Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Basically, is Bush the worst president we have ever had, or is someone still worse than him.

I don't think so.

America really has been in worse shape in just about every way in the past..

Well who's worse than Bush then?

The only president I like is abraham Lincolm, coz he wears an awsome hat and has my favourite gun in Fallout 3 with his name on it.

BT, is he the worst? I am not asking who the best is. Although Abe has a cool hat.

There are others, but George W. Bush is one of the worst..


His father was a better President then he was

Bush's Dad>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>George W. Bush

Those claiming he is should supplement a reason, and those claiming he is not should mention a worse president.

Originally posted by Final Blaxican
America really has been in worse shape in just about every way in the past..

That's not what he asked, now is it?

Bush Sr. also had a much easier fight to deal with... If our mission in Iraq was to go in, fight an actual Iraqi army, and kill pretty much in the country we'd of won years ago.

Instead we're fighting people who by day are the guy selling you cheese burgers at the food stand, then at night they pick up their AK's and **** you up...

Originally posted by Wil Deidara
Well who's worse than Bush then?

That's somewhat of a loaded question, as there are very few people who know a considerable amount about all 43 U.S. Presidents. Your average KMC poster probably just knows something about Washington, Lincoln, F.D. Rosevelt, Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton and G.W. Bush.

It's also a rather subjective question; it depends on which qualities the person answering finds to be "worse" in a leader. E.G. Some think FDR was horrible and detrimental to America because of the "New Deal" he put in place. Some (mostly gun nuts) think LBJ was shit because of his 1968 Gun Control Act.

Edit: One thing you also have to take into account, how well would past presidents have faired in public opinion if they did their terms under the same level of information sharing we have today? E.G. Bush farts rudely and 2 minutes later it's on youtube.

Originally posted by Robtard
That's somewhat of a loaded question, as there are very few people who know a considerable amount about all 43 U.S. Presidents. Your average KMC poster probably just knows something about Washington, Lincoln, F.D. Rosevelt, Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton and G.W. Bush.

It's also a rather subjective question; it depends on which qualities the person answering finds to be "worse" in a leader. E.G. Some think FDR was horrible and detrimental to America because of the "New Deal" he put in place. Some (mostly gun nuts) think LBJ was shit because of his 1968 Gun Control Act.

Edit: One thing you also have to take into account, how well would past presidents have faired in public opinion if they did their terms under the same level of information sharing we have today? E.G. Bush farts rudely and 2 minutes later it's on youtube.

...or if he gets shoes thrown at him.
So it does serve some good purpose in this regard.

I don't think Bush will be looked on as badly by history as he is at the moment. He had probably the toughest set of circumstances that any president has ever had in US history because even those who have been in charge through wars have known the enemy. with Iraq and Afghanistan their is so much complexity that is known now in hindsight but wasn't known at the time decisions had to be made.

the US have never been attacked on their own soil as blatently as they were on Sept 11th 2001.

I think he's suffering from the mistakes and gambles made by people delegated to run the economy and who treated it as a giant casino with big stakes for potentially big profits and lost...and now the US and the rest of the world face potentially the worst recession in history. granted perhaps he and his government are partly to blame for allowing deregulation of market forces but the banks and their irresponsible actions were the root of the problem rather than any incompetence at government level

i also think the huge amounts of development in Africa that Bush has funded through his Pepfar scheme has been completely overlooked

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/15/georgebush.usa

Under Bush the US has been transformed from a country in complete denial about climate change to one that is now developing some the best technologies to tackle it. a change that he himself had to make after some resistance to the idea.

Didn't he reject the Kyoto Accord? Signing that, or any form of emissions cap would do a lot to build his reputation as a 'green' president. I don't think that Bush has had much of an impact on the dawning realization of Global Warming for many Americans- to attribute it to the Bush administration seems foolish.

Nixon?

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Didn't he reject the Kyoto Accord? Signing that, or any form of emissions cap would do a lot to build his reputation as a 'green' president. I don't think that Bush has had much of an impact on the dawning realization of Global Warming for many Americans- to attribute it to the Bush administration seems foolish.

hence the reason i said HE had to change as well...because initially he flat out denied that humans were influencing global warming

since 2003 the climate change budget in the US has went from an average of about $5billion to $37billion last year and it's budgeted to increase again to around $45billion in 2009-2010

some 9 times that of the UK budget for example

so i'm not saying he was ever at the forefront of green awarness but he has certainly changed his government's stance on the issue...he could have simply not done a u-turn due to some foolish pride and the US would be another 4 years behind in funding development in alternative energies and other green projects.

