ing scary isn't it?
It's the same people that hated Bush before 2000.. they still and forever will.
If there house turned into a gold palace and Bush hand delivered it they would still hate his guts.
There is NOTHING new... same Bush bashing .. day after day after day.
Of course some liberal nutless wads that work for Time are going to call him the worst. It's there best fantasy for things to go wrong.
Far from being the conservative he said he was, Bush has blazed a radical new path as the first American president in history who is outwardly hostile to science -- dedicated, as a distinguished, bipartisan panel of educators and scientists (including forty-nine Nobel laureates) has declared, to "the distortion of scientific knowledge for partisan political ends."
Virtually every presidential administration dating back to George Washington's has faced charges of misconduct and threats of impeachment against the president or his civil officers. The alleged offenses have usually involved matters of personal misbehavior and corruption, notably the payoff scandals that plagued Cabinet officials who served presidents Harding and Ulysses S. Grant. But the charges have also included alleged usurpation of power by the president and serious criminal conduct that threatens cons utional government and the rule of law -- most notoriously, the charges that led to the impeachments of Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, and to Richard Nixon's resignation.
By contrast, the most scandal-ridden administration in the modern era, apart from Nixon's, was Ronald Reagan's, now widely remembered through a haze of nostalgia as a paragon of virtue. A total of twenty-nine Reagan officials, including White House national security adviser Robert McFarlane and deputy chief of staff Michael Deaver, were convicted on charges stemming from the Iran-Contra affair, illegal lobbying and a looting scandal inside the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Three Cabinet officers -- HUD Secretary Samuel Pierce, Attorney General Edwin Meese and Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger -- left their posts under clouds of scandal. In contrast, not a single official in the Clinton administration was even indicted over his or her White House duties, despite repeated high-profile investigations and a successful, highly partisan impeachment drive.
Bush officials have censored and suppressed research findings they don't like by the Environmental Protection Agency, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Department of Agriculture. Far from being the conservative he said he was, Bush has blazed a radical new path as the first American president in history who is outwardly hostile to science -- dedicated, as a distinguished, bipartisan panel of educators and scientists (including forty-nine Nobel laureates) has declared, to "the distortion of scientific knowledge for partisan political ends."
Other than random guy--Has anyone actually read this article? Agree with it or not it is phenomenal in how thorough it is. He goes through every policy Bush has and thoroughly do ents their successes and failures.
Even for a Bush supporter I would recomend reading this, I mean at the very least you will see the opposing line of view. Im not sure how Vashner (my new synonym for below clinical competence) you all are, as many do not wish to even think about civil discourse and this idea of other views seems sacrilidge, but I wouldnt mind reading your opinions even if they just end up as ad hominen attacks.
This post has my vote for Ownage of the Month; I agree 99%.
Sheeple...I like that.
This article is decent.
I find it humorous that when we take the facts out of this snip of the article, and combine that with DarkReign's view of the neocon public, we get an accurate, concrete idea of just how much those neocons really ARE sheeple.The monster deficits, caused by increased federal spending combined with the reduction of revenue resulting from the tax cuts, have also placed Bush's administration in a historic class of its own with respect to government borrowing. According to the Treasury Department, the forty-two presidents who held office between 1789 and 2000 borrowed a combined total of $1.01 trillion from foreign governments and financial ins utions. But between 2001 and 2005 alone, the Bush White House borrowed $1.05 trillion, more than all of the previous presidencies combined. Having inherited the largest federal surplus in American history in 2001, he has turned it into the largest deficit ever -- with an even higher deficit, $423 billion, forecast for fiscal year 2006. Yet Bush -- sounding much like Herbert Hoover in 1930 predicting that "prosperity is just around the corner" -- insists that he will cut federal deficits in half by 2009, and that the best way to guarantee this would be to make permanent his tax cuts, which helped cause the deficit in the first place!
Def. not the worst in history, but he's up there.
Yeah at least he didn't oversee the slaughtering of an entire race of people in the united states mainland.
You are (ALLEGEDLY) an unabashed, Democratic apologist - who happens to be an attorney.... Yes??
Does your written word determine the fate of individuals?
Your use of atrocious grammar is disheartening, to say the least.
You sir, are probably part of the PROBLEM, whether you recognize it or not.
I reserve the right to be wrong.
Lay aside the fact that you're solution of wiping out the MidEAst would be far more costly and disastorous for america, than any measley Republican NEocon blunder, okay. Focus on the fact that you're entire post is utter and complete caca.
ANd before you go on lampooning me and say that i'm a neocon, and that i have a narrow view of the world, and i'm part of the right wing conspiracy advocating the torture of anyone who supports the "sponge bob square pants gay agenda", I'm gonna lay out why you are the sheep.
First of all, you're assumption that all conservatives defending Bush think the way they do because they like to feel accepted and fit in like a bunch of sheep is the exact opposite.
When was the last time a conservative went to the film theatre and was reinforced with positive images about the president, and was free from subtle attacks at his ideology?
When was the last time conservatives held a protest in college campuses sponsored by the student press and the faculty?
When was the last time you were at work and you noticed all the other conservatives huddled in masse agreeing together..."Wow bush is a great leader"... "The war IN IRaq is going splendid"?
WHere the do you get the idea that all of the forum conservatives are united here, and have each others backs and we appear simultaneously together to attack a free thinker like you.
