-2006 at 03:57 PM]

[aircooled53]

I think that the president has done a few good things but, has slipped off into the mind set of politic's.

With oil a major issue and war being run by the company men like our last one,he has lost all reality of the course of American's and now his main focus is to keep other nations happy.

Mexico-Needs money for presidente FOX
Saudi has money and wants all they can get from USA.
China-see's an opening in new world order,pushing.
Dubai-Rich with most of worlds leaders shipping.



American's utility taxed,insurance,health care,schools falling apart and guns out-of-control. And we just sit back and watch it happen to us..

Just remember we elected Mr. Bush,he ain't doing all of this by himself..

That's my opinion.

[skrewt]

Originally posted by aircooled53
I think that the president has done a few good things but, has slipped off into the mind set of politic's.

With oil a major issue and war being run by the company men like our last one,he has lost all reality of the course of American's and now his main focus is to keep other nations happy.

Mexico-Needs money for presidente FOX
Saudi has money and wants all they can get from USA.
China-see's an opening in new world order,pushing.
Dubai-Rich with most of worlds leaders shipping.



American's utility taxed,insurance,health care,schools falling apart and guns out-of-control. And we just sit back and watch it happen to us..

Just remember we elected Mr. Bush,he ain't doing all of this by himself..

That's my opinion.

All of what?
The only thing going on now that wasn't going on 10 years ago is the war. And the war in Iraq, despite what dems and the news tell you, is going very well.
I can't help it if the morons on the left want everything accomplished on sitcom time, but this is the real world and real world changes take a long time.
The mission is clear, the objectives are clear and the "exit strategy" is clear for those who don't prefer to hate Bush.
What is also abundantly clear is the motivation of the left. They want a complete meltdown of the Iraq situation with as many US soldiers killed as possible. If this could happen prior to the next election cycle, well that would just be gravy on the biscuits. When you have no vision for the country, no priciples or morals to guide your way and no goals other than your personal wealth and power then you must rely on the failure of the opposition to get yourself elected. Thus, treason is the number one MO of the democratic party, for without the political pressure from them the terrorists would have no chance of winning.

[Mr Bill]

"I Miss Bill Clinton"

It doesn't matter what party you belong to - this is hilarious.

From a show on Canadian TV. there was a black comedian who said he misses Bill Clinton.

"Yep, that's right - I miss Bill Clinton! He was the closest thing we ever got to having a black man as President. Number 1 - He played the sax. Number 2 - He smoked weed. Number 3 - He had his way with ugly white women. Even now? Look at him... his wife works, and he don't! And, he gets a check from the government every month.

Manufacturers announced today that they will be stocking America's shelves this week with "Clinton Soup," in honor of one of the nations' most distinguished men. It consists primarily of a weenie in hot water.

Chrysler Corporation is adding a new car to its line to honor Bill Clinton. The Dodge Drafter will be built in Canada.

When asked what he thought about foreign affairs, Clinton replied, "I don't know, I never had one."

The Clinton revised judicial oath: "I solemnly swear to tell the truth as I know it, the whole truth as I believe it to be, and nothing but what I think you need to know."

Clinton will be recorded in history as the only President to do Hanky Panky between Bushes."

[RoBoTeq]

Originally posted by hvacpope

Originally posted by RoBoTeq

Originally posted by hvacpope
Carter no doubt.

As one who prefers a more conservative of middle government, I did not at all care for President Carters presidency. As I stated before though, that does not make Carter a bad president.

What in particular do you believe was so bad about Carter as president?

how bout the hostages crisis, Bush would had erased the ayatollahs from the map, the best he could came with was the oil embargo, what a joke! then he turned around and Castro shoved his ass with 200,000 inmigrants in the ill fated Mariel boat lift among them 25,000 hard core crimminals, what a piece of garbage that Jimmy boy was!

Good points. I try to forget these things as well as that little "canal" giveaway thing.

[James 3528]

Originally posted by coldcon
I think that this president has really screw thing up from sending job over seas to messing with the middle east
witch we will never get out of at any cost bull headed polices which help the few and mess or screw the other people example we have oil and screw out the middle east . drug companies sell drugs and make a furtune poor and old get srewed with paper work and confusing plans.
goverment spys on us so he can find out what ever makes w happy just messing up all the time

Oh my god? And Bush did all this?

There were no problems in the middle East, there were never any US job going overseas before him? Drug companies or any other companies never made a profit before GW? You know you got spied on? Geeezz good thing you were not in Wako Texas years ago or owned any stock in a tobacco company that was legal, still is and pays taxes. How does Jimmy Carters 20% + prime sound?

Duh...with your insight you should get to work on a cure for cancer.

[James 3528]

Originally posted by skrewt
I believe the worst president in history has not served yet. He/She will be the next democrat president.
They will immediately pull troops out of Iraq and the country will degrade into civil war and genocide.