Good to know. I'm not going to argue against this, as any increase in awareness is obviously a good thing.



This isn't really a fair comparrison: The United States has a far larger GDP and budget to throw around. I'd be more interested in the percentage of money spent on 'Green' projects/technology.

perhaps you'd be more interested in the fact that while the US increased by some $28billion...the UK's is decreasing by some 300million every year.

Pretty sure Grant holds the title for being worst president to date. Bush probably won't ever be ranked that because he was relatively efficient.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Didn't he reject the Kyoto Accord? Signing that, or any form of emissions cap would do a lot to build his reputation as a 'green' president. I don't think that Bush has had much of an impact on the dawning realization of Global Warming for many Americans- to attribute it to the Bush administration seems foolish.

There are flaws with the Kyoto Protocol. There are also mistaken measurements used. Much too lenient measures in some portions and too harsh in others.



Also, man-made global warming accounts for very little of the total global warming picture.



Not to mention the economic detriments associated with imposing limits on our nation that we literally cannot afford.

There's much better ways to go about a green remedy than agreeing to a significantly flawed international accord.







I've noticed, in Oklahoma alone, a significant effort in renewable energy. Spain has a commercial wave farm already up too. Solar technology needs to still improve along with battery technology, but we are already headed in the correct direction, especially considering Obama's "green" talking points.

Not by a long shot.

It's hard to say considering 99% of the people reading this thread could only name about 15 presidents.

There were a lot of presidents who were considered the "worst," especially during other generations. Franklin Pierce is a prime example, and he's one who would definitely be included in the list of presidents that people have no clue even existed.

Originally posted by Wil Deidara
Basically, is Bush the worst president we have ever had, or is someone still worse than him. Really? I'm sure Herbert Hoover and Andrew Johnson did worse.

Wikipedia, making people seem erudite since January 2001.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_United_States_Presidents

Jackson was, by far, the worst president in US history. Just read up on what he did to the Native Americans.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Jackson was, by far, the worst president in US history. Just read up on what he did to the Native Americans. Not sure what he did to the Native's but I'd place Jackson among the top 10. Simply because of his monetary policy.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Not sure what he did to the Native's but I'd place Jackson among the top 10. Simply because of his monetary policy.

In other words, just because he is on money? You should read up on that too.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Jackson was, by far, the worst president in US history. Just read up on what he did to the Native Americans.

"I'm the first to admit we took this country from the indians but what were they doing with it anyway; shooting off bows and arrows and using seashells for money." -Norman Arbuthnot

first of all, i think there's already a thread for this, second, why is it that since reagan was in office its somehow ok for a sitting president to commit high treason and then you know, not be impeached...then tried criminally...then executed as prescribed by law.

and just so we are clear for those that don't know what exactly the law says...High treason is criminal disloyalty to one's country. Participating in a war against one's country, attempting to overthrow or subvert its government, spying on its military, its diplomats, or its secret services for a hostile and foreign power, cabal, NGO (which includes terrorist organizations) or other special interest, or attempting to kill its head of state.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
first of all, i think there's already a thread for this, second, why is it that since reagan was in office its somehow ok for a sitting president to commit high treason and then you know, not be impeached...then tried criminally...then executed as prescribed by law.

and just so we are clear for those that don't know what exactly the law says...High treason is criminal disloyalty to one's country. Participating in a war against one's country, attempting to overthrow or subvert its government, spying on its military, its diplomats, or its secret services for a hostile and foreign power, cabal, NGO (which includes terrorist organizations) or other special interest, or attempting to kill its head of state.

Conspiracy Forum.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
In other words, just because he is on money? You should read up on that too.

You are not all that intelligent are you?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
In other words, just because he is on money? You should read up on that too. No, not that at all.

Jackson ended the central bank and made America less aristocratic and more democratic. That the common man was more important than the rich man.

Although, he does seem authoritarian.

Originally posted by lord xyz
No, not that at all.

Jackson ended the central bank and made America less aristocratic and more democratic. That the common man was more important than the rich man.

Although, he does seem authoritarian.

Ya, I know. Don't be confused; it was a joke.

However, Jackson did not see the native Americans as "common man" and took all their land away from them.

Man it never ends.Another Is Bush the worst president thread AGAIN.Well since another one HAS been created,the answer is yes.Even though he is just a puppet for his daddy and Cheney.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Ya, I know. Don't be confused; it was a joke.

However, Jackson did not see the native Americans as "common man" and took all their land away from them. He was also a slave owner...just like everyone else at that time.