Its actually the exact opposite. It's the liberals on this board who are quick to defend each other and take a bullet for each other. It's the liberals, followed by spineless conservatives who feel the need to get accepted, who harp on people like xrayzebra and vashner and anyone else.
When was the last time you went downtown and you had a conservative just shout at you that you are unpatriotic.?
Infact when has anyone on this board called you unpatriotic? I want names.
But i guess it's all bs, unless there is this fic ional conservative boogey man labeling you anti-american all across this forum, and he happened to be on everyone elses ignore list.
but lets get back to the meat of you're post.
THere has been fighting between sunni and shiite since the beggining of the IRaq war. NOw that battle fatalities for troops have declined, the media has now focused on the fatalities of the iraqis and have now told you that there is a civil war where there has been none, and nothing much has changed. The same small extremist from both sides have been at it since the begining, but the people and the govt are still cooperating.
And what about you're assertion that afghanistan is going to in a handbasket?
Where are the afghani news stories of their civil war,.......THat's right. There's none.
ANd it is you who has drunken the koolaid from the democrats on this forum and from whatever you have heard. If you were actually a free thinker, you would have dismissed the whole civil war template because nothing has changed or escalated much.
I don't see it much changed from the beginning of the whole conflict.
This graph also completely ignores the number of iraqi security/army forces being killed, and that number is MUCH MUCH higher.
and if nothing much has changed in Iraq, reports of mass executions of groups of Iraqis must have been around since the fall of Baghdad, yes?
We took over a population of 50 million people and have lost less than 2,000 soldiers.
What the is good enough for you people?
In WWII we lost more people than that taking over 300 acre islands in the Pacific.
The Soviets Lost that many people LOSING a CITY BLOCK in Stalingrad.
The Union lost that many people defending a HEDGE ROW in the Civil War.
Thank God you didn't have a voice THEN.
Last edited by Sec24Row7; 04-20-2006 at 09:04 AM.
^^We also, along with the British, killed over 50,000 in one nights raid in Hamburg
Germany. Most of them civilians. It comes as a great surprise to many on this
board that war is . And it is all about killing people and breaking things. You
don't win wars by saying "pretty please, may I".
"took over a population of 50 million people"
Iraq ain't taken over. There is no public security. There are Bagdad neighborhoods that aren't even pacified. The US military has been/is too small to pacify the entire country and seal the borders. Reconstruction funds have been seriously diverted into defense of the reconstructors and paying protection/extortion rackets.
Iraq is moving faster in the direction of civil war and religious/ethnic militias than it is in the direction of peace and democracy. "took over"? GMAFB
As in the Gulf War, the Iraqi Army didn't even fight in the phony Repug war. The US has lost more lives and bodies to the unpredicted, unplanned-for, and unpacified insurgency than to the Iraqi Army. heckuva job, rummy.
So losing "only" 2000+ (not 2000-) lives in a phony war with NO POSITIVE RESULTS for the USA is your point? Comparing the ty no-show Iraq Army to other enemy armies is major wars is all you have left?
ing asshole joker.
^^It's all Harry Reid's fault along with Pelosi. I heard it through the grapevine.
Bush wanted to do more, but they were against it.
(Hey it works for dimm-o-craps, so I am going to try it)
I could care less what you think boutons. You and dan have made it blatantly obvious that you are going to feel the way you feel in spite of facts.
That is what makes you tick.
You are ruled by emotion rather than logic.
If you chose to think that, that's fine by me. Although I dont think I have ever claimed to be a democratic apologist--I’m a liberal not necessarily a democrat. And if my grammar is really that bad (slight hyperbole no?) I'm sorry for offending your sensibilities, It just so happens I seldom edit my posts, a fault of mine no doubt, but this has more to do with time restraints than apathy. I hardly think I compete with Ducks in this regard. (Now spelling-- Admittedly is not a strong suit, a wonder that I ever got on at all without word processors.)
Does my written word do anything? As far as the historical perspective in which an individual is viewed, no, I only have a BA in history. That doesn't mean I cant find this article to be good, and it doesn't mean I can't wish the neo-cons on this forum to have to defend the ideals they so frequently espouse, now does it?
Oh come now, you can’t be serious. We liberals are the ones ignoring the facts? Chasing some ideologically bankrupt philosophy? We're the ones that can't face reality, despite the constant reminders that we're wrong? We're the ones that the entire planet views as war mongering idiots right? Liberals like dan and boutons are the ones that rely on ad hominen attack supplemented with large doses of every other logical fallacies know to man, as their only articulation of a defense as to their policy beliefs correct?
Name one policy Bush has ever had that isn't going to over this country royally.... please.
I think you just made my point.
Sec24, this president has the worst approval rating since Nixon, he has 2 and a half years left and no policies left on the docket with any realistic chance at success.
Social Security?
Tax Cuts huh? (So glad I could leave such a mess for my grandchildren to clean up)
2 more wars? With what military? We are the definition of overstretched right now.
I mean all that is left for this president to hope for is John Paul Stevens passing away.
There was just a whole ing article on how President Bush may be the worst president in history. A majority of the posters on this thread have implied he may have been the worst president of their life times.
I think it is more than reasonable to question his policies, has there been one that hasn’t ed us over?
You name an area from the environment to the economy to foreign policy... go on... make my day you old vashner.
a- ing-men.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote