Worst... President... Ever? ...Redux [Archive]

Yerdaddy

12-03-2006, 05:49 AM

The Washington Post Outlook section is dredging up the question again. I say O-Tay! What else is there to talk about? How to fix Iraq? Why? So we can be ignored some more? Fuck it! I'll waste my time with that some more later. Now I want to waste my time reading about just how retarded the most powerful man in the universe is, and whether we will remember this little nugget of trivia in the future or not. And there's a poll to see if opinions here have changed or not.An interesting question - as opposed to the same old arguments I'm begging with this thread - would be: Could we do as bad as, or worse than, Bush in the forseeable future? I say yes. I don't think we will in 2008, but I don't see a President Santorum as impossible in our lifetime.<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/01/AR2006120101506_pf.html" target="_blank">At Least He's Not Nixon</a><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/01/AR2006120101509_pf.html" target="_blank">He's the Worst Ever</a><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/01/AR2006120101475_pf.html" target="_blank">He's Only Fifth Worst </a><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/01/AR2006120101511_pf.html" target="_blank">Move Over, Hoover </a><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/01/AR2006120101497_pf.html" target="_blank">Time's On His Side </a>

furie

12-03-2006, 06:48 AM

say what you want, he accomplished more than W.H. Harrison.

reillyluck

12-03-2006, 06:50 AM

say what you want. but i'll pee in your butt.<img src="/messageboard/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/bye.gif" border="0" width="26" height="18" />

This message was edited by reillyluck on 12-3-06 @ 10:56 AM

johnniewalker

12-03-2006, 08:29 AM

I'm going with James Garfield, William Harrison, and Zachary Taylor.  Bush's ability to live in office for 8 years puts him strongly ahead of these weaklings.

Bulldogcakes

12-03-2006, 08:34 AM

In reading some of those articles, its amazing how many presidents were largely failures in the eyes of the American public by the time they left office. Truman-Was always thought of as a crooked machine pol by the Right, and after some of his anti union actions he alienated most of the Left by the time he left office. Universally despised by the time he left office.Eisenhower-Largely successful. Economy was good, Korean war was a push. Kennedy- Escaped being a failure by getting his brains blown out, but the whole reason he was in Dallas in the first place was that his approval #s were low (Bay of Pigs, Slow to move on Civil Rights, Cuban Missile Crisis) and he was campaigning (very) early for his re election bid. Johnson-Escalated the Vietnam war, and was the principal figure reponsible for it. Civil Rights bill alienated the South. Great Society never achieved its goals. Was so unpopular he didn't run for re election. Nixon- Well, do I need to explain?Ford-Was a national joke by the time he left office, and Chevy Chase owes his entire career to him.Carter-The Misery Index, inflation, the humiliation in Iran. I'm wearing my sweater as we speak. Great guy, total failure. Reagan-I think he was successful. Won the Cold War, restored the economy, and restored the sense of national pride. He set out to do 3 things, and acheived them all. Iran contra was a sideshow. Bush 1-Was a decent president, but only served one term. Won the Gulf War and put together an unprecedented UN coalition in doing so. Big success there. Economy was bad by the time he left, and was seen as a Cold Warrior whose time had passed by the time he left office. Mixed. Clinton-Somewhat mixed, but clearly leaning toward the positive. Clearly failed in the first two years when he tried to govern to the left and was clobbered in the mid terms. But made a turnaround after and was good with legislation and the economy. 8 years of peace and prosperity, first president since NIxon to balance a budget. Lewinsky was embarassing, but if a president does nothing else at least he can entertain us, which he did. Bush 2- A failure by any measure. His presidency will be remembered for 9/11 and the Iraq war. The Iraq war has been a disaster, which will only get worse when we get out. 9/11 was a failure of US Intelligence to protect us, though I can never really blame us for the actions of terrorists. The subsequent war in Afghanistan sucessfully drove out the Taliban, and has failed completely since. Katrina, Deficits, and his "axis of evil" speech drove Iran to start its nuclear program.If history is a guide, we can look foward to a successful president in 08. It can only get better, I hope.     

This message was edited by Bulldogcakes on 12-3-06 @ 2:06 PM

K.C.

12-03-2006, 08:35 AM

Yerdaddy wrote:  but I don't see a President Santorum as impossible in our lifetime.<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/01/AR2006120101497_pf.html" target="_blank"></a>Maybe the scariest thing I've ever read .  But as for the worst president ever, I think we all know who it is:<img src="http://www.classic-literature.co.uk/american-authors/19th-century/abraham-lincoln/abraham-lincoln.gif" border="0" alt="http://www.classic-literature.co.uk/american-authors/19th-century/abraham-lincoln/abraham-lincoln.gif" title="http://www.classic-literature.co.uk/american-authors/19th-century/abraham-lincoln/abraham-lincoln.gif" width="200" height="254" />

This message was edited by K.C. on 12-3-06 @ 12:36 PM

JimBeam

12-03-2006, 08:44 AM

Not sure if KC's selection of Lincoln was a joke but i thought about it for a second and there really can't be anything worse than having the country tear itself apart under your administration.That's gotta be the biggest black eye ever.If they had the media cover back then that we have now he's have been impeached.

DowntownRazr

12-03-2006, 08:54 AM

Worst president AND biggest douche of a president.  It's unprecedented.

Dudeman

12-03-2006, 09:20 AM

reillyluck

12-03-2006, 09:23 AM

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d161/aschnurlein/GeraldFord.jpg

Fezticle98

12-03-2006, 09:35 AM

Worst or best?George W. Bush, great president or greatest President? I'll put you down for great.

FezPaul

12-03-2006, 09:42 AM

K.C. wrote: Yerdaddy wrote:  but I don't see a President Santorum as impossible in our lifetime.<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/01/AR2006120101497_pf.html" target="_blank"></a>Maybe the scariest thing I've ever read .  But as for the worst president ever, I think we all know who it is:<img src="http://www.classic-literature.co.uk/american-authors/19th-century/abraham-lincoln/abraham-lincoln.gif" border="0" alt="http://www.classic-literature.co.uk/american-authors/19th-century/abraham-lincoln/abraham-lincoln.gif" title="http://www.classic-literature.co.uk/american-authors/19th-century/abraham-lincoln/abraham-lincoln.gif" width="200" height="254" />This message was edited by K.C. on 12-3-06 @ 12:36 PM <img src="http://www.musicomh.com/anidifranco/ani-difranco.jpg" border="0" width="250" height="250" />

Fezticle98

12-03-2006, 09:44 AM

K.C. wrote: But as for the worst president ever, I think we all know who it is:<img src="http://www.classic-literature.co.uk/american-authors/19th-century/abraham-lincoln/abraham-lincoln.gif" border="0" alt="http://www.classic-literature.co.uk/american-authors/19th-century/abraham-lincoln/abraham-lincoln.gif" title="http://www.classic-literature.co.uk/american-authors/19th-century/abraham-lincoln/abraham-lincoln.gif" width="200" height="254" />This message was edited by K.C. on 12-3-06 @ 12:36 PM He did sell poisoned milk to school children.Can't blame him for the start of the civil war, that was Buchanan's doing.Gayest prez: James Buchanan. 2nd gayest: George W. Bush

TheMojoPin

12-03-2006, 01:39 PM

fezticle98 wrote: K.C. wrote: But as for the worst president ever, I think we all know who it is:<img src="http://www.classic-literature.co.uk/american-authors/19th-century/abraham-lincoln/abraham-lincoln.gif" border="0" alt="http://www.classic-literature.co.uk/american-authors/19th-century/abraham-lincoln/abraham-lincoln.gif" title="http://www.classic-literature.co.uk/american-authors/19th-century/abraham-lincoln/abraham-lincoln.gif" width="200" height="254" />This message was edited by K.C. on 12-3-06 @ 12:36 PM He did sell poisoned milk to school children.Can't blame him for the start of the civil war, that was Buchanan's doing.Gayest prez: James Buchanan. 2nd gayest: George W. BushThat issues that pushed the country into civil war were brewing a good 50+ years before the war officially broke out.  If anything, the Jacksonian Era really set the stage for the eventual conflict.My vote for the worst of the worst is Ulysses S. Grant.  Bush is probably in my top 5, but he ain't touching Grant.  Hell, I'd put Harding/Coolidge "ahead" of Dubya.

K.C.

12-03-2006, 01:45 PM

FezPaul wrote: K.C. wrote: Yerdaddy wrote:  but I don't see a President Santorum as impossible in our lifetime.<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/01/AR2006120101497_pf.html" target="_blank"></a>Maybe the scariest thing I've ever read .  But as for the worst president ever, I think we all know who it is:<img src="http://www.classic-literature.co.uk/american-authors/19th-century/abraham-lincoln/abraham-lincoln.gif" border="0" alt="http://www.classic-literature.co.uk/american-authors/19th-century/abraham-lincoln/abraham-lincoln.gif" title="http://www.classic-literature.co.uk/american-authors/19th-century/abraham-lincoln/abraham-lincoln.gif" width="200" height="254" />This message was edited by K.C. on 12-3-06 @ 12:36 PM <img src="http://www.musicomh.com/anidifranco/ani-difranco.jpg" border="0" width="250" height="250" />I'm glad someone got it...although I'm sure most people got and just didn't bother to post...nevertheless...