Bingo. It is obvious that the democrats are infested with socialist and will bring this country down. The republican have problems also but hands down the democrats are on the cutting edge of standing up against what ever America once stood for and bringing it down. They think their future IS government and loyalty is not to the country. Every moral issue is political to them and every political issue should have nothing to do with morals. If it is perverted and backwards, they want it and don't mind speaking out for it. After 911 they were fired up about defeating terrorism for about 48 hours and then they were back to breathing fire into the terrorist and using any issue to get back into the White House no matter about how much it hurt this country or put US soldiers lives at a greater risk.

[lilquiz]

i think the worst president is Andrew Jackson....ever heard of the "trail of tears". i guess if you ignore a treaty and march native Americans to their deaths , you get to be on American currency. all i see here are bush bashers. i think he is doing a great job!! i have heard no other suggestions that are any better from Democrats or others, oh! the policy which fines illegal immigrants , can't find the illegals but i guess they are dropping thier wallets at the fence when they jump over.

[johnl45]

Without a doubt YES!

[skrewt]

Originally posted by johnl45
Without a doubt YES!

Bush is definitely the WORST president in the last 6 years.

Prior to that it was Clinton.

[tonys]

the man could / still articulate.

[skrewt]

Originally posted by tonys
the man could / still articulate.

So could Ted Bundy, Ted Kacynski, Adolf Hitler, Karl Marx, Jim Jones, Joseph Stalin and Castro.

Being a smooth talker is no qualification for greatness nor is it an uncommon characteristic.
Every used car salesman can articulate, so what.

Give me a man who stutters but says what he means over a man that is a silver tongued manipulator anyday.

[MadeinUSA]

Originally posted by acefurnacefixer
"IS PRESIDENT BUSH THE WORST PRESIDENT IN HISTORY IF NOT THEN WHO WAS "

yes.........by far the dumbest too. The last time I researched, the military does not give fighter wings to dumb people. Maybe you should think before you post.

[tonys]

"nu-cu-lar"


nuff said.

[skrewt]

Originally posted by tonys
"nu-cu-lar"


nuff said.

Bend over so I can "feel your pain"

[bootlen]

Originally posted by tonys
"nu-cu-lar"


nuff said.

"Nu-cu-lar", huh? Jimma must be YOUR fave. You keep quoting him.

[batdude]

[ How does Jimmy Carters 20% + prime sound?

[/B][/QUOTE]


Actually the pres does nothing to set interest
rates, it's done by the Fed. (Who aren't elected at all.)

The 20% prime was the result of Paul Volcker, Fed Chief,
trying to fight inflation. (Yep, king of the inflationists
himself, in his role as Fed Chair, fox in charge of the henhouse)
That particular historical period was post -Vietnam--- the unpopular, unwinnable quagmire where billions of bucks were spent year after year through massive budget deficits. Those deficit chickens eventually came home to roost.
Seems like I have heard about another such event occurring, you know, unpopular, unwinnable quagmire where billions of bucks are spent year after year through massive budget deficits, but somehow I just can't place it. Those astronomical interest-rate conditions just can't appear once again, can they? Or maybe, like the Soviets, we will become so stretched out- of- whack budgetarily that we may just collapse this time, when the dollar crashes into "zilch" value. And Ronnie Rayguns rolls over in his grave, contemplating the sheer stupidity of the very worst, and last, president, George Napoleon Bush.

[skrewt]

Originally posted by batdude
[ How does Jimmy Carters 20% + prime sound?




Actually the pres does nothing to set interest
rates, it's done by the Fed. (Who aren't elected at all.)

The 20% prime was the result of Paul Volcker, Fed Chief,
trying to fight inflation. (Yep, king of the inflationists
himself, in his role as Fed Chair, fox in charge of the henhouse)
That particular historical period was post -Vietnam--- the unpopular, unwinnable quagmire where billions of bucks were spent year after year through massive budget deficits. Those deficit chickens eventually came home to roost.
Seems like I have heard about another such event occurring, you know, unpopular, unwinnable quagmire where billions of bucks are spent year after year through massive budget deficits, but somehow I just can't place it. Those astronomical interest-rate conditions just can't appear once again, can they? Or maybe, like the Soviets, we will become so stretched out- of- whack budgetarily that we may just collapse this time, when the dollar crashes into "zilch" value. And Ronnie Rayguns rolls over in his grave, contemplating the sheer stupidity of the very worst, and last, president, George Napoleon Bush. [/B][/QUOTE]

It most certainly was winnable. The liberals, then as now, so politicized the war that presidents were too afraid to take it to North Viet Nam. Nixon was able to reduce troop strength there by wholesale bombing of North Viet Nam, but the libs went nuts. Congress prevented any action that crossed into Laos or Cambodia. You can't beat an enemy that has a safe place to retreat to or operate from.
If we had bombed North Viet Nam and then invaded all the way to the border of China like we did in Korea, they would have negotiated a peace deal and South Viet Nam would be free today. Fighting a war based on demographics and kill ratios never works.