I'm betting Washington, Jefferson and Adams did a lot against the natives as well. It's not really something to hold against one president.

Originally posted by lord xyz
He was also a slave owner...just like everyone else at that time.

I'm betting Washington, Jefferson and Adams did a lot against the natives as well. It's not really something to hold against one president.

You should read up on him before you defend him.

http://www.iwchildren.org/genocide/shame9.htm

Originally posted by Mr Parker
Man it never ends.Another Is Bush the worst president thread AGAIN.Well since another one HAS been created,the answer is yes.Even though he is just a puppet for his daddy and Cheney.

Who's the puppet master for Bush Sr. and Cheney then?

Originally posted by Wil Deidara
Basically, is Bush the worst president we have ever had, or is someone still worse than him.

What's with people and overreacting to Bush? Was he a good president? Nah. Was he the worst? Not even close.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
http://www.iwchildren.org/genocide/shame9.htm

Conspiracy forum.

Also, the persons who made that site are clinically retarded, I stopped reading after this statement:

"WE DEMAND THIS MAN WHO PUBLICLY CONFESSED HIS CONTEMPT FOR THE LAW BE TRIED FOR HIS CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY, THE DEATH OF CHEROKEE CHILDREN"

Originally posted by Toku King
What's with people and overreacting to Bush? Was he a good president? Nah. Was he the worst? Not even close.

Which begs the question, who is worse, why are they worse and is your answer objective or not?

E.G. Look at Shaky, he thinks Jackson is, because he killed 3,000 Indians (feather, not dot).

Originally posted by Robtard
Conspiracy forum.

Also, the persons who made that site are clinically retarded, I stopped reading after this statement:

"WE DEMAND THIS MAN WHO PUBLICLY CONFESSED HIS CONTEMPT FOR THE LAW BE TRIED FOR HIS CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY, THE DEATH OF CHEROKEE CHILDREN"

Oh well, I was trying to find something that would cover the subject, but didn't read all of it. There is information out there on the topic, but I don't have time to find it.

Bush may be the worst of the under 30 generation, but that's about it.

Study history and you will find a lot that caused even more problems in their time.

Jimmy Carter
Herbert Hoover
Ussyles S Grant
Millard Fillmore
James K Polk

Just to name a few were all worse than Bush

The million dollar question is....how bad will Obama be? I'm betting in a couple years people will be wanting Bush back.

Funny joke.

you GOT to be kidding? Carter is the one halfway decent president we have had since Kennedy who wasnt corrupt and Im pretty sure none of those others passed an illegal act without the consent of congress called the patriot act which allows the government to spy on its own citizens or encouraged the military to torture prisoners.just look at that leadingtowar.com link down at the bottom.That says it all right there about Bush.

For what it's worth, Carter doesn't rank that favourably with historians, not "the worse", just low opinion of his policies and abilities to lead the nation.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Jackson was, by far, the worst president in US history. Just read up on what he did to the Native Americans.
No. He didn't let the country split in two like Buchanan and was also the only president to run the country without any debt.

And Carter was an idiot. He barely ever did anything average for the country.

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
No. He didn't let the country split in two like Buchanan and was also the only president to run the country without any debt.

And Carter was an idiot. He barely ever did anything average for the country.

Ya, Buchanan would be my second candidate for worst president.

Originally posted by BruceSkywalker
There are others, but George W. Bush is one of the worst..


His father was a better President then he was His dad was a douche

Originally posted by Robtard
"I'm the first to admit we took this country from the indians but what were they doing with it anyway; shooting off bows and arrows and using seashells for money." -Norman Arbuthnot

Please do not do that. Posting a quote like that seems to suggest you know hardly anything about that period of history. Native Americans had concepts of ownership and capital, assimlating with whites (because they were taking over by force) just as white had assimlated with them (for survival to live in nature).

The question that should be asked is what good has Bush done in his presidency? How has foriegn policy improved? Was the U.S. progressing as a country in anything under his watch?

Its like the old saying goes:"Two douches don't make a......not-douche."

or "A douche in the hand is worth two in the Bush...."



Now....back to "Freddy got fingered"...

And to be clear, we should not even bother judging any president before Nixon on discrimination because society as a whole did not give a damn anyway.

It's obvious that the Native Americans were slaughtered and still get treated like crap today (less than 3% of the U.S population today), Asians were given loads of flak, with Black Americans you got slavery and the Jim Crow laws after the fact; I'm sure different people can name attorcities by the government concerning minorities that never get covered in the mainstream, but it's not even worth mentioning in this discussion because everyone did it so we would never get anywhere.