Fezticle98

12-03-2006, 01:48 PM

TheMojoPin wrote: That issues that pushed the country into civil war were brewing a good 50+ years before the war officially broke out.  If anything, the Jacksonian Era really set the stage for the eventual conflict.You speak the truth. My point was more that Buchanan was the last one with an opportunity to prevent it, but he did nothing. Someone stated that the Union breaking apart was a black mark on Lincoln's presidency.

K.C.

12-03-2006, 01:50 PM

Seriously, the worst president was probably Hoover. He only presided over the biggest economic recession in the country's history.

furie

12-03-2006, 02:23 PM

Bulldogcakes wrote: Eisenhower-Largely successful. Economy was good, Korean war was a push. 

Eisenhower wasn't president during the Korean war, Truman was.

TheMojoPin

12-03-2006, 02:25 PM

K.C. wrote: Seriously, the worst president was probably Hoover. He only presided over the biggest economic recession in the country's history. Again, like the Civil War, the causes of the Great Depression were set before Hoover even took office.  Hoover isn't some misunderstood genius or anything like that, but the Depression is hardly all of his fault.  If anything, it's the government under Harding/Coolidge that drove us head-on into the crash, hence why I rank them 2nd worst behind Grant.Like it or not, Bush needs to be viewed the same way with 9/11.  Yeah, it happened under his watch and there were warning signs that theoretically could have been spotted and ideally acted upon, but the root causes of 9/11 date back into the Reagan years and all the administrations that followed his.  What is surprisingly similar with the current crew to the administrations I blame for the Civil War and the Great Depression is how many of the same ol' boy cronies stuck around to help run things into the ground...look at the nearly 3 decades of "Jacksonian Democracy" and the 12 years of Harding/Coolidge and Hoover...then you have so many figures from the Reagan/Bush I eras bleeding over into Bush II's stint (putting some of these guys helping run the show for a good 20 years total when it's all said and done).  Political and idealogical stagnation is dangerous.

TheMojoPin

12-03-2006, 02:31 PM

furie wrote: Bulldogcakes wrote: Eisenhower-Largely successful. Economy was good, Korean war was a push.  Eisenhower wasn't president during the Korean war, Truman was. Ike was pretty much just a placeholder president reflecting the American mentality of the time (though the Cuban mess inherited by the Kennedys was basically birthed under his, and especially VP Nixon's, watch), but his farewell address just might be the greatest and most insightful we've ever had.  As a career military man, he knew EXACTLY what he was talking about and couldn't have been any clearer in what he was warning us of.  Too bad we didn't listen.<a href="http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Eisenhower%27s_farewell_address" target="_blank">Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense. We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security alone more than the net income of all United States corporations.</a><a href="http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Eisenhower%27s_farewell_address" target="_blank">Now this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual --is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved. So is the very structure of our society.</a><a href="http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Eisenhower%27s_farewell_address" target="_blank">In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together</a>.

K.C.

12-03-2006, 02:40 PM

TheMojoPin wrote: K.C. wrote: Seriously, the worst president was probably Hoover. He only presided over the biggest economic recession in the country's history. Again, like the Civil War, the causes of the Great Depression were set before Hoover even took office.  Hoover isn't some misunderstood genius or anything like that, but the Depression is hardly all of his fault.  If anything, it's the government under Harding/Coolidge that drove us head-on into the crash, hence why I rank them 2nd worst behind Grant.Like it or not, Bush needs to be viewed the same way with 9/11.  Yeah, it happened under his watch and there were warning signs that theoretically could have been spotted and ideally acted upon, but the root causes of 9/11 date back into the Reagan years and all the administrations that followed his.  What is surprisingly similar with the current crew to the administrations I blame for the Civil War and the Great Depression is how many of the same ol' boy cronies stuck around to help run things into the ground...look at the nearly 3 decades of "Jacksonian Democracy" and the 12 years of Harding/Coolidge and Hoover...then you have so many figures from the Reagan/Bush I eras bleeding over into Bush II's stint (putting some of these guys helping run the show for a good 20 years total when it's all said and done).  Political and idealogical stagnation is dangerous.I agree, those are fair points. When it comes to some of these big events, you absolutely have to take into account the events and the players in place leading up to them. The strife between Northern and Southern congressmen in the early part of the 1800s played more of a direct cause in the Civil War because people either couldn't, or were too afraid to address the issues, and the longer the creating of a duality between the two sides existed, the further apart they spread and the more entrenched in a "this is the right way" mentality both sides became.  My whole thing with Hoover as the worst, though, is this...He can hardly be blamed solely for the Depression. He took office in March of 1929 and the market crashed in October. While he bares responsibility, it's not just him alone. However, he presided for almost four years after that and he failed to improve the situation. And in reality, it probably got worse. That's where he takes the hit.  As far as Bush II goes, unless Iraq magically turns into the land of sunshine and lollipops, he'll probably easily be Top 5 on the worst list. 

This message was edited by K.C. on 12-3-06 @ 6:42 PM

epo

12-03-2006, 02:49 PM

Bulldogcakes wrote: Reagan-I think he was successful. Won the Cold War, restored the economy, and restored the sense of national pride. He set out to do 3 things, and acheived them all. Iran contra was a sideshow. This is one of my biggest pet peeves of all times.  Every gives Reagan the credit for "winning the cold war", but honestly how did he win it?  The Ruskies simply ran out of money after 50 years of spending and had no other choice.  That "Tear down this wall" speech is probably the biggest piece of political opportunism of the last hundred years.  Iran-Contra was not a sideshow, but rather a national disgrace.  Plus didn't Reagan fuck up Afghanistan something fierce...and we all know how that turned out.

K.C.

12-03-2006, 02:55 PM

epo wrote: Bulldogcakes wrote: Reagan-I think he was successful. Won the Cold War, restored the economy, and restored the sense of national pride. He set out to do 3 things, and acheived them all. Iran contra was a sideshow. This is one of my biggest pet peeves of all times.  Every gives Reagan the credit for "winning the cold war", but honestly how did he win it?  The Ruskies simply ran out of money after 50 years of spending and had no other choice.  That "Tear down this wall" speech is probably the biggest piece of political opportunism of the last hundred years.  Iran-Contra was not a sideshow, but rather a national disgrace.  Plus didn't Reagan fuck up Afghanistan something fierce...and we all know how that turned out.  Whenever I hear (or see) someone say "Reagan Won the Cold War," I just cringe and think of this man:<img src="http://www.foxnews.com/images/115923/325_21_350_hannity_sean.jpg" border="0" alt="http://www.foxnews.com/images/115923/325_21_350_hannity_sean.jpg" title="http://www.foxnews.com/images/115923/325_21_350_hannity_sean.jpg" width="250" height="300" /> I'm not going to hide the fact that I absolutely loathe Reagan, almost entirely because I believe Reaganomics is the shittiest economic theory I've ever seen. As far as his foreign policy goes, Reagan played a role in the Cold War. He did not single handedly put Gorbachev in an armbar and make him tap out as people would have you believe. He, along with Kennedy, LBJ, Nixon (not so much Ford), and Carter all played important roles and it was a collective effort that won. 

This message was edited by K.C. on 12-3-06 @ 6:57 PM

theseatbelts

12-03-2006, 03:05 PM

I'm your huckleberry. His Presidency will be remembered for the Iraq War and 9/11, that much I agree with. 5 years after an unprecedented attack on the country's military, economic and political capitals we have had two successful military campaigns, a healthy and growing economy, and 3 major free and safe elections with not one successful terrorist attack inside the country. These are impressive achievements by any standard and to ignore them would be the result of this administration's faulty PR department and/or willful ignorance. It's impossible for the President to express how amazing the country's recovery and adoption to Al-Qaeda's tactics has been because the day he does and there is a terrorist attack the press will rub his face in it.     The President has very little to be blamed for in Katrina. He warned everyone in New Orleans and the surrounding area a few days before the storm hit to evacuate and was mocked for it. After that he gave his full support to the Mayor and Governor (which Mayor Nagin, a Democrat, continue's to give him credit for.) While he's been blamed for not arriving personally over the weekend, he was available for and talking to most government officials during that time and arrived personally a few days later. The National Guard wasn't "MIA because they were stuck in Iraq" as is popular belief these days. In a majority of cases the military were very successful in evacuation missions and were a central part of the recovery effort. The main culprits of Katrina were a broken New Orleans Police Department that fell apart under pressure, poor planning specifically when it came to storing busses for evacuation as most ended up under water, and the often overlooked fact that it was all caused a very powerful natural disaster. The President does not own a weather controlling machine, only Putin has one of those.     The deficits will be erased in short time if the economy keeps at pace and the Republicans are forced to return to more responsible spending habits. The President's tax cuts were an emergency effort to restart the economy which coupled with the successful housing market has been very successful. I don't think it's perfect out there for everyone, there is still decent people out of work and it's possible that poverty may never be completely erased but the fact that the unemployment rate is so low and the influx of immigrants both illegal and non must prove that we have one of if not still the strongest economy in the world.     Iran has been on a path to a dangerous Islamic Fascist state for at least 20 years now. A.Q. Khan sold Iran nuclear technology they had and still have every intention of using before the mostly dead on "Axis of Evil" speech inflamed the poor Iranian's sensibilities.     I'm not blind. History will never rate George W. Bush as a great president because, for whatever reason, he just doesn't have that inherent greatness in him needed to unite the country the way it needs to be. He may still be looked at as a decent man who did the best he could in a really bad situation. He also has two more years to change our minds.

theseatbelts

12-03-2006, 03:13 PM

And a quick defense of one of my favorite Presidents. Mr. Reagan won the Cold War by so heavily increasing the military budget, forcing the Soviets to spend it's empire to death. If the U.S.S.R. was too corrupt and hollow to keep up with the spending race then that's just a shame. His inspiring message also gave the country the national will to outpace our enemy.