[James 3528]

You are 100% skrewt and batboy is displaying the socialist defeatist attitude of the left you see today. His little scenario of war cost like in Vietnam did not account for the GDP (about 12% then) and a unemployment rate below 4%. The FED raises and lower rates on projections and rates are also related to presidential policies and performances related to world affairs. We had hostages that were sitting in Iran. Oil tankers put in mothballs and a President kissing that days Islamo fascist's asses

The operation in Iraq is one of the least expensive in terms of money in America's history

http://www.nationalreview.com/images/chart_bowyer1-23-06.gif

[batdude]

Pillaging the Treasury and the Constitution

Bush is No Conservative

By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

03/28/06 "Counterpunch" -- -- President Bush passes himself off as a conservative Republican and a born-again Christian. These are disguises behind which Bush hides. Would a Christian invade another country on false pretenses, kill tens of thousands of innocent civilians, and show no remorse or inclination to cease the aggression?

Long-time Republican policy-wonk Bruce Bartlett recently published a book, Impostor, in which he proves that President Bush is no economic conservative, having broken all records in spending taxpayers' money and running up public debt.

Were Bush merely another big spender, his presidency wouldn't differ from other pork barrel administrations, but Bush's radicalism goes far beyond spending. Bush supports outsourcing American jobs, and he has taken an irreverent approach to the U.S. Constitution.

Bush bears no resemblance to a political conservative. A political conservative does not confuse government with country. Patriotism means loyalty to country. Bush, however, demands allegiance to his government: "You are with us or against us!" Critics of the Bush administration are branded "unpatriotic" and even "treasonous."

Loyalty to country means allegiance to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the separation of powers. It does not mean blind support for a president, an administration, or a political party.

The separation of powers and civil liberties that were bequeathed to us by the Founding Fathers are the protectors of our liberty. Bush, who swore on the Bible that he would defend and uphold the Constitution, has made it clear that he will not let the Constitution get in the way of expanding the powers of his office.

Bush has over-ridden a number of protections in the Bill of Rights. The right to assemble and to demonstrate has been infringed. The Secret Service now routinely removes protesters from the scene of Bush political events. Many unthinking Americans go along with this authoritarianism because they don't agree with the protesters, but once the right is lost, everyone loses it.

Bush has ignored habeas corpus and claims the unconstitutional power to arrest and detain people indefinitely without a warrant and without presenting charges to a judge. This is the most dangerous abuse of all, because whoever is in office can use this power against political opponents. Many unthinking Americans are not concerned, because they think this power will be used only against terrorists. However, as the Bush administration has admitted, many of its detainees are not terrorists. Most are innocent people kidnapped by tribal leaders and sold to the U.S. for the bounties paid for "terrorists."

Bush has refused to obey statutory law, specifically the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Bush claims that as commander-in-chief he has the right to ignore the law and to spy on Americans without a warrant. Many unthinking Americans are unconcerned, saying that as they are doing nothing wrong they have nothing to fear. This attitude misses the point in a large way. If a president can establish himself above one law, he can establish himself above all laws. There is no line drawn through the law that divides the laws between the ones the president must obey and the ones he need not obey.

FISA does not interfere with government spying for national security purposes. Secrecy is protected, because the court of federal judges that issues the warrants is secret. Moreover the law allows the government to spy first and then come to the court for a warrant. The purpose of the warrant is to be sure that the government is spying for legitimate purposes and not abusing the power to spy on political opponents for nefarious purposes.

When presidents sign a bill passed by Congress that they think might be interpreted in ways that could impinge on the powers of their office, they add a "signing statement" to protect traditional presidential powers. Under Bush this practice has exploded. Bush has used signing statements considerably in excess of all previous presidents combined. Moreover, Bush uses the statements not to protect president powers, but to nullify acts of Congress, such as Republican Senator John McCain's law against torture. Bush is using signing statements to turn the presidency into a dictatorship in which the executive is not accountable to laws passed by Congress. The next step is simply to announce that the executive is not accountable to elections either.

Bush's government is the first in our history in which there are no dissenting voices and no debate. Uniformity of opinion is more characteristic of a dictatorial government than a conservative one. Bush's government is all of one mind, because all important positions are held by neoconservatives.

Neoconservative is a deceptive term. It means "new conservatives," but there is nothing conservative about neocons. Neoconservatives believe in imposing their agenda on other countries--the antithesis of American conservatism.

