Tippmann Pneumatics Inc. Homepage
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Worst President Ever?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 7>
Author
High Voltage View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Fire in the disco

Joined: 12 March 2003
Location: 127.0.0.1
Status: Offline
Points: 14179
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote High Voltage Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 April 2006 at 3:39pm
...hoover...
Back to Top
Dune View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
<placeholder>

Joined: 05 February 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 4347
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dune Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 April 2006 at 3:44pm
Good post Ryan, it's nice to see that the youth can prove OS wrong and form intelligent opinions. It's also nice to see Clark give good and bad points about the current president, unlike other's who simply attack a bunch of Democratic preisdential policies like it is actually proving a relevant point in light of the actual topic. Good and bad have come from this administration, and I do not actually think he may be the worst president. With that said, the corruption of the administration is a little scary, as is the country's economic structure. Without mentioning foreign policy, the two prior topics are enough to raise the eyebrows of any level headed person. As if Bush happened to be a democrat, it would still raise my eyebrows.
Back to Top
oldsoldier View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

Frequent target of infantile obsessives

Joined: 10 June 2002
Status: Offline
Points: 6544
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oldsoldier Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 April 2006 at 3:49pm
If I am sooo wrong...why are these hate Bush "opinions" usually just recitings of daily opposition talking points, based on the suspect bias of the mainstream media. There is nothing good going on in Iraq, oil problems are the fault of Bush (how did he do that in 1973?), economy is poor (where do we get that with all indicaters saying otherwise).

As stated Bush is no where near the worst president, nor is he anywhere close to being the best, but it is sad that bias runs these opinions.
Back to Top
Dune View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
<placeholder>

Joined: 05 February 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 4347
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dune Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 April 2006 at 3:52pm
There called talking points for a reason. No one said you were absolutely wrong, but you're so quick to brush off the opinion of anyone in the 18-25 age group like a college education and a few years in the workplace doesn't earn you the right to speak your mind. I personally hate televised media, but of course your assumption places me in the category that watches Hardball 24/7 or eats up Wolf Blitzer's commentary for dinner. You play to the right as much as some of the forumers play to the left, but your opinion still garners respect as opinon. Therefore, it should work the same for the left.

Edited by Dune - 27 April 2006 at 3:53pm
Back to Top
Jack Carver View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 07 February 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 1653
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jack Carver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 April 2006 at 3:54pm
Originally posted by FarSeer FarSeer wrote:

He led us into Iraq for no reason at all.

Actually there was this evil dictator guy there named Saddam Hussein. You may have heard of him in the news.... that's why we went into Iraq, to get him out.

He has done NOTHING about the Katrina Hurricane relief.

Hmm... actually he visited the gulf coast, asked Congress to give money to New Orleans, asked the nation for donations, had over 1700 FEMA trucks mobilized to New Orleans, sent 8 Navy vessels to the area, among other things.

We are STILL looking for Bin Laden. (He left it to the untrained Afganistan soldiers to capture him while we invaded Iraq)

There are still soldiers in Afghanistan right now.


The nation is in debt more now than we can fathom.

I don't know... I can fathom quite a bit.

Need I say more?

No... you probably shouldn't.


Edited by Jack Carver - 27 April 2006 at 3:55pm
Back to Top
Dune View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
<placeholder>

Joined: 05 February 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 4347
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dune Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 April 2006 at 3:56pm

Originally posted by Jack Carver Jack Carver wrote:

Originally posted by FarSeer FarSeer wrote:

He led us into Iraq for no reason at all.

Actually there was this evil dictator guy there named Saddam Hussein. You may have heard of him in the news.... that's why we went into Iraq, to get him out.

He has done NOTHING about the Katrina Hurricane relief.

Hmm... actually he visited the gulf coast, asked Congress to give money to New Orleans, asked the nation for donations, had over 1700 FEMA trucks mobilized to New Orleans, sent 8 Navy vessels to the area, among other things.