K.C.

12-03-2006, 03:16 PM

theseatbelts wrote: I'm your huckleberry.His Presidency will be remembered for the Iraq War and 9/11, that much I agree with. 5 years after an unprecedented attack on the country's military, economic and political capitals we have had two successful military campaigns, a healthy and growing economy, and 3 major free and safe elections with not one successful terrorist attack inside the country. These are impressive achievements by any standard and to ignore them would be the result of this administration's faulty PR department and/or willful ignorance. It's impossible for the President to express how amazing the country's recovery and adoption to Al-Qaeda's tactics has been because the day he does and there is a terrorist attack the press will rub his face in it.     The President has very little to be blamed for in Katrina. He warned everyone in New Orleans and the surrounding area a few days before the storm hit to evacuate and was mocked for it. After that he gave his full support to the Mayor and Governor (which Mayor Nagin, a Democrat, continue's to give him credit for.) While he's been blamed for not arriving personally over the weekend, he was available for and talking to most government officials during that time and arrived personally a few days later. The National Guard wasn't "MIA because they were stuck in Iraq" as is popular belief these days. In a majority of cases the military were very successful in evacuation missions and were a central part of the recovery effort. The main culprits of Katrina were a broken New Orleans Police Department that fell apart under pressure, poor planning specifically when it came to storing busses for evacuation as most ended up under water, and the often overlooked fact that it was all caused a very powerful natural disaster. The President does not own a weather controlling machine, only Putin has one of those.    The deficits will be erased in short time if the economy keeps at pace and the Republicans are forced to return to more responsible spending habits. The President's tax cuts were an emergency effort to restart the economy which coupled with the successful housing market has been very successful. I don't think it's perfect out there for everyone, there is still decent people out of work and it's possible that poverty may never be completely erased but the fact that the unemployment rate is so low and the influx of immigrants both illegal and non must prove that we have one of if not still the strongest economy in the world.    Iran has been on a path to a dangerous Islamic Fascist state for at least 20 years now. A.Q. Khan sold Iran nuclear technology they had and still have every intention of using before the mostly dead on "Axis of Evil" speech inflamed the poor Iranian's sensibilities.     I'm not blind. History will never rate George W. Bush as a great president because, for whatever reason, he just doesn't have that inherent greatness in him needed to unite the country the way it needs to be. He may still be looked at as a decent man who did the best he could in a really bad situation. He also has two more years to change our minds.Wow...just wow.-"we've had two successful military campaigns"              uh...no, we've had .5 successful military campaign. We get half credit for Afghanistan for ousting the Taliban initially, but have you read anything about Afghanistan in the last two years? Uh...it's not changing for the better. It's actually going back to the way it was...and Iraq...well...-"a healthy and growing economy"              yeah, without crea

K.C.

12-03-2006, 03:20 PM

theseatbelts wrote: And a quick defense of one of my favorite Presidents. Mr. Reagan won the Cold War by so heavily increasing the military budget, forcing the Soviets to spend it's empire to death. If the U.S.S.R. was too corrupt and hollow to keep up with the spending race then that's just a shame. His inspiring message also gave the country the national will to outpace our enemy. No he didn't...that's a classic red-herring on the subject. It's has been studied in recent years. Reagan's spending did bear some effect...but it was much more minimal than you would probably believe. And what was his inspiring message, exactly? "Let's arm terrorists to fight the Soviet Union since it's a great solution and will bear absolutely no future consequence."And Reagan's contribution pales in comparison to Kennedy's managing of the Cuban Missle Crisis, and Nixon's talks with the communist regimes of both Russia and China...both of which are much more significant.

HBox

12-03-2006, 03:22 PM

You know someone is desperate when they try to tout having 3 free and safe elections as a major achievement.Bush has also made sure the White House has a finely kept lawn and carpets are spotless.

TheMojoPin

12-03-2006, 03:23 PM

theseatbelts

12-03-2006, 03:38 PM

<div>I would like to agree with you on FEMA. Another blame I think is fair to give to the President is that he places personal loyalty way above and beyond performance which has caused problems with Mr. Brown and Rumsfeld among others. What I disagree with is the perception that Mr. Bush somehow ignored Katrina through incompetence or bigotry. </div> <div> </div> <div>Everyone belived in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 we would be attacked again. Holidays and major events for months after were surrounded by rumors of terrorist plots. We are facing an enemy who has tried before to cripple every part of our society so it's not far off to think there would be an attack during elections. </div> <div> </div> <div>The President is by no means the lord and savior of terrorism. He has made many misteps, is too close to the Saudis to put the needed pressure on them to stop funding and creating terrorists, and like I said before doesn't have the rhetorical weight to unite the nation. My main point was to argue against him being the worst president ever.  </div>

Yerdaddy

12-03-2006, 03:56 PM

theseatbelts wrote: I'm your huckleberry.His Presidency will be remembered for the Iraq War and 9/11, that much I agree with. 5 years after an unprecedented attack on the country's military, economic and political capitals we have had two successful military campaigns, a healthy and growing economy, and 3 major free and safe elections with not one successful terrorist attack inside the country. These are impressive achievements by any standard and to ignore them would be the result of this administration's faulty PR department and/or willful ignorance. It's impossible for the President to express how amazing the country's recovery and adoption to Al-Qaeda's tactics has been because the day he does and there is a terrorist attack the press will rub his face in it.     The President has very little to be blamed for in Katrina. He warned everyone in New Orleans and the surrounding area a few days before the storm hit to evacuate and was mocked for it. After that he gave his full support to the Mayor and Governor (which Mayor Nagin, a Democrat, continue's to give him credit for.) While he's been blamed for not arriving personally over the weekend, he was available for and talking to most government officials during that time and arrived personally a few days later. The National Guard wasn't "MIA because they were stuck in Iraq" as is popular belief these days. In a majority of cases the military were very successful in evacuation missions and were a central part of the recovery effort. The main culprits of Katrina were a broken New Orleans Police Department that fell apart under pressure, poor planning specifically when it came to storing busses for evacuation as most ended up under water, and the often overlooked fact that it was all caused a very powerful natural disaster. The President does not own a weather controlling machine, only Putin has one of those.    The deficits will be erased in short time if the economy keeps at pace and the Republicans are forced to return to more responsible spending habits. The President's tax cuts were an emergency effort to restart the economy which coupled with the successful housing market has been very successful. I don't think it's perfect out there for everyone, there is still decent people out of work and it's possible that poverty may never be completely erased but the fact that the unemployment rate is so low and the influx of immigrants both illegal and non must prove that we have one of if not still the strongest economy in the world.    Iran has been on a path to a dangerous Islamic Fascist state for at least 20 years now. A.Q. Khan sold Iran nuclear technology they had and still have every intention of using before the mostly dead on "Axis of Evil" speech inflamed the poor Iranian's sensibilities.     I'm not blind. History will never rate George W. Bush as a great president because, for whatever reason, he just doesn't have that inherent greatness in him needed to unite the country the way it needs to be. He may still be looked at as a decent man who did the best he could in a really bad situation. He also has two more years to change our minds.Have you ever considered applying as a writer for The Colbert Report?

theseatbelts

12-03-2006, 04:15 PM

<div>One more reply and then I'll take a break from being "Right Wing Whipping Boy" for the night.</div> <div> </div> <div>Reagan's central message was of not being ashamed to be proud Americans. That the Cold War was not a lost cause which needed to be negotiated out of like many in the press and academia thought at the time. That being strongly opposed to Communism doesn't make you a backward reactionary who is just afraid of change but a brave supporter of man's destiny to liberty.</div> <div> </div> <div>He was certainly not a one man success story and many other Presidents as well as foreign leaders, our armed service men and women, religious leaders, and the anti communist forces inside the USSR deserve a lot of credit, but it was Reagan who organized the opposition and united them through his rhetorical themes during his terms.</div> <div> </div> <div>I know the old "Military Industrial Complex" speech is the Left's personal favorite, but the Soviet Union was uniquely vulnerable to an arms race so it was the best weapon to use against it. Also the goal of it wasn't to make greedy generals rich with blood money but to strengthen our military as a deterrent and a safe guard against attack.</div> <div> </div> <div>I promise to check back in for more healthy democratic exchange tomorrow.</div>

Bulldogcakes

12-03-2006, 06:18 PM

furie wrote: Bulldogcakes wrote: Eisenhower-Largely successful. Economy was good, Korean war was a push.   Eisenhower wasn't president during the Korean war, Truman was.THe Korean war started June 25, 1950, ended June 27, 1953. Eisenhower took office on January 20th, 1953. It was Trumans war, no doubt, but Eisenhower inherited it, and ended it. So he gets credit for that, and lives with the results of that decision.