The fact is that was best for the "progress" of the U.S. was not was best for all citizens.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Conspiracy Forum.

I don't think things that fall into the realm of mainstream media reporting necessarily fall into the category of "conspiracy". Iran-Contra was reagan committing treason and everyone knows it. The mass privatization of The US government and the use of its resources by fringe groups and foreign nations, resulting in economic collapse, war, death by negligence, and murder is bush's.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
http://www.iwchildren.org/genocide/shame9.htm Jackson was against everything the supreme court decided. Probably because they were aristocrats and the removal of Indaians meant more money from the South (there was gold on their land).

I agree it's wrong to have done what he'd done, but it's hardly anything to hold against him as president. A president should be judged by how well he controlled the country. Now lets think about it:

Eliminated national debt, expanded the country, expanded the riches, rotated offices to avoid corruption, tried to get rid of the electoral college... that's a pretty good president. Even if he was racist.

Originally posted by chithappens
Please do not do that. Posting a quote like that seems to suggest you know hardly anything about that period of history. Native Americans had concepts of ownership and capital, assimlating with whites (because they were taking over by force) just as white had assimlated with them (for survival to live in nature).


It was a quote from a movie; a comedy at that, it's purpose was to amuse, obviously, so calm down.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
I don't think things that fall into the realm of mainstream media reporting necessarily fall into the category of "conspiracy". Iran-Contra was reagan committing treason and everyone knows it. The mass privatization of The US government and the use of its resources by fringe groups and foreign nations, resulting in economic collapse, war, death by negligence, and murder is bush's.

No, your claim that "everyone knows it" is false. In this country you are innocent until proved guilty. If Reagan had been convicted of treason then you would have a point. However, what you are saying, in my opinion, is just conspiracy.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No, your claim that "everyone knows it" is false. In this country you are innocent until proved guilty.

Just like OJ Simpson.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Just like OJ Simpson.

This is what he said:

Originally posted by Darth Jello
first of all, i think there's already a thread for this, second, why is it that since reagan was in office its somehow ok for a sitting president to commit high treason and then you know, not be impeached...then tried criminally...then executed as prescribed by law.

and just so we are clear for those that don't know what exactly the law says...High treason is criminal disloyalty to one's country. Participating in a war against one's country, attempting to overthrow or subvert its government, spying on its military, its diplomats, or its secret services for a hostile and foreign power, cabal, NGO (which includes terrorist organizations) or other special interest, or attempting to kill its head of state.

That would be like asking : Why is it that since OJ Simpson, its somehow ok for all black football players to murder?

Do you get the point?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
This is what he said:



That would be like asking : Why is it that since OJ Simpson, its somehow ok for all black football players to murder?

Do you get the point?

That's not what he said at all. Read it again, remembering that "since" can also mean "because".

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That's not what he said at all. Read it again, remembering that "since" can also mean "because".


Hmmmmmm? Could be. It still smacks of conspiracy to me, but I will give you the point.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
I don't think things that fall into the realm of mainstream media reporting necessarily fall into the category of "conspiracy". Iran-Contra was reagan committing treason and everyone knows it. The mass privatization of The US government and the use of its resources by fringe groups and foreign nations, resulting in economic collapse, war, death by negligence, and murder is bush's.

well said Darth.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
well said Darth.

Point proved!

Originally posted by Mr Parker
you GOT to be kidding? Carter is the one halfway decent president we have had since Kennedy who wasnt corrupt and Im pretty sure none of those others passed an illegal act without the consent of congress called the patriot act which allows the government to spy on its own citizens or encouraged the military to torture prisoners.just look at that leadingtowar.com link down at the bottom.That says it all right there about Bush.


No, I'm not kidding, not in the least. I remember the Carter years firsthand...do you? I remember the somber mood of the nation very well, and at a time well before the internet made the unlimited freeflow of information possible. Under Carter we had double digit inflation, extremely high interest rates and, high unemployment. His handling of the Iran hostage crisis would have been comical if it had not been so serious and made America look so weak and inept. The only good thing about Carter is that he was the first, and really only, President to seriously try to reduce our dependance on foreign oil, afterall, oil was skyrocketing in price during that era and the Arab oil embargo was still fresh in peoples memories.

You can also look at how soundly Carter was defeated for his bid for reelection in 1980, far worse than McCain lost in 08. It shows just how the country felt about Carters performance as President.