We are STILL looking for Bin Laden. (He left it to the untrained Afganistan soldiers to capture him while we invaded Iraq)

There are still soldiers in Afghanistan right now.


The nation is in debt more now than we can fathom.

I don't know... I can fathom quite a bit.

Need I say more?

hahahahaha

I can't wait for some forumers with a bit more time on their hands to reply to this. If you want some documents on the Katrina cleanup and Fema's actions I have about 1300 pages of government documentation that might prove you a little different. I'd be happy to post them. The Katrina cleanup might have been one of the biggest disaster follies the nation has ever seen.



Edited by Dune - 27 April 2006 at 3:58pm
Back to Top
Cedric View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Unit

Joined: 24 November 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 4240
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Cedric Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 April 2006 at 4:09pm
Originally posted by Linus Linus wrote:

Originally posted by Gatyr Gatyr wrote:


Originally posted by Linus Linus wrote:

but you cant deny that he has stck with his decisions for better or worse.. and thats a good quality.



I just feel the need to point this out. I couldnt care less about who
thinks what about the president right now, but the fact that you think
sticking with bad descisions is an aimiable trait is rediculous.

Ok.. I thought you were dumb in our PM discussion.. but this takes the cake.

I never once said that I think itís good that someone sticks with bad decisions. I said itís good that he sticks to his decisions for better or worse. Better or worse = Popular or not... not as in a good choice or not.

Better or for worse does not mean popular and unpopular. It means better for the nation, and worse for the nation. Also, is it possible for you to respond to someone without calling them names? Next time you try to prove someone wrong, leave out the insults.

Edited by Cedric - 27 April 2006 at 4:09pm

Back to Top
brihard View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - Making stuff up

Joined: 05 September 2004
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 10156
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote brihard Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 April 2006 at 4:12pm
Originally posted by Dune Dune wrote:

Originally posted by Jack Carver Jack Carver wrote:

Originally posted by FarSeer FarSeer wrote:

He led us into Iraq for no reason at all.

Actually there was this evil dictator guy there named Saddam Hussein. You may have heard of him in the news.... that's why we went into Iraq, to get him out.

Incorrect. The U.S. went into Iraq under the premise of weapons of mass destruction. To date, only extremely small quantities of Chemical munitions have beebn found, however a great deal of speculation abounds over the role of Syria in perhaps helping to conceal chemical and biological weapons. This is currently unresolved.

He has done NOTHING about the Katrina Hurricane relief.

Hmm... actually he visited the gulf coast, asked Congress to give money to New Orleans, asked the nation for donations, had over 1700 FEMA trucks mobilized to New Orleans, sent 8 Navy vessels to the area, among other things.

Bush is not directly accountable for emergency relief- there is a federal agency to do that; it's called delegation. Katrina is evidence of a systemaic failure by bureaucracy adn agency, not a single failing on the aprt of the president. It's not his job to second guess the head of FEMA when he's told they can deal with a disaster. Granted, he may have been wrong in appointing Michael Brown, but that was not found until AFTER Katrina. Additional fault for New Orleans falls on federal and state legislatures, but very little if any of the blame can be attributed to the executive.

We are STILL looking for Bin Laden. (He left it to the untrained Afganistan soldiers to capture him while we invaded Iraq)

There are still soldiers in Afghanistan right now.

Finding one person in a heavily tribal mountainous area is not easy. We don't even know if Bin Laden's in Afghanistan; he has vast financial resources, and strong tribal and Taliban support. There are coalition soldiers in Afghanistan continuing combat operations against Taliban backed tribal forces. This is still being resolved. Time will tell.

The nation is in debt more now than we can fathom.

I don't know... I can fathom quite a bit.This

The United States are currently $8.837 trillion in debt- this accounts for roughly 22% of total world debt owed by one country to another. Thsi si directly attributable to the war in Iraq. The next largest debt is Britain, at just over 7t $USD

Need I say more?

hahahahaha

I can't wait for some forumers with a bit more time on their hands to reply to this. If you want some documents on the Katrina cleanup and Fema's actions I have about 1300 pages of government documentation that might prove you a little different. I'd be happy to post them. The Katrina cleanup might have been one of the biggest disaster follies the nation has ever seen.



