This forum thread is moderated by Admin
  1. #5832

    Worst presidents

    For sheer ineffectiveness: Carter. Maybe nice guys really do finish last.

    For pure evil: Nixon. When Nixon was re-elected in 1972 (also the year I fucked my first hooker), I knew I was living with some stupid people.

    For sheer stupidity and cluelessness: Bush II. Not too impressed with my fellow citizens for re-electing him after there were no weapons of mass destruction.

    Now as far as the best, there is not a lot to choose from but I choose Clinton because things went pretty smoothly under him. The president gets too much credit when things go well and too much blame when they go astray.

    I am also a social liberal and fiscal conservative and I would also add that I favor a largely isolationist foreign policy. I really don't care how many diaper heads kill each other in the name of religion. Oh yeah, and despite being (mostly) a social liberal, anyone who's in the country illegally, kick their asses out and if they sneak back in, shoot them. Just call it an extension of my isolationist policy.

  2. #5831
    Senior Member


    Posts: 1017

    Angry?

    Quote Originally Posted by Punter127  [View Original Post]
    Why so angry?

    I just call it the way I see it.

    I have an opinion, and you have yours, remember?

    Are you could circle the wagons again, up to you.

    Anyway I'm ROFLMAO.
    Hardly! I just have fun on AP. You think I am serious about all this? And all because I gave kudos to RC Collins, so silly. I am getting worried about you.

  3. #5830
    Quote Originally Posted by Punter127  [View Original Post]
    I know it's a hard pill for progressives to swallow but you and your ilk (yes that means you Rev BS) do not get to decide who is and who is not an independent voter.
    By the process of deduction reasoning, a reasonable and impartial trier of fact would reach the conclusion that you are not independent. If any other poster was here consistently bashing the right the way you do to the left, say that the chances they would vote for a republican is slim to none, then claim to be independent, you and your fan club would similarly draw the same conclusion. You can venture down the semantical road as politicians love to do but at that point the conversation becomes useless.

    The Iraq war has been debated enough so I'll skip that as we won't change each other's view on that topic. I will maintain what I wrote and will say that people voted for that war based on the intentionally inaccurate information and "faulty intelligence" that was presented to them. Flip the script where a democratic president did what Bush did and the right would also claim ex post facto that their vote was based on the faulty intelligence presented to them and therefore not responsible for it.
    and
    Quote Originally Posted by Punter127  [View Original Post]
    Both claims are absurd if you ask me
    I didn't ask you but its now becoming an argument which won't accomplish anything so I'll maintain what I wrote and am sure you'll do the same.

    As it relates to the worst presidents in our history, Bush has to be at the top of the list. On his watch, over 3000 Americans were needlessly killed as a result of the ineptitude of his administration not sharing intelligence and not following up on intelligence leads despite being warned on multiple occasions about the suspicious behaviors of the 9-11 killers. The inept manner in which they governed the Iraq war costing countless Americans lives which drew the ire of both parties. An embarrassingly incompetent Defense Secretary being forced to resign after members of his own party called for it because of his poor management of the aforementioned war. Bush's Katrina debacle and his extreme economic failings, put it all together and he is the top candidate for worst president. If a democratic president did what Bush did the right would use every bit of those instances to make the same point.

  4. #5829
    Why so angry?

    Quote Originally Posted by RevBS  [View Original Post]
    As usual, steam emanating from your head and vaporizing into thin air.
    I just call it the way I see it.

    I have an opinion, and you have yours, remember?

    Are you could circle the wagons again, up to you.

    Anyway I'm ROFLMAO.

  5. #5828
    Senior Member


    Posts: 1017

    My ilk, your ilk, what's the difference!

    As usual, steam emanating from your head and vaporizing into thin air.

  6. #5827
    Quote Originally Posted by RcCollins  [View Original Post]
    You're an independent voter in the same vein as Bill O'Reilly who also regularly claims to be independent but spends his nights bashing Obama and the democrats for everything while exculpating Bush and the right on most issues. An independent would go after both sides equally unless they've reached a conclusion as to which party they prefer as you seem to have done by your postings. Which is fine BTW, but in that case you cease to be independent.
    I know it's a hard pill for progressives to swallow but you and your ilk (yes that means you Rev BS) do not get to decide who is and who is not an independent voter. We are a free country and as such we all get to decide for ourselves what our political alliances will be, and we have the freedom to change our alliances at any time. Furthermore an independent does not have to "go after both sides equally" they have the freedom to speak out selectively. Sorry but independents also do not have to meet your self serving definition of being an independent, you simply don't get a say in the matter other than for yourself. End of story.

