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
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 GloomErmm, no, I believe the war started under Eisenhower and was fully implemented under Johnson.
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.
I also remember unemployment to be fairly low under Carter, like overall good.
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 chithappensSpeaking of which, former presidents Bush and Nixon were involved in the conspiracy of Kennedy.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by lord xyzMeant to say Nixon on number 3, although Hunt is in the same situation.
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.
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.
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.
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 Doom and GloomIn 1959?
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.
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.