Dudeman

12-03-2006, 06:45 PM

Bulldogcakes wrote: Reagan-I think he was successful. Won the Cold War, restored the economy, and restored the sense of national pride. He set out to do 3 things, and acheived them all. Iran contra was a sideshow.   This message was edited by Bulldogcakes on 12-3-06 @ 2:06 PMrestoring the national pride by telling people what they want to hear, instead of making the tough decisions for long term benefit, is for from great leadership.  and he restored the economy for the rich; the gap between the rich and poor grew.  that administration was all about helping the buddies of the rich and powerful.

TheMojoPin

12-03-2006, 07:21 PM

theseatbelts wrote: *>One more reply and then I'll take a break from being "Right Wing Whipping Boy" for the night. *>  *>Reagan's central message was of not being ashamed to be proud Americans. That the Cold War was not a lost cause which needed to be negotiated out of like many in the press and academia thought at the time. That being strongly opposed to Communism doesn't make you a backward reactionary who is just afraid of change but a brave supporter of man's destiny to liberty. *>  *>He was certainly not a one man success story and many other Presidents as well as foreign leaders, our armed service men and women, religious leaders, and the anti communist forces inside the USSR deserve a lot of credit, but it was Reagan who organized the opposition and united them through his rhetorical themes during his terms. *>  *>I know the old "Military Industrial Complex" speech is the Left's personal favorite, but the Soviet Union was uniquely vulnerable to an arms race so it was the best weapon to use against it. Also the goal of it wasn't to make greedy generals rich with blood money but to strengthen our military as a deterrent and a safe guard against attack. *>  *>I promise to check back in for more healthy democratic exchange tomorrow. Thank God we made sure so many of those extra weapons we were churning out ended up in the hands of the noble armies of Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq and who knows how many other trumped out dictators we wanted to prop up around the world.Reagan leashed us for the forseeable future to that arms race in a multitude of ways.  The side effects of that mentality were either ignored or not noticted and now we're paying the price.  Ike's speech is a "favorite" for damn good reasons.  He wasn't warning about something as shortsighted as crooked generals or businessman.  He was warning about something like the arms race creeping up and basically taking our lives econimically, politically and socially.  It's a fallacy to say that it was keeping us safe from attack since the only legitimate threat to us was and is a nuclear strike, and no amount of "arms racing" was going to stop that short of building more nukes than the next guy.  Order a bunch of new jets or tanks and you might as well get one crate that says "smoke" and the other that says "mirrors.""Pepsi Cola and the fax machine brought down the USSR."  Reagan was just along for the ride, and the rest of us got rode hard.

TheMojoPin

12-03-2006, 07:23 PM

Dudeman wrote: Bulldogcakes wrote: Reagan-I think he was successful. Won the Cold War, restored the economy, and restored the sense of national pride. He set out to do 3 things, and acheived them all. Iran contra was a sideshow.  This message was edited by Bulldogcakes on 12-3-06 @ 2:06 PM restoring the national pride by telling people what they want to hear, instead of making the tough decisions for long term benefit, is for from great leadership.  and he restored the economy for the rich; the gap between the rich and poor grew.  that administration was all about helping the buddies of the rich and powerful.  It strikes me as a weak point to say Reagan was a good or great president simply because he made people "feel good."  Clinton was basically the Democrats' Reagan for the same kind of thing, and that sure as shit doesn't make him a good president.  They're both just empty suits saying the right things and trying to do as little as possible to rock the boat.

Recyclerz

12-03-2006, 07:29 PM

OK,  I've taken my high blood pressure medicine and a handful of downs so I can reply to Mr. Belts now. ;)First off, thanks for stepping up to the debate.  I'm not sure if you're just playing the heel or you really believe what you posted so I'll assume the latter.  I'll just concentrate on just one of your assertions.   The deficits will be erased in short time if the economy keeps at pace and the Republicans are forced to return to more responsible spending habits. The President's tax cuts were an emergency effort to restart the economy which coupled with the successful housing market has been very successful. I don't think it's perfect out there for everyone, there is still decent people out of work and it's possible that poverty may never be completely erased but the fact that the unemployment rate is so low and the influx of immigrants both illegal and non must prove that we have one of if not still the strongest economy in the world.I think this is the area where W gets off with the least bashing and where he may be doing the most longterm damage. Mr. Belts does have a few sprinkles of truth in the paragraph - unemployment is low and the economy is doing reasonably well by historic standards at the moment.  However, I would make the analogy that we're doing well in the same way that a kid who gets his first credit card and goes on a spending spree before the bills arrive is doing well.  The deficits are only looking somewhat better through clever political framing: 1. estimating ridiculously high numbers to start the fiscal year then claiming "success" when the real numbers come in lower; 2. not counting spending for the Iraq war or the Katrina "recovery" as part of the deficit.   Under  W's policies the deficits will only come down marginally even in times of economic growth because the tax cuts shield the income from capital gains and dividends and the highest income earners who, generally and objectively, have been collecting a larger than usual lion's share of the economy's benefits. (Now I'm not saying W is responsible for the global economic trends accelerating the "rich get richer" phenomenon but his tax policy exacerbates it BY DESIGN).The motivating premise of W's tax cuts was not an "emergency jump start" for the economy as Republican urban legend would have it but a concerted effort to reduce the amount of revenue collected by the Federales from income derived from investment (capital gains/dividends)  and to increase the tax burden on income from wages.  I won't go into the whole history/theory for this here but, simplified, W's boyz thought that this would drag the working people into hating taxes and government spending as much as the country club set does.Now it would be defensible at least if W had been honest about this and also proposed cutting spending to match the reduced revenue in the future but he decided to go  the other way, increasing current and future (the Medicare drug plan) spending like a shopaholic on crystal meth. In about five years, you're going to see headlines about the fiscal trainwreck this country is going through and 80% of it will be from all the choices W has made.Of course all of the preceding has been a windy and boring way of saying "George W. Bush stinks and I don't like him.

Yerdaddy

12-04-2006, 06:15 AM

Not that this argument is worthy of all this attention on its merits, but rather a fine example of boiler-blate conservative apologism - with all due respect to its author. Props for the sincere tone and the time invested, but there's little in the way of evidene-based reasoning. I like the post because it's unapologetic and refective of what I know to be a common perspective in America. I'm sure I'll come off as some sub-type of liberal "intellectual wanna-be" for what I've written below. I'll say now that the length has more to do with my own political OCD aggrivated by the fact that the board was down for hours during what was the middle of the day for me - and while I was feeding my daily news obsession - and so I built and built on this post more than I should have. I did, however, take this response seriously in terms of it's reflection of how little evidence and objectivity play into the forming of political opinions in America. I think we value our own opinions more for how strongly they are expressed or how blindly loyal they are to a political party or politician or their positions than to the logical bases of the arguments themselves. (In the same way that congressional committees are more likely to invite the testimony of liberal and conservative think-tankers on a subject of prisons, for example, than actual wardens of actual prisons.) This is the issue, along with my neuroses, that drove me to write this long a post. I'll admit it before it can be thrown at me: I'm your dingleberry.   That pretentious introduction aside, if we're going to take this argument in pieces I'll take the Iraq/9-11 parts. His Presidency will be remembered for the Iraq War and 9/11, that much I agree with. 5 years after an unprecedented attack on the country's military, economic and political capitals we have had two successful military campaigns, a healthy and growing economy, and 3 major free and safe elections with not one successful terrorist attack inside the country. These are impressive achievements by any standard and to ignore them would be the result of this administration's faulty PR department and/or willful ignorance. It's impossible for the President to express how amazing the country's recovery and adoption to Al-Qaeda's tactics has been because the day he does and there is a terrorist attack the press will rub his face in it. First of all, it's not much of an argument as a set of slogans culled from the White House press statements. The points are terribly cherry-picked and restated without the necessary context and thus beg more questions than provide answers. For example: "we've had two successful military campaigns". Yes, the military campaigns - to overthrow the Taliban and Saddam Hussein's regimes - were successful militarily. But what was the point of them? Just to show we could - like some military slam-dunk competition? Or was there some broader purpose that these military campaigns were supposed to serve - something about destroying al-Qaeda and their Taliban hosts so they can't attack us again, and creating a political climate in the Middle East where terrorists cannot plan and train to attack us again because their democratic governments will work with the civilized community to keep them from using their soil for such purposes? That's what we were told when these wars were sold, and those are the only rationales that made sense. If the Bush administration had said "We're going to drive the Taliban away for a couple of years while they slowly come back and retake most of their old strongholds while propagandizing themselves as stronger than the US military thus serving as spiritual and symbolic heads of a more loosely structured Islamist terrorist movement that will be even harder to stop. Oh... and we're not going to get Bin Laden." would you have said "Let's go!"? But that's what's happened. [<a href="http://

A.J.

12-04-2006, 07:49 AM

James Buchanan is the worst President ever.  As bad as Bush is, I don't see any states seceding from the Union on his watch with absolutely no consequences.And even if they did, he has shown that he'd waste no time using the military...half-assed a force as it might be.

Bulldogcakes

12-04-2006, 02:17 PM

It amazes me how after close to 20 years, people still have the same knee jerk response to Reagan and cant concede a single ounce of credit to the guy. Amazing, especially after all the clowns who have followed him in the office. All had their stregnths and weaknesses. None of them had his acheivements.I think it shows the greatest fear of those on the left is to have a truly respected and admired Republican president. THose accolades are saved for Liberal Democrats like FDR and Wilson. It also shows what partisan hacks some of you guys are. Its well known I'm fairly conservative, and I gave Clinton credit and bashed Bush 2, Ford and Nixon. Fairness you cant bring yourselves to show for the undisputedly most admired Republican ex president of the past 50 years. What a bunch of hacks.   