Done.
"Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation."

-FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011.

Yup, he actually said that.
Back to Top
Dune View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
<placeholder>

Joined: 05 February 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 4347
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dune Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 April 2006 at 4:14pm
Although you and I may differ on small amounts of your post, especially in the Katrina cleanup, it's good to see you have taken time to dive more into the topics and learn more.
Back to Top
Linus View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - language 6.29.10

Joined: 10 November 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 7908
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Linus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 April 2006 at 4:32pm
Originally posted by brihard brihard wrote:

The U.S. went into Iraq under the premise of weapons of mass destruction. To date, only extremely small quantities of Chemical munitions have beebn found,
FInding those amounts VALIDATES the original presmise: He has chemical/biological weapons, does it not?

When we were staging in Kuwait, he threatened to use those weapons on us when we invaded.

Tunred out to be a bluff, BUT he is a psychopath and we didnt know at the time if he would or would not.... but DID have them, as you stated in your post.

Plus, whenever a SCUD hit Kuwait city, everyone donned gas mask until an all clear was sounded... why? Sure wasnt for a fashion statement.

Back to Top
PlentifulBalls View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Tons of em’

Joined: 14 July 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 9800
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote PlentifulBalls Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 April 2006 at 4:32pm
Originally posted by *Stealth* *Stealth* wrote:

For every one but tehcumseh, Mbro, and OS.




SUCK IT.




sporx wrote:
well...ya i prolly will be a virgin till i'm at least 30.
Back to Top
brihard View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - Making stuff up

Joined: 05 September 2004
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 10156
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote brihard Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 April 2006 at 4:43pm
Originally posted by Linus Linus wrote:

Originally posted by brihard brihard wrote:

The U.S. went into Iraq under the premise of weapons of mass destruction. To date, only extremely small quantities of Chemical munitions have beebn found,
FInding those amounts VALIDATES the original presmise: He has chemical/biological weapons, does it not?

When we were staging in Kuwait, he threatened to use those weapons on us when we invaded.

Tunred out to be a bluff, BUT he is a psychopath and we didnt know at the time if he would or would not.... but DID have them, as you stated in your post.

Plus, whenever a SCUD hit Kuwait city, everyone donned gas mask until an all clear was sounded... why? Sure wasnt for a fashion statement.


Gas masks are donned as a matter of course whenever aerial, missile, or artillery bombardment is received and there is even a shadow of a doubt of the contents of the munitions. You NEVER screw with the possibility of gas. It should not be held as proof in and of itself that chemical weapons were expected to be present; it's merely a safety precaution because they could not be discounted.

The chemical munitions thus far found were from the 1980s; the Iran war era. While I personally beleive that he had a modern biological and chemical program, I cannot substantiate it or find proof of it, so I won't claim it as fact. We know he has chemical munitions as late as the mid 90s, but as yet it cannot be proven that at the time of the invasion he was or was recently involved in these activities. Th rpesence of a dozen binary chemical shells form the 1980s does not validate the WMD premise, as the existence of those had already been admitted to the UN- the existence of a few dozen shells can be deemed an accounting or logistics error.

I personally believe Saddam pulled a fast one and got his stuff into Syria before the attacks started, but I won't claim as true what cannot be proven. I've no blind 'faith' in the U.S. government- I'll judge them by the validity of the facts they can present.
"Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation."

-FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011.

Yup, he actually said that.
Back to Top
Tae Kwon Do View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Best Forumer of the Year 2006

Joined: 30 July 2003
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 6120
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tae Kwon Do Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 April 2006 at 4:49pm

Hmm.

Linus, always the king of semantic.

