Date: May 2nd, 2007 3:21 PM Author: brilliant haunting step-uncle's house
Warren G. Harding was a good president, unfortunately he died during his first term (possibly poisoned), and some people he appointed were crooks, but Harding was an honest guy and had good policies.
Date: May 2nd, 2007 12:25 AM Author: heady casino kitty
The people on this board are showing their immaturity. He will be one of the ten best. Truman had ratings lower than his when he was president yet now he is considered a great president for his post-WW II work. Thirty year from now people will appreciate the need for the War on Terror and Iraq in particular.
Date: May 2nd, 2007 12:36 AM Author: heady casino kitty
I would rather be a retard than a cowardly pussy. I was in Afghanistan in 2002 and Iraq in 2003-4 when you were still trying to figure out how to jerk off.
Date: May 2nd, 2007 12:21 AM Author: wonderful plum toaster
It's scary how this is now a common strain in the anti-bush argument. ALL of it is Ad Hominem bullshit. You can see the same thing happening in the French elections with Sarkovy. I think there's an article about it on the drudge report now, you should read it.
Date: May 2nd, 2007 12:25 AM Author: Flushed passionate sex offender gas station
Plus it's more likely to die now in Iraq than it was under Saddam. I'm not saying it was a good place to live then, but there were far fewer people dying while going to the market.
Date: May 2nd, 2007 12:54 AM Author: spectacular gaping principal's office
i'd guess being under a dictator like saddam was worse than being blowed the fuck up or tortured to death with a drill and/or blowtorch in the glorious new freedom of the American occupation.
Date: May 2nd, 2007 12:56 AM Author: Cerebral internal respiration
It really depends on the particular regime. There was no one single "communism." "Communisms" also changed over time, in terms of living standards.
Sure, living under Saddam sucked. Lots of people live shitty lives. To extend that into "...so let's go in there and invade them lolz!" doesn't do it for me.
Date: May 2nd, 2007 1:04 AM Author: Rough-skinned place of business
I don't mind this attitude, especially from people who were against the war from the beginning. I still disagree with it.
In my personal opinion, I'd rather have the increased danger that exists now than the ever-present lesser danger that existed before--if I lived there.
Date: May 2nd, 2007 1:05 AM Author: Cerebral internal respiration
"Subtle tyranny" = "stay out of politics and keep your head down, and you'll probably be okay."
"Open tyranny" = "you can't leave your fucking house, because if you do, car bombs will rip you to shreds, or sectarian gangs will kidnap you and torture you to death with electric drills. But even in your fucking house, the mortars can still get to you."
Date: May 2nd, 2007 1:14 AM Author: Cerebral internal respiration
Not sure what this has to do with the 2003 Iraq invasion, though. Iraqi Kurdistan was liberated from Saddam as of mid-1991, after Operation Provide Comfort and the no-fly zones came into effect.
Date: May 2nd, 2007 1:20 AM Author: Cobalt dilemma
To my knowledge the 88 gassing doesn't have anything to do with the invasion. Rather, its a refutation of the idea that one could simply mind their own business and live peacefully while Saddam was in power.
Date: May 2nd, 2007 1:25 AM Author: Cerebral internal respiration
It's a poor refutation, since the Anfal campaign happened in the 1980's, and the Shiite uprising was put down by 1991. The situation between 1993 or so and 2003 did not see any of the mass slaughters that hucksters like Ahmed Chalabi kept citing as background support for the invasion.
Truth is, people get massacred all the time, in lots of places. Ethiopia, one of our allies, killed about 250 pro-democracy demonstrators last year in the streets. That's some not-so-subtle tyranny. But by and large, shit in Ethiopia is much calmer than it would be if Bush sloppily invaded and occupied the damn place. You can walk around Addis Ababa without getting your shit kidnapped or blown up.
Date: May 2nd, 2007 12:20 AM Author: at-the-ready state travel guidebook
These 7 are worse:
James Buchanan (1857-1861): could not prevent the Civil War.
Ulysses S. Grant (1869-1877): Scandals and screwed up Reconstruction
Warren G. Harding (: Scandals, corruption.
Herbert Hoover: Could not do anything about the Great Depression; his treasury secretary raised interest rates after the recession took place, which made it a lot worse.
Lyndon Johnson: Responsible for trillions of dollars of new entitlements.
Richard Nixon: Screwed up Vietnam, which killed 20 times more US troops than Iraq thus far; Watergate.
Date: May 2nd, 2007 12:28 AM Author: at-the-ready state travel guidebook
The Civil Rights Bills were okay, but he went too far by needlessly expanding entitlement programs without any clear benefits. The Great Society produced inflation which hurt people more than it helped, led to welfare dependency, and generally lowered the potential growth of the economy.
Date: May 2nd, 2007 12:22 AM Author: Cerebral internal respiration
At this point, Jimmy Carter's one-term presidency definitely looks like it did a lot LESS long-term damage to America than Bush's cavalcade of fuckups and international entanglements.
Date: May 2nd, 2007 12:29 AM Author: wonderful plum toaster
Reminder: September 11th happened. A dramatic response was absolutely necessary. That's what has had the long term impact, not Bush's policy.
That said, things aren't terribly bad now, in the grand scheme. We fought two full scale wars simultaneously and if the American public wasn't watching TV they wouldn't have even noticed. The economy is good. The military has experience. The terrorist threat is still out there, but that's not Bush's fault.
Date: May 2nd, 2007 12:32 AM Author: frisky cracking stage
W totally blew the fiscal stability of 2000, with less than 20 years to go before the median boomer is retired. he's also cut the value of the dollar nearly in half.
he's a major disaster. the wealth the country feels now is the wealth of someone who maxes out their dozen credit cards every month and pays the minimum rolling tab.
Date: May 2nd, 2007 1:00 AM Author: Cobalt dilemma
I guess you think we should add "Creating an entire generation of fiscally irresponsible people" to Bush's tally. It'll probably fit in right between "created hurricane machine" and "caused Cho to kill VT students".
Date: May 2nd, 2007 1:31 AM Author: Slimy Racy Fat Ankles
I'm just pointing out that it's an interesting coincidence that this "soldier's" anti-war letter happens to be posted in the most liberal area in the nation, that's all
Date: May 2nd, 2007 1:35 AM Author: spectacular gaping principal's office
If it was calculated flame, designed for widespread internet circulation, I would think that the flamer would choose a more true blue location, especially if they were so careful to get the tone so perfect.
Date: May 2nd, 2007 12:23 AM Author: frisky cracking stage
no way
- no one could have prevented the civil war
- grant was a mediocre president, but he didn't stand in the way of the economic growth of his era, and he was one of the greatest generals to ever serve
- harding presided over a great economy and massive technological progress
- hoover, johnson, nixon and carter are w's only competition, and i'd say that only lbj is clearly worse.
Date: May 2nd, 2007 12:24 AM Author: wonderful plum toaster
Amen on Lyndon Johnson.
Have to disagree about Nixon though (not that he was worse than GWB, just about the points). Vietnam was Johnson's fuck up, not his. Also Nixon has one great positive in that he peeled China away from Russia, which will probably work to Amrica's longterm benefit if we can convince china to stop killing its own people for their organs, etc.
Date: May 2nd, 2007 12:31 AM Author: frisky cracking stage
nixon didn't just preside over war crimes in cambodian bombing, he cynically waited to pull out of vietnam until after the election because he knew it would be unpopular. he was a vile crook, and did nothing to clean up the fiscal mess that LBJ left. his trip to china was an interesting highlight for historians, but did nothing tangible for the country.
Date: May 2nd, 2007 12:38 AM Author: frisky cracking stage
he did keep the ball rolling on some of the better aspects of lbj's federal enlargement, but he also kept the fiscal disaster that lbj's administration was going along with some of the reform-minded activity.
nixon's abandonment of Bretton-Woods was probably an even bigger disaster for the country than vietnam, but that won't really be appreciated for another few decades. of course, lbj set him squarely on that path, like vietnam, though nixon did nothing to stop the progress of either boondoggle.
Date: May 2nd, 2007 12:50 AM Author: Vivacious seedy ceo laser beams
depends on how Iraq turns out. if it becomes stable democracy leading to democratization of the entire region, then Bush will be seen as a visionary and likely a top 5.
Date: May 2nd, 2007 12:57 AM Author: spectacular gaping principal's office
I like this because it involves cruelly tantalizing the most treasured yet more and more unlikely delusions of the Bush fantasists and then violently wacking them with a stick.
Date: May 2nd, 2007 3:19 PM Author: big elite church building
Get some persepective.
Iraq is a mess, but as wars go, it's a small one. Unless the war causes the entire Middle East to go up in flames, it's not going to be the center of history, as many of you would like it to be.
Domestically, everything is fine. He cut taxes, but besides that there's not much there there. No great new programs or massive reforms. The 2000 election will probably be his most notable domestic legacy.
Date: May 2nd, 2007 4:15 PM Author: Deranged Legal Warrant
"No great new programs or massive reforms."
Medicare Part D is the largest new entitlement in 40 years, and was designed to be as expensive and inefficient as a medical entitlement can possibly be.
Date: May 2nd, 2007 4:20 PM Author: big elite church building
Sure, it's a massive new entitlement, but it didn't represent a break with the past in anyway. It just made a big entitlement bigger. That's been the trend with senior benefits for nearly 70 years.
Date: August 17th, 2007 9:22 PM Author: Misunderstood transparent chapel
Of course not. I'm a Democrat. I hate the fucking guy. In the end he'll be below average. But we've had much worse. The Iraq War is stupid and costs a fucking lot of money to make things worse, but it doesn't do much to change our everyday lives. Other presidents have been that bad - we just weren't alive when they were in office.
My 5: Herbert Hoover, Andrew Johnson, Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan, Warren Harding