This message was edited by Bulldogcakes on 12-4-06 @ 6:22 PM

epo

12-04-2006, 03:56 PM

Bulldogcakes wrote: It amazes me how after close to 20 years, people still have the same knee jerk response to Reagan and cant concede a single ounce of credit to the guy. Amazing, especially after all the clowns who have followed him in the office. All had their stregnths and weaknesses. None of them had his acheivements.I think it shows the greatest fear of those on the left is to have a truly respected and admired Republican president. THose accolades are saved for Liberal Democrats like FDR and Wilson. It also shows what partisan hacks some of you guys are. Its well known I'm fairly conservative, and I gave Clinton credit and bashed Bush 2, Ford and Nixon. Fairness you cant bring yourselves to show for the undisputedly most admired Republican ex president of the past 50 years. What a bunch of hacks.This message was edited by Bulldogcakes on 12-4-06 @ 6:22 PM Thanks for the generalization.  Sorry I didn't get into my personal views, but I think Reagan is the most overrated president ever.  What are his accomplishments?  <ul><li><div>He made people feel better?</div></li><li><div>He broke unions?</div></li><li><div>He fucked up the Middle East?</div></li><li><div>He shifted monies away from education into the military?</div></li><li><div>Reaganomics? </div></li></ul>Historically that's not much of a track record.  Hell I actually give Nixon quite a bit of credit as he actually has accomplishments (China, EPA, indexing Social Security, Parks Programs, Affirmative Action) that have stood the test of time.  But then again it's just easier to bash us all as a bunch of hack liberals.

TheMojoPin

12-04-2006, 04:13 PM

epo wrote: Bulldogcakes wrote: It amazes me how after close to 20 years, people still have the same knee jerk response to Reagan and cant concede a single ounce of credit to the guy. Amazing, especially after all the clowns who have followed him in the office. All had their stregnths and weaknesses. None of them had his acheivements.I think it shows the greatest fear of those on the left is to have a truly respected and admired Republican president. THose accolades are saved for Liberal Democrats like FDR and Wilson. It also shows what partisan hacks some of you guys are. Its well known I'm fairly conservative, and I gave Clinton credit and bashed Bush 2, Ford and Nixon. Fairness you cant bring yourselves to show for the undisputedly most admired Republican ex president of the past 50 years. What a bunch of hacks.This message was edited by Bulldogcakes on 12-4-06 @ 6:22 PM Thanks for the generalization.  Sorry I didn't get into my personal views, but I think Reagan is the most overrated president ever.  What are his accomplishments?  <ul><li>*>He made people feel better? </li><li>*>He broke unions? </li><li>*>He fucked up the Middle East? </li><li>*>He shifted monies away from education into the military? </li><li>*>Reaganomics? </li></ul>Historically that's not much of a track record.  Hell I actually give Nixon quite a bit of credit as he actually has accomplishments (China, EPA, indexing Social Security, Parks Programs, Affirmative Action) that have stood the test of time.  But then again it's just easier to bash us all as a bunch of hack liberals.  Along these lines, I actually find more to admire about Nixon in and out of office than I can about Reagan.  It's nothing personal against Reagan...I simply don't see much significant about his decisions outside of things that were done poorly or ignored that we're dealing with the ramifications of them through today.  And I don't give Clinton credit for anything.  Jesus, talk about "hacks"...like I said, two empty suits (Reagan and Clinton) cruising on style over substance.BDC, your main gripe over people not liking Reagan is that he should be "respected and admired?"  How is that criteria for actually being a GOOD president?  Again, I'll go with Clinton...not exactly "respected," but he sure inspires the warm fuzzies in a ton of people, something I am baffled by when I attempt to look objectively over his time in office.  He really is the Democrats' Reagan.  And it's ironic that you mention the "clowns" that came after Reagan, since so many of Reagan's policies and personel have been carried over explicitly into the terms served by the Bushes.  The neo-cons running the show now were forged in the Reagan era.  We have what we have right now expressly because of how Reagan's administration governed and designed policy and who they had working for them.  If you're even remotely critically of the current government then you have to transfer some of that directly back to Reagan's time in office.  THAT'S why I feel that I don't need to see him as a great or even good president...he didn't do much and what he did do he and (especially) his people fucked up for us then AND now.  But we're supposed to give him his props because he basically acted the role well?  Please.  Guys like him and Clinton foster cults of personality and little more.

Bulldogcakes

12-04-2006, 04:46 PM

epo

12-04-2006, 05:15 PM

Bulldogcakes wrote: epo wrote: Bulldogcakes wrote: It amazes me how after close to 20 years, people still have the same knee jerk response to Reagan and cant concede a single ounce of credit to the guy. Amazing, especially after all the clowns who have followed him in the office. All had their stregnths and weaknesses. None of them had his acheivements.I think it shows the greatest fear of those on the left is to have a truly respected and admired Republican president. THose accolades are saved for Liberal Democrats like FDR and Wilson. It also shows what partisan hacks some of you guys are. Its well known I'm fairly conservative, and I gave Clinton credit and bashed Bush 2, Ford and Nixon. Fairness you cant bring yourselves to show for the undisputedly most admired Republican ex president of the past 50 years. What a bunch of hacks.This message was edited by Bulldogcakes on 12-4-06 @ 6:22 PM Thanks for the generalization. Sorry I didn't get into my personal views, but I think Reagan is the most overrated president ever. What are his accomplishments? <ul><li>*>He made people feel better?</li><li>*>He broke unions?</li><li>*>He fucked up the Middle East?</li><li>*>He shifted monies away from education into the military?</li><li>*>Reaganomics? </li></ul>Historically that's not much of a track record. Hell I actually give Nixon quite a bit of credit as he actually has accomplishments (China, EPA, indexing Social Security, Parks Programs, Affirmative Action) that have stood the test of time. But then again it's just easier to bash us all as a bunch of hack liberals. Thanks for being obtuse. Its fascinating, really. When you have more than a cartoonish view of Conservativism, call me. And as your post illustrates, Nixon governed as a Liberal, so you've conceded nothing.  What did Reagan do?  What were his accomplishments?  Why should we as a populus respect him?

Bulldogcakes

12-04-2006, 05:32 PM

TheMojoPin wrote:Along these lines, I actually find more to admire about Nixon in and out of office than I can about Reagan. That makes two of you. And the fact he governed to the left as much as he did is one of the reasons he was impeached. His own party had no stomach to defend him. Iraq gets a little worse and Bush 2 could be in the same boat. It's nothing personal against Reagan...I simply don't see much significant about his decisions outside of things that were done poorly or ignored that we're dealing with the ramifications of them through today. And I don't give Clinton credit for anything. Jesus, talk about "hacks"...like I said, two empty suits (Reagan and Clinton) cruising on style over substance. Both definitely had those elements, but that just makes them good politicians. With both, The US enjoyed 8 years of relative peace and prosperity. Which is more than can be said for many others on the list. I also probably have different expectations of Presidents than you. If you think some grand expansion of Federal powers makes someone a great president, I couldn't disagree more. I think that just leaves us citizens with a little less freedom. What else is new.    BDC, your main gripe over people not liking Reagan is that he should be "respected and admired?" How is that criteria for actually being a GOOD president? Again, I'll go with Clinton...not exactly "respected," but he sure inspires the warm fuzzies in a ton of people, something I am baffled by when I attempt to look objectively over his time in office. He really is the Democrats' Reagan. And it's ironic that you mention the "clowns" that came after Reagan, since so many of Reagan's policies and personel have been carried over explicitly into the terms served by the Bushes. The neo-cons running the show now were forged in the Reagan era. We have what we have right now expressly because of how Reagan's administration governed and designed policy and who they had working for them. If you're even remotely critically of the current government then you have to transfer some of that directly back to Reagan's time in office. THAT'S why I feel that I don't need to see him as a great or even good president...he didn't do much and what he did do he and (especially) his people fucked up for us then AND now. But we're supposed to give him his props because he basically acted the role well? Please. Guys like him and Clinton foster cults of personality and little more.  No, he IS respected and admired, whether anyone on the Left likes it or not. Ask 50 Republicans off the street at random who the greatest president was in the past 50 years and you'll get 48 Reagans and maybe an Ike or two. Reagan inspired a generation of people into politics, and when the Republicans took the House in 94, Gingrich gave the lions share of the credit to the Reagan revolution still affecting politics long after he was gone. Most Republicans feel Bush Sr's term was really Reagans 3rd term. Even the Democrats who've swept into the House this year are largely conservative Democrats. Clinton tried to govern to the left and got killed in the mid terms. You cant argue that the center of American politics shifted to the right during Reagans term, and that remains unchanged. He gets credit for that, just like FDR inspired a generation and to a lesser extent Kennedy did. Put it this way. Who are the greatest bands of music? Usually the ones who inspire a million imitators, the ones who are inluential. Reagan was in American politics.    PLus he clearly (if nothing else) accelerated the demise of the Soviet Union, supported the Poles when they needed it most (something most on the Left thought was nuts) Gorbechev HIMSELF said the two men most responsible for the collapse of the Soviet Union were Pope

keithy_19

12-04-2006, 06:00 PM

In resposne to Clinton and the Lewinsky thing being something to laugh about. Yes, I do gree it was comical; But he did lie under oath. The highest authority in America lied to the biggest court in the country. Ballsy? Yeah, it is. But I do think tht should count against him. Not jsut fromt he right wing either.

TheMojoPin

12-04-2006, 06:03 PM

Bulldogcakes wrote: TheMojoPin wrote: Along these lines, I actually find more to admire about Nixon in and out of office than I can about Reagan. That makes two of you. And the fact he governed to the left as much as he did is one of the reasons he was impeached. His own party had no stomach to defend him. Iraq gets a little worse and Bush 2 could be in the same boat.Actually, it's simply a matter of attempting to view Nixon's legacy objectively as a whole.  He did some monstrous things and made some absurdly bad mistakes and I'd definitely rank him in the lower tier of our presidents (bottom 10).  It's not like I'm ranking him way ahead of Reagan. It's nothing personal against Reagan...I simply don't see much significant about his decisions outside of things that were done poorly or ignored that we're dealing with the ramifications of them through today. And I don't give Clinton credit for anything. Jesus, talk about "hacks"...like I said, two empty suits (Reagan and Clinton) cruising on style over substance.   Both definitely had those elements, but that just makes them good politicians. With both, The US enjoyed 8 years of relative peace and prosperity. Which is more than can be said for many others on the list. I also probably have different expectations of Presidents than you. If you think some grand expansion of Federal powers makes someone a great president, I couldn't disagree more. I think that just leaves us citizens with a little less freedom. What else is new.I think both acted incredibly shortsighted and we're going to be paying for their decisions and mentalities for decades to come.  "Good in the now" will only get you so far. BDC, your main gripe over people not liking Reagan is that he should be "respected and admired?" How is that criteria for actually being a GOOD president? Again, I'll go with Clinton...not exactly "respected," but he sure inspires the warm fuzzies in a ton of people, something I am baffled by when I attempt to look objectively over his time in office. He really is the Democrats' Reagan. And it's ironic that you mention the "clowns" that came after Reagan, since so many of Reagan's policies and personel have been carried over explicitly into the terms served by the Bushes. The neo-cons running the show now were forged in the Reagan era. We have what we have right now expressly because of how Reagan's administration governed and designed policy and who they had working for them. If you're even remotely critically of the current government then you have to transfer some of that directly back to Reagan's time in office. THAT'S why I feel that I don't need to see him as a great or even good president...he didn't do much and what he did do he and (especially) his people fucked up for us then AND now. But we're supposed to give him his props because he basically acted the role well? Please. Guys like him and Clinton foster cults of personality and little more.  No, he IS respected and admired, whether anyone on the Left likes it or not. Ask 50 Republicans off the street at random who the greatest president was in the past 50 years and you'll get 48 Reagans and maybe an Ike or two.But how does that actually make him good or great?  Tons of people respect and admire John F. Kennedy, but that doesn't make him a great president. [quote]Reagan inspired a generation of people into politics, and when the Republicans took the House in 94, Gingrich gave the lions share of the credit to the Reagan revolution still affecting politics long after he was gone. Most Republicans feel Bush Sr's term was really Reagans 3rd term. Even the Democrats who've swept in

TheMojoPin

12-04-2006, 06:05 PM

keithy_19 wrote: In resposne to Clinton and the Lewinsky thing being something to laugh about. Yes, I do gree it was comical; But he did lie under oath. The highest authority in America lied to the biggest court in the country. Ballsy? Yeah, it is. But I do think tht should count against him. Not jsut fromt he right wing either. The overall situation was pretty frivolous, but you're right, his response to it in that regard is inexcusable.

keithy_19

12-04-2006, 06:08 PM

In response to my own post; it is incredible how a day away from ronfez.net makes my typing skills horrendous.

johnniewalker

12-04-2006, 06:52 PM

TheMojoPin wrote: keithy_19 wrote: In resposne to Clinton and the Lewinsky thing being something to laugh about. Yes, I do gree it was comical; But he did lie under oath. The highest authority in America lied to the biggest court in the country. Ballsy? Yeah, it is. But I do think tht should count against him. Not jsut fromt he right wing either. The overall situation was pretty frivolous, but you're right, his response to it in that regard is inexcusable. That's what always confuses me, why potentially ruin your career and undermine the U.S. judicial system as the President over that.    To his credit his statements were murky at best, but why?

keithy_19

12-04-2006, 07:11 PM

I guess the meaning of is is pretty confusing...

scottinnj

12-06-2006, 01:50 PM

I gave him a 5 because even though he is a dundering fool-the economy is great in spite of almost hitting a depression due to the recession he inherited from President Clinton's term (And to be fair, the jury is out on whether Clinton's fiscal policies helped speed up the recession.  Let's face it, most of the 90s he was President of the United States and most of the 90s we had a great economy) and then having the economy further spiral down due to 9/11. Katrina was half his problem.  Mayor Nagin and Governor Blanco were like deer caught in the headlights of that storm: comepletely useless.  The only reason Nagin got re-elected was he admitted his part of the failure and promised to do better.  But Bush should have seen the chaos that ensued because of that pair's incompetence and moved in sooner. We haven't been attacked in the United States since 9/11, and attacks on U.S. interests have been relegated to military targets-he is sucessful there.  His rebuilding of the military after it had been gutted to pay for Clinton's campaign promises was spectacular, and Secretary Rumsfeld needs a lot of credit for that as well, although I have to admit he needed to be removed as Secretary of Defense for the debacle of post-invasion Iraq.  But I agreed with the mission to have Sadaam Hussein out of power. I think history will show that the editorial staff of the Washington Post were way off for suggesting President Bush as one, if not the worst Presidents in American History

Yerdaddy

12-06-2006, 02:25 PM

scottinnj wrote: We haven't been attacked in the United States since 9/11, and attacks on U.S. interests have been relegated to military targets-he is sucessful there.  His rebuilding of the military after it had been gutted to pay for Clinton's campaign promises was spectacular, and Secretary Rumsfeld needs a lot of credit for that as well, although I have to admit he needed to be removed as Secretary of Defense for the debacle of post-invasion Iraq.  Couple questions:Regarding the contention that a lack of attacks for five years under Bush is a demonstration of success, would you also apply that to Clinton since a lack of attacks for 8 years after the 1993 WTC bombing? And does that five years without an attack mean you think we're not vulnerable now? Regarding Clinton's "gutting" of the military: It's been stated here several times that the major part of Reagan's "winning" of the Cold War was his massive military build-up that the Soviet's couldn't keep up with. So, once the Soviet Union ends, and the Cold War is over, and the primary threat to the US is no longer an all-out nuclear war with the former Soviet Union, wouldn't that build-up policy have served it's purpose? And wouldn't that built-up military have to be shrunk to meet the new primary threats? Isn't that what Rumsfeld said he was doing? My main question here is, on what do you base your definition of Clinton's policies as "gutting", and Bush's as "rebuilding"? Seems to me there's a double standard on this point running throughout this thread. [/quote]

scottinnj

12-06-2006, 02:46 PM

Yerdaddy wrote: scottinnj wrote: We haven't been attacked in the United States since 9/11, and attacks on U.S. interests have been relegated to military targets-he is sucessful there.  His rebuilding of the military after it had been gutted to pay for Clinton's campaign promises was spectacular, and Secretary Rumsfeld needs a lot of credit for that as well, although I have to admit he needed to be removed as Secretary of Defense for the debacle of post-invasion Iraq.  Couple questions:Regarding the contention that a lack of attacks for five years under Bush is a demonstration of success, would you also apply that to Clinton since a lack of attacks for 8 years after the 1993 WTC bombing?A bit, but since 1993 the Clinton Administration's handle on foreign terrorism had been a law enforcement approach, it is my opinion that 9/11 was inevitable.  Especially after the attack on the USS Cole, which should have resulted in a massive military reponse.  The two cruise missles he fired into Afghanistan just cemented in Al Queada's mind that we were content with tolerating them, and they could do what they wanted. And does that five years without an attack mean you think we're not vulnerable now?Of course we are.  That is why I in general support this President, and will definetely support the next President whether he/she is Democrat or Republican.  I wouldn't want to be a Republican and treat the next Commander-in-Chief the way we treated President Clinton while the next President is fighting a war. Regarding Clinton's "gutting" of the military: It's been stated here several times that the major part of Reagan's "winning" of the Cold War was his massive military build-up that the Soviet's couldn't keep up with. So, once the Soviet Union ends, and the Cold War is over, and the primary threat to the US is no longer an all-out nuclear war with the former Soviet Union, wouldn't that build-up policy have served it's purpose? And wouldn't that built-up military have to be shrunk to meet the new primary threats? Isn't that what Rumsfeld said he was doing? My main question here is, on what do you base your definition of Clinton's policies as "gutting", and Bush's as "rebuilding"? Seems to me there's a double standard on this point running throughout this thread.Well, the problem was that the switchover from Reagan's military to Clinton's military was too fast and poorly handled.  The National Guard side was supposed to handle 50% of the load but was never funded the way it should have been.  It's still not all that hot now, but in the 90s we were not even close to having the NG have the same equipment the regular Army had.  The defense budget from Clinton's first budget had money retroactively taken from Bush I's last budget.  I remember this well, because for two weeks the Army had no money, couldn't buy fuel, all of us on Fort Riley who were training in the field had to be pulled into garrison, and for two weeks we swept the motor pool.  All during the 90s foreign policy "think tanks" kept warning that the United States didn't have the manpower to fight two conflicts on separate continents.  We can do that now, despite what the media says.  For instance if North Korea gets nutty and we have to fight them, we can do it even though we are dug in in Iraq.This is not a slam against President Clinton.  I am merely saying I disagree with the Washington Post.