    Quote Originally Posted by RcCollins  [View Original Post]
    What are the chances you will vote for a democrat in the next election given that their policies will always be liberal and appear to be in direct contrast to your postings? Your countering of the factual conclusion with an opinion is so not persuasive. Prior to Bush no groups dared to operate from Iraq because of the tyrant that was running the country and that is not an opinion. You missed the point about war presidents as that was a response to the post below and not anything you wrote but your derisive labeling of Obama again eliminates any doubts as to where your allegiance lies.
    The chances of me voting for a Democrat are slim to none, but I do not accept that their policies are and always will be "liberal". In fact I don't think todays Democrat party is "liberal" at all, it's progressive totalitarian (aka: nannyism) and that's a far cry from being "liberal". Show me a Democrat that meets the following definitions of "liberal" and I'll consider voting for them.

    1. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism, especially the freedom of the individual and governmental guarantees of individual rights and liberties.

    2. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.

    3. favoring or permitting freedom of action, especially with respect to matters of personal belief or expression.

    4. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.

    5. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant:

    Individual freedom or rights, get it?

    Your claim that ISIS is a direct result of the Iraq invasion is so not persuasive. ISIS is a spin off of al-Qaeda and al-Qaeda is a global militant Islamist organization founded by Osama bin Laden, Abdullah Azzam, and several other militants, al-Qaeda formed long before the US invaded Iraq. Using your way of thinking one might say ISIS is a direct result of the killing of Osama bin Laden. Both claims are absurd if you ask me. Even if ISIS wasn't in Iraq it wouldn't prove they would not be in some other country such as syria.

    If your conclusion was correct (which it's not) you act as if Bush got us in the Iraq war all by himself, do I need to remind you that Bush had bipartisan support for going into Iraq. And "Congress had many months to investigate and debate the administration's claims that Iraq was a threat as well as the likely implications of a US invasion. Members of Congress also fully recognized that the resolution authorized a full-scale invasion of a sovereign nation and a subsequent military occupation of an indefinite period. ".

    Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Harry Reid, John Kerry, Dianne Feinstein, and Chuck Schumer just to name a few Democrats who voted for the Iraq Resolution authorizing military action against Iraq.

    Quote Originally Posted by RcCollins  [View Original Post]
    As to where do we go from here, we need more independent lawmakers to take action for the good of the country domestically and internationally. The two party system is screwing the tax payers royally. Very little gets done while both sides continually blame each other while they get rich off the tax payers. A large threat to the tax payers is right under our noses, our own law makers. Specifically as it relates to ISIS or any other terrorist groups which affect all countries; its quite simple, ALL countries need to step up and participate in or support the war against these groups. The US cannot be the constables of the world, the US needs to sit one or two of these conflicts out and let the chips fall. A lot of these countries sit on their hands because they know that America will always give up its citizens to die for the cause.
    Are you suggesting a single party system? We don't have a two party system per se, we have a system that two parties dominate, but the system is not limited. FYI, I didn't vote for Obama or Romney in the last election, but I did vote. I pretty much agree with the rest of what you say here, but we might not agree on what's good for the country.

  7. #5826

    The state of military affairs

    I have made a few comments on this site. Most of you may not recognize that I am a social liberal but a fiscal conservative. I demand that my congresional representative spend my tax revenue wisely. No one can disagree with that. Also I think we need to refresh and update our infrastructure. The benefits from working on our infastructure are gigantic. Putting people to work increases our tax revenue. Also, even though we spent. Off budget. A trillion dollars fighting a war in Iraq, we must never loose site that our military must be the best trained with the most advanced equipment available. Bad things will happen if we loose site of this. I can't remember his exact words but Eisenhower warned us that the military equipment providers were a future problem. Wow, how do we balance a need for superior military equipment with the understanding that equipment providers have always and will always try to rip us off.