As for Bush, yes he's been pretty much a disaster, no argument there. Iraq was all about an oil grab but as far as Gitmo, and torture go, he's done nothing that previous administrations haven't done also, the only difference is in this age of mass communication Bush got caught. Bush also took the fight to the terrorists, something his predecessor failed miserably to do despite several major attacks under his watch.

Yes, Bush ranks in the lower half of competant Presidents but only someone totally niave of history would call him the worst.

Funny you mention Kennedy too, he was the one who got us involved in Vietnam to start with.

Originally posted by Doom and Gloom
No, I'm not kidding, not in the least. I remember the Carter years firsthand...do you? I remember the somber mood of the nation very well, and at a time well before the internet made the unlimited freeflow of information possible. Under Carter we had double digit inflation, extremely high interest rates and, high unemployment. His handling of the Iran hostage crisis would have been comical if it had not been so serious and made America look so weak and inept. The only good thing about Carter is that he was the first, and really only, President to seriously try to reduce our dependance on foreign oil, afterall, oil was skyrocketing in price during that era and the Arab oil embargo was still fresh in peoples memories.

You can also look at how soundly Carter was defeated for his bid for reelection in 1980, far worse than McCain lost in 08. It shows just how the country felt about Carters performance as President.

As for Bush, yes he's been pretty much a disaster, no argument there. Iraq was all about an oil grab but as far as Gitmo, and torture go, he's done nothing that previous administrations haven't done also, the only difference is in this age of mass communication Bush got caught. Bush also took the fight to the terrorists, something his predecessor failed miserably to do despite several major attacks under his watch.

Yes, Bush ranks in the lower half of competant Presidents but only someone totally niave of history would call him the worst.

Funny you mention Kennedy too, he was the one who got us involved in Vietnam to start with. Ermm, no, I believe the war started under Eisenhower and was fully implemented under Johnson.

I also remember unemployment to be fairly low under Carter, like overall good.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/67/Us_unemployment_rates_1950_2005.svg/683px-Us_unemployment_rates_1950_2005.svg.png

The inflation was due to the economic crisis, which you said was a good thing he did. I'm also one of those people who would've voted for him in 1980. **** Reagan.

edit: The trend on that graph is oustanding. Every republican skyrocketed the unemployment rate, and every dem progressively lowered it.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No, your claim that "everyone knows it" is false. In this country you are innocent until proved guilty. If Reagan had been convicted of treason then you would have a point. However, what you are saying, in my opinion, is just conspiracy.

Well Bush should have been impeached (at the very least) for lying to the American public about connections between Iraq and terrorism, for example.

Because he doesn't get formally charged doesn't mean he didn't commit a crime. Reagan did far more than most are willing to admit even when he is quoted as saying he was personally invovled in various acts.

No different than most other presidents, this history is never discussed.

Originally posted by Robtard
It was a quote from a movie; a comedy at that, it's purpose was to amuse, obviously, so calm down.

There was nothing obvious about the comedic intention of the post since you don't mention it was from a movie and everyone else was addressing the issue of racial discrimination in a more serious tone. Some members on here actually believe that sort of nonsense. I believe you posted it in poor context. That's all.

Originally posted by chithappens
Well Bush should have been impeached (at the very least) for lying to the American public about connections between Iraq and terrorism, for example.

Because he doesn't get formally charged doesn't mean he didn't commit a crime. Reagan did far more than most are willing to admit even when he is quoted as saying he was personally invovled in various acts.

No different than most other presidents, this history is never discussed. Speaking of which, former presidents Bush and Nixon were involved in the conspiracy of Kennedy.

1. J. Edgar Hoover wrote a memo labelling Bush to be involved in the assassination of Kennedy November 23 1963

2. Richard Nixon told the FBI not to investigate Hunt's past and the Kennedy assassination whilst Hunt was in jail.

3. Bush and Hunt can't recall what they were doing on Nov. 22nd 63

4. They have both been confirmed to have been in Dallas on that day

5. As soon as Kennedy died they rose to power.

6. They have many connections to bay of pigs people and CIA people (enemies of Kennedy)

7. There was a conspiracy, a cover-up and it was done by the CIA.

It's all conditional evidence, but it's enough to think something happened.

I don't know anything about that one, but would be concidental.

Originally posted by chithappens
Well Bush should have been impeached (at the very least) for lying to the American public about connections between Iraq and terrorism, for example.

Because he doesn't get formally charged doesn't mean he didn't commit a crime. Reagan did far more than most are willing to admit even when he is quoted as saying he was personally invovled in various acts.