In short, real conservatives believe in conserving the Constitution, government accountability, and civil liberties, and avoiding foreign entanglements. Judging by its behavior and its statements, the Bush administration stands completely outside the conservative tradition.

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be reached at: paulcraigroberts@yahoo.com






Join our Daily News Headlines Email Digest

Fill out your emailaddress
to receive our newsletter!

SubscribeUnsubscribe
Powered by YourMailinglistProvider.com
Information Clearing House

Daily News Headlines Digest


HOME

COPYRIGHT NOTICE

[skrewt]

Originally posted by batdude
[B]Pillaging the Treasury and the Constitution

Bush is No Conservative



I would agree with this




President Bush passes himself off as a conservative Republican and a born-again Christian. These are disguises behind which Bush hides. Would a Christian invade another country on false pretenses, kill tens of thousands of innocent civilians, and show no remorse or inclination to cease the aggression?



This statement is patently false. You have to be a completely dishonest moron to believe this.
It has been shown many times that EVERY intelligence agency in every country believed Saddam to still possess WMD's.
Associations with Terrorists organizations were clearly made. You may disagree with his making Iraq a priority, and maybe an argument can be made there, but to ignore every statement made by every democrat prior to the invasion is to be genuinely seditious in your intent.
As for the rest of the points in this paragraph, they are total BS based on the fact that the first statement is false.




Long-time Republican policy-wonk Bruce Bartlett recently published a book, Impostor, in which he proves that President Bush is no economic conservative, having broken all records in spending taxpayers' money and running up public debt.



no argument there, most conservatives don't like his spending habits or most of his domestic policies in general. Especially when he spends like a democrat.




Bush bears no resemblance to a political conservative. A political conservative does not confuse government with country. Patriotism means loyalty to country. Bush, however, demands allegiance to his government: "You are with us or against us!" Critics of the Bush administration are branded "unpatriotic" and even "treasonous."



That's because they are. The main reason is that the "critics" are spreading false information with the expressed purpose of undermining the authority of a wartime president.
Remember Kosovo? Some republicans expressed doubts about the motivation and timing of the hositlities. They were shouted down by dems as being wreckless and irresponsible. How dare they criticize Bill while boys are in harms way.

Does your memory go back that far?

Doesn't matter though right? I mean it was a democrat so it was OK to kill innocent people to get Monica out of the headlines for awhile.




The separation of powers and civil liberties that were bequeathed to us by the Founding Fathers are the protectors of our liberty. Bush, who swore on the Bible that he would defend and uphold the Constitution, has made it clear that he will not let the Constitution get in the way of expanding the powers of his office.



Lame rhetoric




Bush has over-ridden a number of protections in the Bill of Rights. The right to assemble and to demonstrate has been infringed. The Secret Service now routinely removes protesters from the scene of Bush political events. Many unthinking Americans go along with this authoritarianism because they don't agree with the protesters, but once the right is lost, everyone loses it.



Once again, total BS.
Nobody has the right to assemble and protest anywhere, anytime. If you think you do, then go down and organize a protest on the courthouse steps without a permit and see how far you get.




Bush has ignored habeas corpus and claims the unconstitutional power to arrest and detain people indefinitely without a warrant and without presenting charges to a judge. This is the most dangerous abuse of all, because whoever is in office can use this power against political opponents. Many unthinking Americans are not concerned, because they think this power will be used only against terrorists. However, as the Bush administration has admitted, many of its detainees are not terrorists. Most are innocent people kidnapped by tribal leaders and sold to the U.S. for the bounties paid for "terrorists."



Once again, dems seem to think this is a law enforcement issue. That is probably why their thinking is totally insane. We have routinely held enemy combatants without trial or representation until the end of the war.
Many japanese citizens were interred during ww2.
Hot air and smoke. Might as well be farting as make this point.




Bush has refused to obey statutory law, specifically the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Bush claims that as commander-in-chief he has the right to ignore the law and to spy on Americans without a warrant. Many unthinking Americans are unconcerned, saying that as they are doing nothing wrong they have nothing to fear. This attitude misses the point in a large way. If a president can establish himself above one law, he can establish himself above all laws. There is no line drawn through the law that divides the laws between the ones the president must obey and the ones he need not obey.

FISA does not interfere with government spying for national security purposes. Secrecy is protected, because the court of federal judges that issues the warrants is secret. Moreover the law allows the government to spy first and then come to the court for a warrant. The purpose of the warrant is to be sure that the government is spying for legitimate purposes and not abusing the power to spy on political opponents for nefarious purposes.



Yada yada yada, blah blah blah.
We see right now why a president dealing with information of a high national security nature can't bring it before a liberal judge.
The dems in their lust for power and revenge willingly reveal national secrets and undermine anti-terrorist efforts at every turn.