    Most people have a great deal of respect for former defense secretary Gates. I just wonder if Mr Gates has rested enough and ready for another challenge and become the head of a new cabinet post. Head of government military procurement. Military procurement represents a huge chunk of the military budget.

    OK so again I'm just babbling. I'm sure the retired english teachers will have a field day with this and of course the scalars in our group are licking there chops. Just think about it.

  8. #5825
    Senior Member


    Posts: 1740
    Quote Originally Posted by Dccpa  [View Original Post]
    I think Republicans already have a strategy. It is called we are not Obama.
    LOL !

    In other words, another strategy based on emotion.

  9. #5824

    Earth to Collins

    Quote Originally Posted by RcCollins  [View Original Post]
    Gosh that was an odd and contradictory statement! You stated that there was nothing wrong with the system then went on to list a number of problems affecting said system and even offered a solution to fix the system. The last paragraph of your post is as oxymoronic as the first but too vitriolic to respond to.
    Nothing odd or contradictory about it at all. Please follow along, I'll use little words for you.

    We have a representative republic form of government, not a problem there as it is in my opinion the best option currently available.

    The problem comes with the rise of career politicians and inherent conflicts of self interest vs public interest. Career politicians were not foreseen by the founding fathers when these documents were drafted, they foresaw people would serve their term then return to their "day jobs" after their term was over. Can you follow along so far?

    The examples presented were suggestions to fix the current form of government making it more effective in its delivery of services to the electorate.

    When Congress passed the 22nd Amendment to limit presidential terms in office it was not considered "odd or contradictory". Perhaps you disagree?

    Regarding the reference to Obamacare, Obama's trademark legislative accomplishment, Obama's lack of foreign or domestic policy and Obama's poll numbers, as those poll numbers support the majority of the nation agrees the preceding are a disaster, if in your opinion this represents being oxymoronic and vitriolic then please feel free to stick your head back in the sand and don't look up again until after the mid-terms or possibility November 2016.

    Regarding the worst presidents of my lifetime it would have to be Carter, Obama and Nixon in that order. Of course Carter is loving Obama as he will probably replace Carter at the very bottom of the list.

  10. #5823
    Senior Member


    Posts: 192
    Quote Originally Posted by Esten  [View Original Post]
    Bill Clinton said as much recently, when he said "The last thing they want you to do is think. "

    http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/...-your-brain-at
    Bill Clinton says something at a fundraiser and you are trying to present that as his real position? Everyone with a functioning brain cell knows that what is said at fundraisers is red meat for the target audience. With Clinton, you will need him to clearly define what each word means. Because, after all, it depends on how you define "is".

  11. #5822
    Senior Member


    Posts: 192
    Quote Originally Posted by HotRod11  [View Original Post]
    In my lifetime its hard to choose the best president from Harry Truman to Obama. Its easy to name the worst W. I voted for papa Bush the first term. Never voted for W so you can't blame me. Truman Eisenhower and nixon were probably the most influental I mean that in a positive way. Johnson and Carter passed the best legislation. Clinton raised taxes and that put our economy in such good shape we ran surpluses. I think this will light up this site. So Ok it needs a little life.
    I believe the Clinton surpluses were a result of counting social security / medicare revenues in the general budget. Another key factor was going to short term financing for our national debt. That change is going to hurt the US greatly at exactly the wrong time in the next few years. Clinton also oversaw the repeal of Glass Steagal Act and that has lead to the financial chaos of the last few years.

    For me, Nixon and Obama are clearly the worst two Presidents during my lifetime. I never thought anyone could challenge Nixon's record of economic incompetence, but Obama is catching up and I think he can pull it off in two more years.

    Best President for me would probably be a choice between Eisenhower and Kennedy.

    If anyone wants to see a competent leader, look at John Key of New Zealand. That country has gone through the GFC, two major earthquakes in its 3rd largest city and their current bickering is over how to spend the projected surplus and why their currency and housing prices are too high.