We did not find the "ZOMG STOCKPILES" of weapons. Yeah, we found what we think may be some trace amounts of stuff (Which ironicly enough we more than not sold to him) but not the amount we were told we were going into war for.

 

I just think the whole thing is one cluster...you know...

We invade Iraq on a hunch of possible weapons, but we have wackos in North Korea and Iran who straight up do have them and are trying to get more. Korea went as far as to test the damned things.

We will negotiate with them, because we know they actually have them. Why should we invade someplace that they could REALLY use them on us.

 


Back to Top
Linus View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - language 6.29.10

Joined: 10 November 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 7908
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Linus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 April 2006 at 4:51pm
Brihard.. I'm going off what most consider circumstantial evidence:

He had them in the past

He used them in the past

He threatened to use them on us when we were in Kuwait

He threatened to use them if we invaded

He never gave proof that he got rid of them when we told him to

He required notice from the UN inspectors atleasta couple of days ahead of time before he would allow them into some place

He's held them out of the gates of facilities for hours on end

His former generals (first one that coems to mind is the former second in command of the Iraqi air force) states that he did have them, but sent them to Syria (like you stated)



Sorry.. he had since the end of the first Gulf Conflict to get rid of them in accordance to what we said...but nope.

Too much happened just to be thrown out as mere circumstantial evidence in my opinion.


Tae: And point being? That doesnt discount the fact that he had them. So I fial to see your point. We said he had them, you even admitted we found some.. so he had them!

Edited by Linus - 27 April 2006 at 4:54pm

Back to Top
cadet_sergeant View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
More power to deflector shields, Scotty!

Joined: 23 November 2003
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2538
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote cadet_sergeant Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 April 2006 at 4:52pm
ryan, first off good job with the insults im dissapointed you could do better then that. compairing me to muslim extremest is pretty stupid. at least you tryed to answer my question, but you are wrong, but we'll leave the bible out of this set of questions. how old is the oldest tree? how old is the barrier reef? what happened 4000 years ago? accoding to science our planet is 4.5 billion years old, now if the earth is slowing down at a particular rate how fast would the planet be spinning 4.5 billion years ago? our monkey forefathers would be holding on to trees for dear life. i've heard diffrent crap about the moon according to some scientist the moon can be between 4.6 and 3 billion years old, now as im sure you know ryan dust from space falls on the moon and earth at a particular rate, when Issac Isomoph (famous scientist) (sorry if i misspelled it) he predicted that the space ship would land and sink into the moon because there is miles of dust sitting on the moon because billions of years hove past, how much dust is on the moon? 1/2 inch do you know how long it takes for 1/2 inch to get on the moon? the sediment of the sea isnt as deep as they thought it was do you know how many years of settement is sitting on the botton of the sea? the moon is also moving away form the earth at a particulat rate, been doing it since the beggining of recorded time, the moon causes our tides, a billion years ago the moon would have been so close to the earth that the tides would cover the complete planet every single day, where would the monkeys go top of the trees?

Edited by cadet_sergeant - 27 April 2006 at 4:55pm
Back to Top
Clark Kent View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 July 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Clark Kent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 April 2006 at 4:56pm
Originally posted by Tae Kwon Do Tae Kwon Do wrote:

We invade Iraq on a hunch of possible weapons, but we have wackos in North Korea and Iran who straight up do have them and are trying to get more. Korea went as far as to test the damned things.

I agree that the whole WMD issue was just a convenient excuse for an invasion, and has not panned out.

But, while we are the subject of fake reasons for invasion:  "Blood for Oil" is the biggest pile o' crap attack on the administration (not saying you brought this up, just a general complaint about irrationality).  It displays a fundamental lack of understanding of commodity economics and public/private ownership issues. 

And, of course, an even greater lack of understanding of the oil business.  Business likes calm.  Business does not like chaos.  Saddam was a reliable supplier of oil to the world.  Invading Iraq created chaos.  There is no doubt that the invasion of Iraq contributed to the high oil prices today.  If the goal was to "get" oil for American consumers, we should have left Saddam alone.  I cringe every time I hear "blood for oil".