When presidents sign a bill passed by Congress that they think might be interpreted in ways that could impinge on the powers of their office, they add a "signing statement" to protect traditional presidential powers. Under Bush this practice has exploded. Bush has used signing statements considerably in excess of all previous presidents combined. Moreover, Bush uses the statements not to protect president powers, but to nullify acts of Congress, such as Republican Senator John McCain's law against torture. Bush is using signing statements to turn the presidency into a dictatorship in which the executive is not accountable to laws passed by Congress. The next step is simply to announce that the executive is not accountable to elections either.

Bush's government is the first in our history in which there are no dissenting voices and no debate. Uniformity of opinion is more characteristic of a dictatorial government than a conservative one. Bush's government is all of one mind, because all important positions are held by neoconservatives.

Neoconservative is a deceptive term. It means "new conservatives," but there is nothing conservative about neocons. Neoconservatives believe in imposing their agenda on other countries--the antithesis of American conservatism.

In short, real conservatives believe in conserving the Constitution, government accountability, and civil liberties, and avoiding foreign entanglements. Judging by its behavior and its statements, the Bush administration stands completely outside the conservative tradition.

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be reached at: paulcraigroberts@yahoo.com



He's been drinking from the liberal water fountains too long.
Many times throughout our history people who used to "be somebody" in Washington ate their own when they found themselves out of the limelight.
His opinions have the weight of a fart in a Hurricane.


[Edited by skrewt on 03-29-2006 at 11:10 AM]

[bootlen]

Originally posted by batdude
Pillaging the Treasury and the Constitution

Bush is No Conservative

By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

03/28/06 "Counterpunch" -- -- President Bush passes himself off as a conservative Republican and a born-again Christian. These are disguises behind which Bush hides. Would a Christian invade another country on false pretenses, kill tens of thousands of innocent civilians, and show no remorse or inclination to cease the aggression?

Nope. Neither did W.

Long-time Republican policy-wonk Bruce Bartlett recently published a book, Impostor, in which he proves that President Bush is no economic conservative, having broken all records in spending taxpayers' money and running up public debt.

When you go to war, spending increases. I guess Paul is not aware of that.

Were Bush merely another big spender, his presidency wouldn't differ from other pork barrel administrations, but Bush's radicalism goes far beyond spending. Bush supports outsourcing American jobs, and he has taken an irreverent approach to the U.S. Constitution.

Both unsubstantiated.

Bush bears no resemblance to a political conservative. A political conservative does not confuse government with country. Patriotism means loyalty to country. Bush, however, demands allegiance to his government: "You are with us or against us!" Critics of the Bush administration are branded "unpatriotic" and even "treasonous."

I agree, W is not a true political conservative...but not for the reasons listed above.

Loyalty to country means allegiance to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the separation of powers. It does not mean blind support for a president, an administration, or a political party.

Agreed. But what Paul writes is not happening.

The separation of powers and civil liberties that were bequeathed to us by the Founding Fathers are the protectors of our liberty. Bush, who swore on the Bible that he would defend and uphold the Constitution, has made it clear that he will not let the Constitution get in the way of expanding the powers of his office.

When you're at war, Presidential powers are slightly different than at peace time. I guess Paul didn't know that either. Seems there's a lot Paul doesn't know.

Bush has over-ridden a number of protections in the Bill of Rights. The right to assemble and to demonstrate has been infringed. The Secret Service now routinely removes protesters from the scene of Bush political events. Many unthinking Americans go along with this authoritarianism because they don't agree with the protesters, but once the right is lost, everyone loses it.

Real easy for an assassin to mingle with the rest of the idiots. Secret Service just doing their job. Any reason they can't do like a mentally stable person and question W?

Oh. I guess I answered my own question. They're mentally UNstable.

Bush has ignored habeas corpus and claims the unconstitutional power to arrest and detain people indefinitely without a warrant and without presenting charges to a judge. This is the most dangerous abuse of all, because whoever is in office can use this power against political opponents. Many unthinking Americans are not concerned, because they think this power will be used only against terrorists. However, as the Bush administration has admitted, many of its detainees are not terrorists. Most are innocent people kidnapped by tribal leaders and sold to the U.S. for the bounties paid for "terrorists."

Part of being at war. I wonder...does Paul know anyone personally who has been unlawfully detained indefinitely? I do believe they have all been suspected terrorists. W is charged with protecting you and me. Does Paul want 'im to stop?

Bush has refused to obey statutory law, specifically the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Bush claims that as commander-in-chief he has the right to ignore the law and to spy on Americans without a warrant. Many unthinking Americans are unconcerned, saying that as they are doing nothing wrong they have nothing to fear. This attitude misses the point in a large way. If a president can establish himself above one law, he can establish himself above all laws. There is no line drawn through the law that divides the laws between the ones the president must obey and the ones he need not obey.

W's made no such claim.

