Is Bush The Worst U.S. President Ever?

Originally posted by DiamondBullets
Okay, my bad...

Define "stupid parties", since "stupid" is an adjective favored by six year olds and others who can't think of a more elaborate negative adjective.

What do you mean, there's no liberal party? The Demo's ARE liberals--guitar playin' hippies, flaming gay people, welfare check jockeys, and rich people willing to please them just to obtain a vote and a seat in office is about as left as it gets.

I see, you are not aware of the Liberal Ideology. The Democrats are closer to Socialists than Liberals. Which is obviously annoying since any Socialist Market System Sucks. The Republicans on the other hands turned into fundamentalists recently. Some might even say they have fascist parts to them Which is also not that good. You miss a Real liberal party, a real Socialist Party, a real Conservative Party and as much as I despise Greens, it is quite obvious that they would improve some things in the US as well...
I mean who can actually say that they agree 100% with any of the parties. A two Party System is just severely lacking.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I see, you are not aware of the Liberal Ideology. The Democrats are closer to Socialists than Liberals. Which is obviously annoying since any Socialist Market System Sucks. The Republicans on the other hands turned into fundamentalists recently. Some might even say they have fascist parts to them Which is also not that good. You miss a Real liberal party, a real Socialist Party, a real Conservative Party and as much as I despise Greens, it is quite obvious that they would improve some things in the US as well...
I mean who can actually say that they agree 100% with any of the parties. A two Party System is just severely lacking.

Those little parties such as the Green, Turtle, and Spider, are just ridiculous jokes which is why no one takes them seriously. It'll be a cold day in hell before you see a presidential debate in which at one podium is either a Rep/Dem and at the other is the candidiate for the Turtle Party--LOL!!! The only thing those parties are good for is material fodder for late-night comedians like Leno and Letterman.

Dawg, how can you say there's no Liberal or Conservative party? I mean fuh'real, the Reps and Dems ARE representative of either ideology, but the beliefs have been slightly modified to conform to American ideals.

Socialst are leftists, and where do you see facist ideals in the Republican party?

Two party systems are the best---->Yin and Yang

Originally posted by DiamondBullets
Those little parties such as the Green, Turtle, and Spider, are just ridiculous jokes which is why no one takes them seriously. It'll be a cold day in hell before you see a presidential debate in which at one podium is either a Rep/Dem and at the other is the candidiate for the Turtle Party--LOL!!! The only thing those parties are good for is material fodder for late-night comedians like Leno and Letterman.

Dawg, how can you say there's no Liberal or Conservative party? I mean fuh'real, the Reps and Dems ARE representative of either ideology, but the beliefs have been slightly modified to conform to American ideals.

Socialst are leftists, and where do you see facist ideals in the Republican party?

Two party systems are the best---->Yin and Yang

They are a joke, because they can't have any power in a two party system. Which is unfair. Personqally I believe a Country that claims to be "free" shouldn't have a two party system.

And the Republicans are not really part of the Conservative Ideology, they are some modified form, and the Democrats are clearly not a Liberal party, since they are supportig Welfare Systems and other Socialist Ideals.

Originally posted by DiamondBullets
Two party systems are the best---->Yin and Yang

A two party system is practically un-American. And again, neither are the opposite of the other. Yin and Yang does not apply.

Yeah. The two party system that we use in the U.S. is not exactly an all inclusive representation of the various political ideals many of the people of the U.S. have and share.

I rely don't have much else to contribute to this topic except this:
http://thatvideosite.com/view/979.html

I have a feeling this video is tampered with but it's pretty funny nonetheless.

We (the U.S.) welcome legal immigrants not crimaliens.

As an aside, has any one noticed that Bush is the most liberal "republican" President there has been.

Bush = A marblehead with one to many screws loose. And Dick "Elmer Fudd" Cheney is even worse, haha

Avoiding the sudden urge to take a shot at Bush for no other reason than I can, honestly speaking, Bush isnt a bad president. Hes not perfect, but taking into consideration the problems we face right now(oil crisis, constant threat of terrorism) hes doing an OK job. I mean really some of you people expect the president to solve all our problems...guess what? Sometimes problems are unavoidable and we must live with them the best we can.

Originally posted by Great Vengeance
Avoiding the sudden urge to take a shot at Bush for no other reason than I can, honestly speaking, Bush isnt a bad president. Hes not perfect, but taking into consideration the problems we face right now(oil crisis, constant threat of terrorism) hes doing an OK job. I mean really some of you people expect the president to solve all our problems...guess what? Sometimes problems are unavoidable and we must live with them the best we can.

Finally some sense!

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
We (the U.S.) welcome legal immigrants not crimaliens.

As an aside, has any one noticed that Bush is the most liberal "republican" President there has been.

Bush = A marblehead with one to many screws loose. And Dick "Elmer Fudd" Cheney is even worse, haha

Bush is a criminal, in the most legal sense of the term. I wish there still existed an difference between liberal democrat and conservative republican. But, there isn't.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Bush is a criminal, in the most legal sense of the term. I wish there still existed an difference between liberal democrat and conservative republican. But, there isn't.

Why is it so important there be a giant gap between parties? It is better to have people just make decisions off of what they beleive and not because of the party you support. It makes for less dissention between people of both parties.

And if you think Bush is a criminal maybe you could care to explain why. And I dont take "he caused a war" as an answer.

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
Why is it so important there be a giant gap between parties? It is better to have people just make decisions off of what they beleive and not because of the party you support. It makes for less dissention between people of both parties.

And if you think Bush is a criminal maybe you could care to explain why. And I dont take "he caused a war" as an answer.

Why should there be a gap between the parties? Because we only have two! Yeah, it is better for people to make descisions based off what they believe, rather than on their party. But people don't. Again, we only have two parties and when both are controlled by the same minority, nothing changes, nothing improves. Less dissention? Are you kidding me? This country was founded on dissent. It's the whole reason this country exists. Dissent is what keeps this country going. Barely.

And Bush is a criminal. He didn't cause a war, he started one. He lied to start it. He has usurped the constitution and supported laws being written for a single person. I'm more and more in favor of the idea that his administration had it's hand in engineering 9/11. The list goes on and on and on. He's an ignorant but sneaky little shit.

He sure as hell had his administration in engineering 9/11. thats so true that he started it.He knew all along that it would happen and did nothing to try and stop it.by the way,for the clueless ghost,you didnt do your homework when you went to infowars.com because if you go down to the bottom of the left hand page you will see a section called PRIOR KNOWLEDGE that you can click on where it has all these reliable sources talking about the governmebt having prior knowledge being warned about it and Bush having prior knowledge that it was going to happen and threatening FBI agents with arrest if they tried to stop it.its all right there.

Someday I hope to see some of the people who dislike the current system to have a say in the future platforms of US politics...........just make sure you waive that KMC handle so I know who actually went ahead and implented their ideals to make this country AWESOME!

Bush is the best president since Clinton

Originally posted by Black Rob
Bush is the best president since Clinton

did you say that just for the privilege of being the first and only person ever to say that?

Originally posted by PVS
did you say that just for the privilege of being the first and only person ever to say that?

Just to throw my 2 cents. Definitely not the worst. Hoover comes to mind. Clinton just claimed responsibility for what a republican congress actually did. Who was the guy just before Lincoln? He was pretty bad.

Bush definitely isn't perfect. But he's also definitely better than the alternatives. In 2000 I could have voted Gore. That sure doesn't sound appealing, especially when you look at the invective he's been spewing lately - not the guy I want to be in charge of my defense. Then in 2004 we had Kerry - one word, waffle. So while I'm definitely dissatisfied with Bush, haven't seen anything better to vote for yet. Maybe 2008 will bring glad tidings. If the dems are smart they'll drop Hilary and run with Obama. Republicans could do worse than Romney up in Mass.

My plea to both parties: Please give us real statesmen, enough with the politicians.

Originally posted by docb77
If the dems are smart they'll drop Hilary and run with Obama. Republicans could do worse than Romney up in Mass.

My plea to both parties: Please give us real statesmen, enough with the politicians.

Hilary is the biggest potential threat to the Repubs. And I live in Mass. I'm also pro-Romney too. I believe he will become the next President of the U.S. He'd be perfect. I know alot of people aren't ready for a Mormon President but he's the definitely the man for the job.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
Hilary is the biggest potential threat to the Repubs. And I live in Mass. I'm also pro-Romney too. I believe he will become the next President of the U.S. He'd be perfect. I know alot of people aren't ready for a Mormon President but he's the definitely the man for the job.

Yeah, she probably is the biggest threat, but I was meaning that she wouldn't make a good prez, not that she couldn't win. So far Romney's got my vote if he wants it. I will be watch to see who else might run though.

So back to the topic.... yeah, I think I'm gonna go with Buchanan. He definitely should have tried to head off that civil war thing.

Originally posted by docb77
Just to throw my 2 cents. Definitely not the worst. Hoover comes to mind. Clinton just claimed responsibility for what a republican congress actually did. Who was the guy just before Lincoln? He was pretty bad.

Bush definitely isn't perfect. But he's also definitely better than the alternatives. In 2000 I could have voted Gore. That sure doesn't sound appealing, especially when you look at the invective he's been spewing lately - not the guy I want to be in charge of my defense. Then in 2004 we had Kerry - one word, waffle. So while I'm definitely dissatisfied with Bush, haven't seen anything better to vote for yet. Maybe 2008 will bring glad tidings. If the dems are smart they'll drop Hilary and run with Obama. Republicans could do worse than Romney up in Mass.

My plea to both parties: Please give us real statesmen, enough with the politicians.

Hoover was a bad president. But largley because history has said such.

Bush isn't perfect. No single man should be, but the president should also be "of, by and for" the people. Bush is not, no where close. The guy before Lincoln was Buchanan. Can you explain why he was so bad? Or, are you just regurgitating history?

Yeah, Gore would have allowed the attacks on Sept 11th? But, I'm willing to bet that he wouldn't have sat motionless for 7 minutes after being informed teh country was under attack. I also find the excuse that "I'm disappointed in Bush, but couldn't make a better choice" absurd. The very people who laugh at a third, forth or even fifth party idea, are the very same people who laugh at the notion and dismiss their candidates so easily.

"Both parties" is the problem. "Both" implies a limitation on options. When "both parties" are controlled by the same special intrest minorities, then there will never be a true democracy. Which would imply something if we lived in a democracy. But we don't. We live in a republic. A republic which is just as easily subverted as the Roman repbulic.