No different than most other presidents, this history is never discussed.

That is your opinion. If we impeached a president based on opinions, every president would be impeached. Also, there is no law saying that the president has to tell the truth. In WWII Roosevelt lied to the US public to give cover for D day. Should he have been impeached?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is your opinion. If we impeached a president based on opinions, every president would be impeached. Also, there is no law saying that the president has to tell the truth. In WWII Roosevelt lied to the US public to give cover for D day. Should he have been impeached?

Look, Bush lying about connections between Iraq and terrorism is a fact. You would be hard pressed to find someone who looks into it for more than two minutes who says otherwise. Taking a country into war on false pretenses is cause for impeachment; conversly, lying about getting your dick sucked is not a big deal...

Do you have proof that Hussien and Bin Laden had been hanging out together that we don't know about?

Roosevelt lying to give cover about D-Day is not the same sort of case at all. You are just reaching for anything.

Originally posted by chithappens
Look, Bush lying about connections between Iraq and terrorism is a fact. You would be hard pressed to find someone who looks into it for more than two minutes who says otherwise. Taking a country into war on false pretenses is cause for impeachment; conversly,

It is not a fact, and the truth about what is really going on is not available to anyone. Just consider this: after President elect Obama had his meeting with the military, he changed his mind on how fast we would get out of Iraq. It now seems to be three years. I bet you will find that nothing with change.

Originally posted by chithappens
lying about getting your dick sucked is not a big deal...

Lying to a judge is an impeachable offence.

Originally posted by chithappens
Do you have proof that Hussien and Bin Laden had been hanging out together that we don't know about?

We do not know, but I'm sure that President elect Obama does now know. Watch what he does.

Originally posted by chithappens
Roosevelt lying to give cover about D-Day is not the same sort of case at all. You are just reaching for anything.

No, I'm trying to show you that lying is not always bad, but mostly that we don't know what is really going on.

The possible WMDs (including biological warheads) that Iraq may have had were given to them by the U.S. while Iraq and Iran were fighting and, ironically to this topic, during the Iran-Contra scandal. Iraq was building a nuclear weapon but our military destoryed the progress they made, hitting a random building and later realizing what they had done, during the Gulf War.

The paragraph above is based on books I have read on different topics concerning U.S. history.

What you are suggesting is that all "facts" are skewed. Certainly, this is true in a lot of cases, but it has been clear that Iraq was a lie.

How would lying to the public about connections concerning terrorism help the U.S. long term? The U.N. commited hardly no troops because they knew Colin Powell was talking bullshit. It was just all realpoltik. If the U.S. were not the world's most dominant military nation, this would never had happened this way.

Originally posted by chithappens
The possible WMDs (including biological warheads) that Iraq may have had were given to them by the U.S. while Iraq and Iran were fighting and, ironically to this topic, during the Iran-Contra scandal. Iraq was building a nuclear weapon but our military destoryed the progress they made, hitting a random building and later realizing what they had done, during the Gulf War.

The paragraph above is based on books I have read on different topics concerning U.S. history.

What you are suggesting is that all "facts" are skewed. Certainly, this is true in a lot of cases, but it has been clear that Iraq was a lie.

How would lying to the public about connections concerning terrorism help the U.S. long term? The U.N. commited hardly no troops because they knew Colin Powell was talking bullshit. It was just all realpoltik. If the U.S. were not the world's most dominant military nation, this would never had happened this way.

It will be more then 50 years before we know. I hope you realize that there are a lot more people involved then just the president. The leaders of Great Britten and Russia both agreed that Iraq had WMDs. You have to ask yourself why did all of these leaders lie. It must have been something very important.

Yeah, getting more territory so they will be close enough to Africa to corner the black man...

Originally posted by lord xyz
Speaking of which, former presidents Bush and Nixon were involved in the conspiracy of Kennedy.

1. J. Edgar Hoover wrote a memo labelling Bush to be involved in the assassination of Kennedy November 23 1963

2. Richard Nixon told the FBI not to investigate Hunt's past and the Kennedy assassination whilst Hunt was in jail.

3. Bush and Hunt can't recall what they were doing on Nov. 22nd 63

4. They have both been confirmed to have been in Dallas on that day

5. As soon as Kennedy died they rose to power.

6. They have many connections to bay of pigs people and CIA people (enemies of Kennedy)

7. There was a conspiracy, a cover-up and it was done by the CIA.

It's all conditional evidence, but it's enough to think something happened. Meant to say Nixon on number 3, although Hunt is in the same situation.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Ermm, no, I believe the war started under Eisenhower and was fully implemented under Johnson.