FISA does not interfere with government spying for national security purposes. Secrecy is protected, because the court of federal judges that issues the warrants is secret. Moreover the law allows the government to spy first and then come to the court for a warrant. The purpose of the warrant is to be sure that the government is spying for legitimate purposes and not abusing the power to spy on political opponents for nefarious purposes.

When presidents sign a bill passed by Congress that they think might be interpreted in ways that could impinge on the powers of their office, they add a "signing statement" to protect traditional presidential powers. Under Bush this practice has exploded. Bush has used signing statements considerably in excess of all previous presidents combined. Moreover, Bush uses the statements not to protect president powers, but to nullify acts of Congress, such as Republican Senator John McCain's law against torture. Bush is using signing statements to turn the presidency into a dictatorship in which the executive is not accountable to laws passed by Congress. The next step is simply to announce that the executive is not accountable to elections either.

Partially true, partially a lie. Makes the paragraph as a whole a lie.

Bush's government is the first in our history in which there are no dissenting voices and no debate. Uniformity of opinion is more characteristic of a dictatorial government than a conservative one. Bush's government is all of one mind, because all important positions are held by neoconservatives.

What does Paul call his article but a dissenting view?

Neoconservative is a deceptive term. It means "new conservatives," but there is nothing conservative about neocons. Neoconservatives believe in imposing their agenda on other countries--the antithesis of American conservatism.

Does Paul mean like "democracy"? And like equal rights for all? Does Paul have a problem with those two ideas? Maybe he really should consider living elsewhere.

In short, real conservatives believe in conserving the Constitution, government accountability, and civil liberties, and avoiding foreign entanglements. Judging by its behavior and its statements, the Bush administration stands completely outside the conservative tradition.

Agreed, but not for the reasons Paul wrote.

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be reached at: paulcraigroberts@yahoo.com

Apparently, Paul has passed completely through senility to insanity.

Join our Daily News Headlines Email Digest

Fill out your emailaddress
to receive our newsletter!

SubscribeUnsubscribe
Powered by YourMailinglistProvider.com
Information Clearing House

Daily News Headlines Digest


HOME

COPYRIGHT NOTICE







[Edited by bootlen on 03-29-2006 at 12:48 PM]

[RoBoTeq]

The fact that President Bush is not an ultra-conservative but rather a right of center moderate is exactly the main thing that makes him such a great leader.

[bornriding]

My opinion...
The worst president ever was the one ( I don't know which ) that began WELFARE. This country would not be as populated nor as law-suit crazy, and people would be held more responsible for their own actions. Welfare showed people that they really don't have to provide for theirselves, and allowed the government to begin controlling our private lives. Can you just imagine how different the state of our world would be if welfare had not begun...

Richard

[RoBoTeq]

Originally posted by bornriding
My opinion...
The worst president ever was the one ( I don't know which ) that began WELFARE. This country would not be as populated nor as law-suit crazy, and people would be held more responsible for their own actions. Welfare showed people that they really don't have to provide for theirselves, and allowed the government to begin controlling our private lives. Can you just imagine how different the state of our world would be if welfare had not begun...

Richard

That would be FDR. Here are his reasons;

How Welfare Began in the United States
During the Great Depression of the 1930s, local and state governments as well as private charities were overwhelmed by needy families seeking food, clothing, and shelter. In 1935, welfare for poor children and other dependent persons became a federal government responsibility, which it remained for 60 years.
MINNEAPOLIS—Several hundred men and women in an unemployed demonstration today stormed a grocery store and meat market in the Gateway district, smashed plate glass windows and helped themselves to bacon and ham, fruit and canned goods.

—from the New York Times, February 26, 1931

The 1920s in America seemed like an age of endless prosperity. Construction boomed, business flourished, and the stock market soared. Then on October 29, 1929, the stock market crashed. The crash sent shockwaves throughout the economy. Banks failed. Businesses closed. Millions found themselves out of work. The Great Depression, which would last through the 1930s, had begun.

When the Great Depression began, about 18 million elderly, disabled, and single mothers with children already lived at a bare subsistence level in the United States. State and local governments together with private charities helped these people. By 1933, another 13 million Americans had been thrown out of work. Suddenly, state and local governments and charities could no longer provide even minimum assistance for all those in need. Food riots broke out. Desertions by husbands and fathers increased. Homeless families in cities lived in public parks and shanty towns. Desperate times began to put into question the old American notion that if a man worked hard enough, he could always take care of himself and his family.

The effect of the Depression on poor children was particularly severe. Grace Abbott, head of the federal Children's Bureau, reported that in the spring of 1933, 20 percent of the nation's school children showed evidence of poor nutrition, housing, and medical care. School budgets were cut and in some cases schools were shut down for lack of money to pay teachers. An estimated 200,000 boys left home to wander the streets and beg because of the poor economic condition of their families.