Back to Top
Tae Kwon Do View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Best Forumer of the Year 2006

Joined: 30 July 2003
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 6120
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tae Kwon Do Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 April 2006 at 4:57pm

One POSSIBLE cannister =/= Stockpile

 


Back to Top
Linus View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - language 6.29.10

Joined: 10 November 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 7908
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Linus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 April 2006 at 4:58pm
I agree with Clark (If I'm reading the post right...)

I think anyone that says we went to Iraq stirclty for oil is full of it.

If thats true.. why do they still control their own rigs? Why are prices still $3+ here?

If we controlled the oil.. it'd be cheaper.


People I tell that to have YET to come up with a valid counterpoint.



Tae.. I never said stockpile.

It wasn't a "possible cannister".. it was many.

It's like a SWAT team invades a house that was known to have marijuana in the past and most likely have it now.

Sure.. it isnt 20 kilos... but finding a 5 ounce bag is still finding marijuana.. VALIDATING the whole operation.

Edited by Linus - 27 April 2006 at 4:59pm

Back to Top
Clark Kent View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 July 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Clark Kent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 April 2006 at 4:58pm

Originally posted by Linus Linus wrote:

Brihard.. I'm going off what most consider circumstantial evidence:

He had them in the past

He used them in the past

[etc]

You forgot this one:

The UN inspectors, that had been inspecting for a long time, consistently stated that there were no WMDs.

You may think Blix was wrong (for whatever reason), but leaving that little factoid off your list is a bit dishonest.

Back to Top
brihard View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - Making stuff up

Joined: 05 September 2004
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 10156
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote brihard Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 April 2006 at 5:00pm
Originally posted by cadet_sergeant cadet_sergeant wrote:

ryan, first off good job with the insults im dissapointed you could do better then that. compairing me to muslim extremest is pretty stupid. at least you tryed to answer my question, but you are wrong, but we'll leave the bible out of this set of questions. how old is the oldest tree? how old is the barrier reef? what happened 4000 years ago? accoding to science our planet is 4.5 billion years old, now if the earth is slowing down at a particular rate how fast would the planet be spinning 4.5 billion years ago? our monkey forefathers would be holding on to trees for dear life. i've heard diffrent crap about the moon according to some scientist the moon can be between 4.6 and 3 billion years old, now as im sure you know ryan dust from space falls on the moon and earth at a particular rate, when Issac Isomoph (famous scientist) (sorry if i misspelled it) he predicted that the space ship would land and sink into the moon because there is miles of dust sitting on the moon because billions of years hove past, how much dust is on the moon? 1/2 inch do you know how long it takes for 1/2 inch to get on the moon? the sediment of the isnt as deep as they thought it was do you know how many years of settement is sitting on the botton of the sea? the moon is also moving away form the earth at a particulat rate, been doing it since the beggining of recorded time, the moon causes our tides, a billion years ago the moon would have been so close to the earth that the tides would cover the complete planet every single day, where would the monkeys go top of the trees?


You're an idiot. Start your own thread if you want to argue this crap. Most of what you just said is incoherent, and the rest of it is wrong. You need to study geology, astronomy, evolutionary theory, natural history, biology, and English. Then get back to us and start a 'where we came from' thread.



Linus: You're not listening to me. I agree with you based on that evidence, but I cannot equate that evidence as proof enough to justify an invasion.

Yes, I think Saddam had to go. Yes, I believe he had WMDs, but no, I have NOT seen enough conclusive proof to affirm my beliefs on the matter. I think The U.S. did something morally defensible with the invasion and occupation of Iraq, but they did not justify it with the reasoning they initially gave. I am refusing to take a stand on an absolute truth until I see absolute evidence one way or another.
"Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation."

-FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011.

Yup, he actually said that.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 7>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.03

This page was generated in 0.220 seconds.