TheMojoPin

12-06-2006, 08:35 PM

Aren't we often hearing from a lot of the soldiers themselves just how pootly or underequipped they are in the field?  And that recruitment standards and criteria have continued to plunge lower and lower?  That doesn't seem like that a great of a "rebuilding."

high fly

12-07-2006, 07:17 AM

TheMojoPin wrote: Aren't we often hearing from a lot of the soldiers themselves just how pootly or underequipped they are in the field?  And that recruitment standards and criteria have continued to plunge lower and lower?  That doesn't seem like that a great of a "rebuilding." Yup.And what with the rules of engagement and having Rhymes-With-Dummy constantly looking over their shoulders and nitpicking everything they do and giving them enough combat power to not lose but also to not win, we have what was called back in the 60s, "Making the troops fight with one hand tied behind their backs."I, uh, guess we all have different ways to "support the troops."

high fly

12-07-2006, 07:26 AM

You know, I've always wondered why the right-wingers prefer cliches to facts.Here's a good example:scottinnj wrote:  We haven't been attacked in the United States since 9/11, Lets seeeeeeee,Those anthrax mailings, weren't those attacks?And how about the D.C. area snipers?Or that copycat sniper in Ohio who was shooting people on the highway?Or Richard Reid's attempt to light his shoe-bomb? (Might discount that one because I don't think the plane had entered American airspace just yet)Scott, those attacks were all over the news. Even in New Jersey.I can't see how you could have missed them....

johnniewalker

12-07-2006, 07:49 AM

high fly wrote: TheMojoPin wrote: Aren't we often hearing from a lot of the soldiers themselves just how pootly or underequipped they are in the field? And that recruitment standards and criteria have continued to plunge lower and lower? That doesn't seem like that a great of a "rebuilding." Yup.And what with the rules of engagement and having Rhymes-With-Dummy constantly looking over their shoulders and nitpicking everything they do and giving them enough combat power to not lose but also to not win, we have what was called back in the 60s, "Making the troops fight with one hand tied behind their backs."I, uh, guess we all have different ways to "support the troops." It wasn't Rummy who came up with the Rules of Engagement. There is a tradition to uphold to appear somewhat morally legitimate in war. Whether they are adaptable to this war is another argument. Are you willing to forego calling a soldier murderer for attacking a civilian for suspicious behavior? If you are then plainly we can start attacking more effectively, but there are moral and ethical costs. Don't blame Rumsfeld for adhering to worldwide approved forms of combat that were invented in completely different kinds of wars. 

This message was edited by johnniewalker on 12-8-06 @ 2:16 AM

scottinnj

12-07-2006, 08:14 PM

high fly wrote: You know, I've always wondered why the right-wingers prefer cliches to facts.Here's a good example:scottinnj wrote:  We haven't been attacked in the United States since 9/11, Lets seeeeeeee,Those anthrax mailings, weren't those attacks?By who?  A right wing nut like McVeigh or Al-Quaeda?And how about the D.C. area snipers?Murderers, not terroristsOr that copycat sniper in Ohio who was shooting people on the highway?See D.C. area snipers.Or Richard Reid's attempt to light his shoe-bomb? (Might discount that one because I don't think the plane had entered American airspace just yet)A dummy later found out to be so imcompetent he was dismissed by Mohammed Atta from the 9/11 attack.  Also since it wasn't pulled off, not an attack.Scott, those attacks were all over the news. Even in New Jersey.I can't see how you could have missed them....Since I meant a large scale attack by an organized terror cell funded by Al-Queada or Hezbollah or some other radical Muslim group, I'll take your bit of sarcasm as a joke.  But you know what I mean.As for the other point of body armor, I disagree with the troops who say we don't have enough armor.  Put enough on, you can't move.  There is something to say for the "scoot" in the term "shoot and scoot"

scottinnj

12-07-2006, 08:25 PM

johnniewalker wrote: high fly wrote: TheMojoPin wrote: Aren't we often hearing from a lot of the soldiers themselves just how pootly or underequipped they are in the field? And that recruitment standards and criteria have continued to plunge lower and lower? That doesn't seem like that a great of a "rebuilding." Yup.And what with the rules of engagement and having Rhymes-With-Dummy constantly looking over their shoulders and nitpicking everything they do and giving them enough combat power to not lose but also to not win, we have what was called back in the 60s, "Making the troops fight with one hand tied behind their backs."I, uh, guess we all have different ways to "support the troops." It wasn't Rummy who came of the Rules of Engagement.  There is a tradition to uphold to appear somewhat morally legitimate in war.   Whether they are adaptable to this war is another argument.  Are you willing to forego calling a soldier murderer for attacking a civilian for suspicious behavior?  If you are then plainly we can start attacking more effectively, but there are moral and ethical costs.  Don't blame Rumsfeld for adhering to worldwide approved forms of combat that were invented in completely different kinds of wars.    Yep if Rummy had had his way, you all would have been crying "War Criminal" and spitting on the troops coming back like your ilk did to my brother during Vietnam.Can't have it both ways guys.  If Rummy is a "war criminal" and a "dummy" then the troops are murderers and imperialistic pawns.  If Rummy (now Gates) plays by the liberal's rules and makes you all happy implementing your war strategy, he's "making them fight with one hand tied behind their backs" But I am losing my patience stating the obvious so as to build this conversation to a level that is going to get things done.  I'm obviously not going to convince those who disagree with me or others on this board.I like you guys as freinds-freinds of the show.  So I will say this:A LOT of mistakes were made.  Rummy did the right thing by leaving.  However removing Sadaam Hussein was a good thingThe troops are equipped well and are doing a great job.And we all owe them a "thank you" when we go about our day and see a soldier, sailor or airmen waiting for a plane, train or bus.  Buy them a coffee, a beer or just shake their hand and say thanks-you can't believe what a shot in the arm it gives them.And you all are the best-Love sharing R&F with you all.CYA!

The Jays

12-07-2006, 09:29 PM

This President got elected by playing all politics and having no ideas. The good ideas Republicans are alleged to be striving for, smaller government, less spending, have been thrown out the window in favor of this theocratic party of fear mongering and propaganda. Their way of supporting the states is by letting their party members bring back pork packages home, by signing federal laws to stop feedings tubes from being pulled for one single person, and by telling local governments that it's their fault when natural disasters wipe out all functions. This is the President's fault because he has the final say in allowing this all to happen. He's never vetoed a spending package, and he sticks his feet in the ground when he's challenged on anything.

9/11 was not his fault, but his handling of the country is. We've become a country told to fear the enemy, for we know not what they might do, and we've allowed him to amass more power and keep more activities of government clandestine for the sake of alleged national security.

We should have never been in Iraq, but since we are, we should have gone in with more troops, but since we didn't, we shouldn't have dissolved the Republican Army, but since we did we should have trained new Iraqi forces better, but since we didn't shouldn't have let their borders leak like a sieve, but since we did we should have should have given our troops better armor, but since we didn't we shouldn't be blocking photographers from taking pictures of every single coffin that comes home, but since we do we shouldn't trust anyone who bears the affliation "Republican" admittance to any office of power ever again.

The ultimate responsibility that a government has to its people is to protect it from danger and death. Hurricane Katrina was that unique moment in which the federal government and its troops were needed to make sense of a natural disaster, and instead the President and his government blamed the locals, instead of getting the job done. 5 days is too long, especially when the Canadians beat you to the site.

The ultimate disgrace of this President, and this country, is that he is so ineffectual that he must attempt to re-write the Constitution in order to claim better security. With the loss of habeas corpus, we are now all potential enemy combatants. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus while the country was divided and at civil war. This current President has now eliminated it, and our country is more divided than ever.

A good President unites his country, he should not divide.

Coach

12-08-2006, 12:33 AM

I'd have to go with Harrison...he wore the wrong clothes during his inauguration, and died of Pneumonia soon after. What a dumb Quitter!

This message was edited by Coach on 12-8-06 @ 4:34 AM

TheMojoPin

12-08-2006, 04:21 AM

scottinnj wrote: TheMojoPin wrote: Aren't we often hearing from a lot of the soldiers themselves just how pootly or underequipped they are in the field? And that recruitment standards and criteria have continued to plunge lower and lower? That doesn't seem like that a great of a "rebuilding." The troops are equipped well and are doing a great job.OK, everyone started repyling to High Fly's reply to my post and didn't actually address what I asked.  It's coming from the troops themselves that they're not properly equipped.  Doesn't that fly in the face of the part of your statement that I bolded?  And doesn't that continuing fact and the rock-bottom recruiting standards put Bush's much-vaunted "rebuilding" of the military in a different light?

Yerdaddy

12-08-2006, 06:04 AM

The tone in this thread seems like it's about to get ugly in response to scottinnj's post and I don't see any reason for it. He wasn't condescending, arrogant or or disrespectful. He's speaking from personal experience and stating his opinions as his opinions. If his opinions are the minority here that's not reason enough to be condescending, arrogant or disrespectful in reply. I don't want to lose a chance for a civil discussion of politics because it's like finding a virgin on prom night these days.