I also remember unemployment to be fairly low under Carter, like overall good.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/67/Us_unemployment_rates_1950_2005.svg/683px-Us_unemployment_rates_1950_2005.svg.png

The inflation was due to the economic crisis, which you said was a good thing he did. I'm also one of those people who would've voted for him in 1980. **** Reagan.

edit: The trend on that graph is oustanding. Every republican skyrocketed the unemployment rate, and every dem progressively lowered it.

First of all, the first US military advisors sent to Vietnam were ordered there by KENNEDY, Eisenhower had nothing to do with it, but you are half right, the war was escalated under Johnson.

And as for your graph, Unemplayment in 1979, 1980, Carters last years, was around 8-10%, hardly low. The severe economic recession of the early 80s(early Reagan years) was both inevitable and necessary, without it inflation would have have accelerate at a catastrophic rate and the enivitable crash would have been much worse.

But ultimately neither Carter nor Bush is really the problem. People like you, who vote only along party lines, are the reason things never really change. Obama won't be change either, just wait and see.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Ermm, no, I believe the war started under Eisenhower and was fully implemented under Johnson.

I also remember unemployment to be fairly low under Carter, like overall good.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/67/Us_unemployment_rates_1950_2005.svg/683px-Us_unemployment_rates_1950_2005.svg.png

The inflation was due to the economic crisis, which you said was a good thing he did. I'm also one of those people who would've voted for him in 1980. **** Reagan.

edit: The trend on that graph is oustanding. Every republican skyrocketed the unemployment rate, and every dem progressively lowered it.
Quick, let's post a graph that shows regular economic cycles without actually taking the time to compare the circumstances surrounding the economic cycles! Then we can ignore what's happening in the graph in exchange for absolutes, and then we can disregard events that would dramatically affect the economy for years to come.

Originally posted by Doom and Gloom
But ultimately neither Carter nor Bush is really the problem. People like you, who vote only along party lines, are the reason things never really change.


Indeed. If people REALLY wanted they change, they would voted for a libertarian or a constitutionlist.

Originally posted by Doom and Gloom
First of all, the first US military advisors sent to Vietnam were ordered there by KENNEDY, Eisenhower had nothing to do with it, but you are half right, the war was escalated under Johnson.

And as for your graph, Unemplayment in 1979, 1980, Carters last years, was around 8-10%, hardly low. The severe economic recession of the early 80s(early Reagan years) was both inevitable and necessary, without it inflation would have have accelerate at a catastrophic rate and the enivitable crash would have been much worse.

But ultimately neither Carter nor Bush is really the problem. People like you, who vote only along party lines, are the reason things never really change. Obama won't be change either, just wait and see. In 1959?

And about the graph, Carter's highest year was his last which is under 8%. During the energy crisis. Not really something to hold against him. It's like blaming Gordon Brown for the credit crunch or Hoover for the great depression.

By the way, even if I was able to vote for your presidents, I wouldn't vote for any. The only people coming close was people like Kerry, Kucinich, Dukakis, the Kennedy's...maybe I just have a thing for the letter K and Irish/Greek people.

Originally posted by Doom and Gloom
No, I'm not kidding, not in the least. I remember the Carter years firsthand...do you? I remember the somber mood of the nation very well, and at a time well before the internet made the unlimited freeflow of information possible. Under Carter we had double digit inflation, extremely high interest rates and, high unemployment. His handling of the Iran hostage crisis would have been comical if it had not been so serious and made America look so weak and inept. The only good thing about Carter is that he was the first, and really only, President to seriously try to reduce our dependance on foreign oil, afterall, oil was skyrocketing in price during that era and the Arab oil embargo was still fresh in peoples memories.

You can also look at how soundly Carter was defeated for his bid for reelection in 1980, far worse than McCain lost in 08. It shows just how the country felt about Carters performance as President.

As for Bush, yes he's been pretty much a disaster, no argument there. Iraq was all about an oil grab but as far as Gitmo, and torture go, he's done nothing that previous administrations haven't done also, the only difference is in this age of mass communication Bush got caught. Bush also took the fight to the terrorists, something his predecessor failed miserably to do despite several major attacks under his watch.

Yes, Bush ranks in the lower half of competant Presidents but only someone totally niave of history would call him the worst.

Funny you mention Kennedy too, he was the one who got us involved in Vietnam to start with.