  12. #5821
    Quote Originally Posted by Doppelganger  [View Original Post]
    Collins, there is nothing wrong with the system, the problem lies with career politicians both liberal and conservative and I use those labels lightly. They are more interested in reelection and feathering their own nests than the people's business. I don't remember the last time a poor boy got elected to Congress and did not leave a millionaire. Which raises the perfect argument for term limits, if it's good enough for the president then it's good enough for the House and Senate. At least in Texas we reduce our state legislature's mischief by limiting their ability to meet to 140 days every two years, maybe a good yardstick for Washington? Idle hands are the devil's play things.

    The country elected a clown and now we have a circus; foreign policy, what foreign policy?; domestic policy. What domestic policy? ObamaCare, bears no resemblance in fact to what was promised and is about to collapse after the ruling there is no provision for subsidies under the federal program which I am sure is going to the Supremes making it the last nail in the coffin for that Frankenstein of a program.

    Depending on the poll, Obama's numbers are in the high 30's or very low 40's, so we are talking Bush territory for the "Savior of American".
    Gosh that was an odd and contradictory statement! You stated that there was nothing wrong with the system then went on to list a number of problems affecting said system and even offered a solution to fix the system. The last paragraph of your post is as oxymoronic as the first but too vitriolic to respond to.

  13. #5820

    Wtf?

    LOL yall talk politics with the chicas too? Who gives a shit about iraqi islamic whatevers they got pussy all over the place here.

  14. #5819

    Not the system

    Collins, there is nothing wrong with the system, the problem lies with career politicians both liberal and conservative and I use those labels lightly. They are more interested in reelection and feathering their own nests than the people's business. I don't remember the last time a poor boy got elected to Congress and did not leave a millionaire. Which raises the perfect argument for term limits, if it's good enough for the president then it's good enough for the House and Senate. At least in Texas we reduce our state legislature's mischief by limiting their ability to meet to 140 days every two years, maybe a good yardstick for Washington? Idle hands are the devil's play things.

    The country elected a clown and now we have a circus; foreign policy, what foreign policy?; domestic policy. What domestic policy? ObamaCare, bears no resemblance in fact to what was promised and is about to collapse after the ruling there is no provision for subsidies under the federal program which I am sure is going to the Supremes making it the last nail in the coffin for that Frankenstein of a program.

    Depending on the poll, Obama's numbers are in the high 30's or very low 40's, so we are talking Bush territory for the "Savior of American".

  15. #5818
    Quote Originally Posted by Punter127  [View Original Post]
    I'm a (registered) "independent voter" and I deny your so called "factual conclusion", I view your statement as an "argument from ignorance" because it can't be proven or disproven. I think the problem started before Bush.

    Obama the bomber has bombed seven countries in six years!

    Some of the bombings I refer to started under Bush but Obama continued them and even increased some. Apparently bombings from a Nobel Peace Prize holding president hasn't struck much fear in their hearts either.

    So where do you suggest we go from here?
    You're an independent voter in the same vein as Bill O'Reilly who also regularly claims to be independent but spends his nights bashing Obama and the democrats for everything while exculpating Bush and the right on most issues. An independent would go after both sides equally unless they've reached a conclusion as to which party they prefer as you seem to have done by your postings. Which is fine BTW, but in that case you cease to be independent.

    What are the chances you will vote for a democrat in the next election given that their policies will always be liberal and appear to be in direct contrast to your postings? Your countering of the factual conclusion with an opinion is so not persuasive. Prior to Bush no groups dared to operate from Iraq because of the tyrant that was running the country and that is not an opinion. You missed the point about war presidents as that was a response to the post below and not anything you wrote but your derisive labeling of Obama again eliminates any doubts as to where your allegiance lies.

    As to where do we go from here, we need more independent lawmakers to take action for the good of the country domestically and internationally. The two party system is screwing the tax payers royally. Very little gets done while both sides continually blame each other while they get rich off the tax payers. A large threat to the tax payers is right under our noses, our own law makers. Specifically as it relates to ISIS or any other terrorist groups which affect all countries; its quite simple, ALL countries need to step up and participate in or support the war against these groups. The US cannot be the constables of the world, the US needs to sit one or two of these conflicts out and let the chips fall. A lot of these countries sit on their hands because they know that America will always give up its citizens to die for the cause.

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to Rc Collins For This Post:


Posting Limitations

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts


Page copy protected against web site content infringement by Copyscape