Most elderly Americans did not have personal savings or retirement pensions to support them in normal times, let alone during a national economic crisis. Those few able to set aside money for retirement often found that their savings and investments had been wiped out by the financial crash in 1929. Senator Paul Douglas of Illinois made this observation in 1936:

The impact of all these forces increasingly convinced the majority of the American people that individuals could not by themselves provide adequately for their old age, and that some form of greater security should be provided by society.
Even skilled workers, business owners, successful farmers, and professionals of all kinds found themselves in severe economic difficulty as one out of four in the labor force lost their jobs. Words like "bewildered," "shocked," and "humiliated," were often used at the time to describe increasing numbers of Americans as the Depression deepened.
Although President Franklin D. Roosevelt focused mainly on creating jobs for the masses of unemployed workers, he also backed the idea of federal aid for poor children and other dependent persons. By 1935, a national welfare system had been established for the first time in American history.

[skrewt]

Originally posted by RoBoTeq

Originally posted by bornriding
My opinion...
The worst president ever was the one ( I don't know which ) that began WELFARE. This country would not be as populated nor as law-suit crazy, and people would be held more responsible for their own actions. Welfare showed people that they really don't have to provide for theirselves, and allowed the government to begin controlling our private lives. Can you just imagine how different the state of our world would be if welfare had not begun...

Richard

That would be FDR. Here are his reasons;

How Welfare Began in the United States
During the Great Depression of the 1930s, local and state governments as well as private charities were overwhelmed by needy families seeking food, clothing, and shelter. In 1935, welfare for poor children and other dependent persons became a federal government responsibility, which it remained for 60 years.
MINNEAPOLIS—Several hundred men and women in an unemployed demonstration today stormed a grocery store and meat market in the Gateway district, smashed plate glass windows and helped themselves to bacon and ham, fruit and canned goods.

—from the New York Times, February 26, 1931

The 1920s in America seemed like an age of endless prosperity. Construction boomed, business flourished, and the stock market soared. Then on October 29, 1929, the stock market crashed. The crash sent shockwaves throughout the economy. Banks failed. Businesses closed. Millions found themselves out of work. The Great Depression, which would last through the 1930s, had begun.

When the Great Depression began, about 18 million elderly, disabled, and single mothers with children already lived at a bare subsistence level in the United States. State and local governments together with private charities helped these people. By 1933, another 13 million Americans had been thrown out of work. Suddenly, state and local governments and charities could no longer provide even minimum assistance for all those in need. Food riots broke out. Desertions by husbands and fathers increased. Homeless families in cities lived in public parks and shanty towns. Desperate times began to put into question the old American notion that if a man worked hard enough, he could always take care of himself and his family.

The effect of the Depression on poor children was particularly severe. Grace Abbott, head of the federal Children's Bureau, reported that in the spring of 1933, 20 percent of the nation's school children showed evidence of poor nutrition, housing, and medical care. School budgets were cut and in some cases schools were shut down for lack of money to pay teachers. An estimated 200,000 boys left home to wander the streets and beg because of the poor economic condition of their families.

Most elderly Americans did not have personal savings or retirement pensions to support them in normal times, let alone during a national economic crisis. Those few able to set aside money for retirement often found that their savings and investments had been wiped out by the financial crash in 1929. Senator Paul Douglas of Illinois made this observation in 1936:

The impact of all these forces increasingly convinced the majority of the American people that individuals could not by themselves provide adequately for their old age, and that some form of greater security should be provided by society.
Even skilled workers, business owners, successful farmers, and professionals of all kinds found themselves in severe economic difficulty as one out of four in the labor force lost their jobs. Words like "bewildered," "shocked," and "humiliated," were often used at the time to describe increasing numbers of Americans as the Depression deepened.
Although President Franklin D. Roosevelt focused mainly on creating jobs for the masses of unemployed workers, he also backed the idea of federal aid for poor children and other dependent persons. By 1935, a national welfare system had been established for the first time in American history.



And welfare worked well for many years. As long as there was shame associated with collecting benefits only those truly needy applied and then they only collected as long as it took to get back on their feet.
Attitudes have degraded to the point that they feel "entitled" to the money. Scamming the government on as many fronts as possible has become a badge of honor.
This in turn has created a class of people who strive to remain hidden from tax rolls to avoid paying the punitive taxes necessary to bankroll the freeloaders.

I know people who have worked construction their entire lives under the table. Their plan is to go above board just in time to pay into Soc. Sec. long enough to draw benefits.

Government programs breed scammers on all sides.

[rob10]

Originally posted by RoBoTeq
The fact that President Bush is not an ultra-conservative but rather a right of center moderate is exactly the main thing that makes him such a great leader. BAWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[RoBoTeq]

Originally posted by rob10

Originally posted by RoBoTeq
The fact that President Bush is not an ultra-conservative but rather a right of center moderate is exactly the main thing that makes him such a great leader. BAWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm really glad to see you reposted what I stated here Rob10; it really is worth repeating.

[geerair]

History will not be kind to Bush. The worst? Bush will certainly be in the top 2.

[RoBoTeq]

History will show President Bush in a very favorable manner. President Bush will go down in the history books as a great leader.

[rob10]

Show otherwise. Iraq will be shown in high school textbooks in comparision to viet nam. His administration will be shown to be inept and also corrupt with corporate greed causing the military thousands of death. Also it will show in the character of the first black secretary of state that blacks have a higher goal of playing and/or managing professional sports rather than holding high office. NEED I STATE MORE!!

[Edited by rob10 on 04-03-2006 at 06:34 AM]

[James 3528]

No Loser10, you have pretty much said that you are a idiot.


On one hand you talk about pimping naked pictures of your boy looking wife and the other discrediting the character of a woman and her race.



[Edited by JAMES 3528 on 04-03-2006 at 08:43 AM]

[MadeinUSA]

Originally posted by rob10
Show otherwise. Iraq will be shown in high school textbooks in comparision to viet nam. His administration will be shown to be inept and also corrupt with corporate greed causing the military thousands of death. Also it will show in the character of the first black secretary of state that blacks have a higher goal of playing and/or managing professional sports rather than holding high office. NEED I STATE MORE!!

[Edited by rob10 on 04-03-2006 at 06:34 AM] I understand it is crawfish season down where you are. Next time you eat some, perhaps you should look into the head after you break the tail off, and see where they have more brains than you do.

[rob10]

Originally posted by James 3528
No Loser10, you have pretty much said that you are a idiot.


On one hand you talk about pimping naked pictures of your boy looking wife and the other discrediting the character of a woman and her race.



[Edited by JAMES 3528 on 04-03-2006 at 08:43 AM] jamey. Who ya trying to impress with that wusstang anyway?? Jr. High girls??

[rob10]

Originally posted by madeinusa

Originally posted by rob10
Show otherwise. Iraq will be shown in high school textbooks in comparision to viet nam. His administration will be shown to be inept and also corrupt with corporate greed causing the military thousands of death. Also it will show in the character of the first black secretary of state that blacks have a higher goal of playing and/or managing professional sports rather than holding high office. NEED I STATE MORE!!

[Edited by rob10 on 04-03-2006 at 06:34 AM] I understand it is crawfish season down where you are. Next time you eat some, perhaps you should look into the head after you break the tail off, and see where they have more brains than you do. No rebuttal there maiden to my stated facts?? Gave you more credit than jamey boy. Guess I was wrong. All you right wingnuts have handed your balls to GW on a silver platter!!

[James 3528]

Originally posted by madeinusa

Originally posted by rob10
Show otherwise. Iraq will be shown in high school textbooks in comparision to viet nam. His administration will be shown to be inept and also corrupt with corporate greed causing the military thousands of death. Also it will show in the character of the first black secretary of state that blacks have a higher goal of playing and/or managing professional sports rather than holding high office. NEED I STATE MORE!!

[Edited by rob10 on 04-03-2006 at 06:34 AM] I understand it is crawfish season down where you are. Next time you eat some, perhaps you should look into the head after you break the tail off, and see where they have more brains than you do.

LMFAO

Why bother? They do.

[browntigerus]

Definetly W most stupid and inept.

While republicans keep bringing claim that other states thought Saddam Insane had WMD, it was dumbo W who started the war based on bad intel.

Also time proved US also had good intel that saddam dropped those programs, it just felt on Cheney deaf ears who most likely saw opportunities for Halliburton.

[James 3528]

Originally posted by browntigerus
Definetly W most stupid and inept.

While republicans keep bringing claim that other states thought Saddam Insane had WMD, it was dumbo W who started the war based on bad intel.

Also time proved US also had good intel that saddam dropped those programs, it just felt on Cheney deaf ears who most likely saw opportunities for Halliburton.

Well you're wrong. Spanky. Recently released documents proved otherwise. Are you Loser10 on another computer?

[MadeinUSA]

Originally posted by browntigerus
Definetly W most stupid and inept.

While republicans keep bringing claim that other states thought Saddam Insane had WMD, it was dumbo W who started the war based on bad intel.

Also time proved US also had good intel that saddam dropped those programs, it just felt on Cheney deaf ears who most likely saw opportunities for Halliburton. You’re jokes aren’t even funny.

Here is a clue for you. While you try to chop down someone who is smart enough to pilot a fighter jet, you on the other hand are incapable of even strapping on a parachute.

They don’t give fighter wings to stupid people you moron, so your inaccurate judgment abilities show you to be the true stupid and inept one.