Yerdaddy

12-08-2006, 07:04 AM

scottinnjFirst of all I'm a bit slow to reply because I don't know how to make short posts and the depth of your response deserves a thoughtful reply. And I just met this cute little Norwegian girl the other day and I'm sure you won't begrudge a brother for putting some Scandinavian booty above internet politics. Since she's still around, I'll take this in pieces. Like I'm hoping to take her. Wakka wakka!Regarding the contention that a lack of attacks for five years under Bush is a demonstration of success, would you also apply that to Clinton since a lack of attacks for 8 years after the 1993 WTC bombing?A bit, but since 1993 the Clinton Administration's handle on foreign terrorism had been a law enforcement approach, it is my opinion that 9/11 was inevitable.  Especially after the attack on the USS Cole, which should have resulted in a massive military reponse.  The two cruise missles he fired into Afghanistan just cemented in Al Queada's mind that we were content with tolerating them, and they could do what they wanted.[/quote]While I can understand this position with 9-11 in our hindsight, I don't agree that the "law enforcement" approach was the wrong approach if for no other reason that most of the successes that Bush has had in the GWOT have been the result of the law enforcement aspects of his approach. For example, If you've read the 9-11 Commisssion Report you might thing that Khaled Sheikh Mohammed - the Ron Jeremy of al-Qaeda - got co-authorship credits. So much of our understanding of 9-11 and al-Qaeda (at that time) came from the guy, who was the "mastermind of 9-11" and, lucky for us, likes to brag as much as Jeremy likes to shag. And he - like most of the "high-level targets" we have managed to round up - have been captured through "law enforcement" action - cooperation with intelligence agencies around the world to find and capture these guys, as well as  strengthening the capacity of those same intel agencies to fight terrorism in their own countries. I think, in terms of PREVENTING 9-11, a massive military response to the Cole wouldn't ahave actually prevented 9-11, but instead would have just meant Afghanistan could set the all-time opium production record a couple years earlier. Also, bear in mind one underrported fact about the USS Cole bombings noted in the 9-11 Commission Report [main Cole section found here: <a href="http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/sec6.pdf">http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/sec6.pdf</a> (PDF)]: With the Cole bombing, Bin Laden both wanted and expected us to launch an invasion of Afghanistan as a response. It has been the goal of Bin Laden for some time to provoke a global confrontation with the United States in order to be able to build an anti-western uprising to drive us out of the Middle East, leaving the secular and/or pro-western governments vulnerable to overthrow by the army he would then have. It was a hugely optomistic plan for a guy living constantly on the run in caves and shacks in Afghanistan already, and it would require us to play into his hands by invading and then botching the invasion - like the Soviets did. I think this is an important element of dealing with al-Qaeda that Clinton HALF understood - and which the Bush administration ignored altogether. Without an aggressive US action in the Middle East, Bin Laden is nobody. That's why he needed a 9-11 in the first place - to get us to respond big AND respond stupid. Read that section of the 9-11 Report - a lack of invasion didn't make Bin Laden think he could do whatever he wanted; a massive invasion WAS what Bin Landen wanted.So, hypothetically, if Clinton had invaded right away, I suppose the one thing you could say was that we would have had the Afghan war without the Iraq War... until the Bush administration took over and began to take us into the Iraq war. In other words, a Clinton invasion can't really be expect

TheMojoPin

12-08-2006, 10:53 AM

Yerdaddy wrote: The tone in this thread seems like it's about to get ugly in response to scottinnj's post and I don't see any reason for it. He wasn't condescending, arrogant or or disrespectful. He's speaking from personal experience and stating his opinions as his opinions. If his opinions are the minority here that's not reason enough to be condescending, arrogant or disrespectful in reply. I don't want to lose a chance for a civil discussion of politics because it's like finding a virgin on prom night these days. The only response that could even be construed as flippant or "ugly" was high fly's, and he was responding to me.  All I'm doing is asking scottinnj's a question regarding his assertion that the military was adequately "rebuilt" when Bush took office.

johnniewalker

12-08-2006, 10:59 AM

TheMojoPin wrote: Yerdaddy wrote: The tone in this thread seems like it's about to get ugly in response to scottinnj's post and I don't see any reason for it. He wasn't condescending, arrogant or or disrespectful. He's speaking from personal experience and stating his opinions as his opinions. If his opinions are the minority here that's not reason enough to be condescending, arrogant or disrespectful in reply. I don't want to lose a chance for a civil discussion of politics because it's like finding a virgin on prom night these days. The only response that could even be construed as flippant or "ugly" was high fly's, and he was responding to me.  All I'm doing is asking scottinnj's a question regarding his assertion that the military was adequately "rebuilt" when Bush took office.Who is the moderator for this forum?

scottinnj

12-08-2006, 02:00 PM

I don't think anyone has been out of line with me, or antagonistic.  You should see the loons on MySpace go at it.  It's like having a family discussion at dinner with the family debating with you all.But the worst part of all of this is this: I'm sick of defending Bush.  I just wish that creep would get in front of the camera and instead of saying "stay the course" or "freedom's on the move" tell us the logistics of what is going on, and why it is happening, and what he hopes will be accomplished in doing what he is doing.  Oh and instead of telling America to "go shopping, spend some money" after 9/11, I wish he had said, "buy energy efficient cars, turn down the thermostats at home and work, turn off lights and conserve as much energy as possible.  This war on terror is going to be long, and we need to save on energy as much as possible to get out of the Middle East and be energy independent."

TheMojoPin

12-08-2006, 05:11 PM

johnniewalker wrote: TheMojoPin wrote: Yerdaddy wrote: The tone in this thread seems like it's about to get ugly in response to scottinnj's post and I don't see any reason for it. He wasn't condescending, arrogant or or disrespectful. He's speaking from personal experience and stating his opinions as his opinions. If his opinions are the minority here that's not reason enough to be condescending, arrogant or disrespectful in reply. I don't want to lose a chance for a civil discussion of politics because it's like finding a virgin on prom night these days. The only response that could even be construed as flippant or "ugly" was high fly's, and he was responding to me.  All I'm doing is asking scottinnj's a question regarding his assertion that the military was adequately "rebuilt" when Bush took office.Who is the moderator for this forum?And your point is...?Nobody's said anything even remotely close to requiring any "moderating."

TheMojoPin

12-08-2006, 05:18 PM

scottinnj wrote: I don't think anyone has been out of line with me, or antagonistic.  You should see the loons on MySpace go at it.  It's like having a family discussion at dinner with the family debating with you all.But the worst part of all of this is this: I'm sick of defending Bush.  I just wish that creep would get in front of the camera and instead of saying "stay the course" or "freedom's on the move" tell us the logistics of what is going on, and why it is happening, and what he hopes will be accomplished in doing what he is doing.  Oh and instead of telling America to "go shopping, spend some money" after 9/11, I wish he had said, "buy energy efficient cars, turn down the thermostats at home and work, turn off lights and conserve as much energy as possible.  This war on terror is going to be long, and we need to save on energy as much as possible to get out of the Middle East and be energy independent."I couldn't agree more.[/quote]

johnniewalker

12-09-2006, 11:02 AM

TheMojoPin wrote: johnniewalker wrote: TheMojoPin wrote: Yerdaddy wrote: The tone in this thread seems like it's about to get ugly in response to scottinnj's post and I don't see any reason for it. He wasn't condescending, arrogant or or disrespectful. He's speaking from personal experience and stating his opinions as his opinions. If his opinions are the minority here that's not reason enough to be condescending, arrogant or disrespectful in reply. I don't want to lose a chance for a civil discussion of politics because it's like finding a virgin on prom night these days. The only response that could even be construed as flippant or "ugly" was high fly's, and he was responding to me. All I'm doing is asking scottinnj's a question regarding his assertion that the military was adequately "rebuilt" when Bush took office.Who is the moderator for this forum?And your point is...?Nobody's said anything even remotely close to requiring any "moderating." Ehhh, sorry your tone in your reply sounded like you were explaining your actions to yerdaddy.  As acting moderator I thought it was kind of funny that you were responding to him in this fashion.  Ehhhhh...

Yerdaddy

12-09-2006, 04:42 PM

johnniewalker wrote: TheMojoPin wrote: johnniewalker wrote: TheMojoPin wrote: Yerdaddy wrote: The tone in this thread seems like it's about to get ugly in response to scottinnj's post and I don't see any reason for it. He wasn't condescending, arrogant or or disrespectful. He's speaking from personal experience and stating his opinions as his opinions. If his opinions are the minority here that's not reason enough to be condescending, arrogant or disrespectful in reply. I don't want to lose a chance for a civil discussion of politics because it's like finding a virgin on prom night these days. The only response that could even be construed as flippant or "ugly" was high fly's, and he was responding to me. All I'm doing is asking scottinnj's a question regarding his assertion that the military was adequately "rebuilt" when Bush took office.Who is the moderator for this forum?And your point is...?Nobody's said anything even remotely close to requiring any "moderating." Ehhh, sorry your tone in your reply sounded like you were explaining your actions to yerdaddy.  As acting moderator I thought it was kind of funny that you were responding to him in this fashion.  Ehhhhh... Actually he was addressing me in this fashion<img src="http://ip.rhps.org/gallery/themes/jerry/19.jpg" border="0" width="438" height="600" />THAT old gag!