Not true at all.Thats the myth that the school system propagates but its totally untrue.Its been proven that it was actually Eisenhower that got us into vietnam.Read the book AMERICAN TRAGEDY kennedy, johnson and the origins of the vietnam war by David Kaiser.It should read Eisenhower,kennedy johnson and the origins of the vietnam war since thats how it starts out talking about vietnam during Eisenhowers presidency.Kaiser's book is the first book based on now declassified material and recently released white house recordings that prove Eisenhower got us into vietnam.

The vietnam war policies under Eisenhower took an aggressive attitude openness to using nuclear weapons towards communist advances anywhere especially Laos and southeast asia.Kennedy was more open to non aligned governments and more interested in d?tente than in war in his 3 years in office as recently released government archives and tape recordings of white house meetings prove.Kennedy constantly rejected military recommendations by the joint chiefs for military actions in vietnam.

Matter of fact the policies that led to the war in vietnam were originally developed during Eisenhowers tenure and nearly implemented in the closing days of his administration in response to the crisis in Laos.Kennedy in fact after being elected president,immediately reversed course on Laos and refused for 3 years to follow military actions in southeast asia by the joint chiefs of staff in the pentagan.During kennedys tenure,he only sent ADVISORS in.He never recommended combat troops.Matter of fact just a couple days before he was assassinated,he signed executive order document # 263 that called for a complete withdrawal from vietnam by 1965.However after he was assasinated,Johnson a few days later,signed executive order document # 273 reversing Kennedys policy towards vietnam and esculated the war.we never would have had the vietnam war had kennedy lived.Johnson unlike kennedy,continued the policies that Eisenhower had calling for an esculation of the war.

Sure all that stuff happened under Carter but thats because he was a president like kennedy who wanted to do good for the country.He was set up to look bad.It wasnt just an accident that once Reagan got elected that the hostages just by coincidence HAPPENED to get released that day.They were arranged to be held hostage while carter was president and to get released the day Reagan got inagurated because they wanted Reagan to look like an efficient president immediately.Read the book The October Surprise by Barbara Honneger,it talks all about that.She served in the Reagan administration and came across documents that proved that.Darth also already addressed why Reagan was such a horrible president and you didnt bother to address my post on why Bush is such a horrible man either.

In a rare instance Lord Xyz is actually correct.

Originally posted by chithappens
Look, Bush lying about connections between Iraq and terrorism is a fact. You would be hard pressed to find someone who looks into it for more than two minutes who says otherwise. Taking a country into war on false pretenses is cause for impeachment; conversly, lying about getting your dick sucked is not a big deal...

Do you have proof that Hussien and Bin Laden had been hanging out together that we don't know about?

Roosevelt lying to give cover about D-Day is not the same sort of case at all. You are just reaching for anything.

Exactly.Well said.very good points.Hell yeah its a fact.Thats been documented.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
Exactly.Well said.very good points.Hell yeah its a fact.Thats been documented.

How many times are you going to reply to that same post?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Indeed. If people REALLY wanted they change, they would voted for a libertarian or a constitutionlist.

very true but thats something that you'll never get across to Lord xyz that both parties are corrupt-just ask anybody.He'll never admit it that both parties are corrrupt and neither has any interest in serving the people.That if you really want change,like you said, you need to vote for someone like that.We really do need a third party created so we can someday get a president who will serve the people for a change.Like someone else already said,Obama will not bring change.The people who think that are in for a very rude awakening.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
How many times are you going to reply to that same post?

Dude go back and read my posts this is the FIRST time I replied to that post.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
Dude go back and read my posts this is the FIRST time I replied to that post.

I don't want to waste my time.

well you wrong,it was my FIRST time responding to that post.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
In a rare instance Lord Xyz is actually correct. In a not so rare instance, you are being retarded.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It is not a fact, and the truth about what is really going on is not available to anyone. Just consider this: after President elect Obama had his meeting with the military, he changed his mind on how fast we would get out of Iraq. It now seems to be three years. I bet you will find that nothing with change.

yes it IS a fact


Lying to a judge is an impeachable offence.

thats why clinton should be behind bars instead of roaming around scott free but that'll never happen cause presidents can get away with anything.everybody knows that there is one different law for politicians and one different for citizens which is why presidents get away with autrocities in office all the time.as I said before,till a third party is created,theres not much hope for the future of the world.


We do not know, but I'm sure that President elect Obama does now know. Watch what he does.



No, I'm trying to show you that lying is not always bad, but mostly that we don't know what is really going on.

Originally posted by Mr Parker


Why are you spamming my posts?