Best/Worst President (1 Viewer)

[Vassago]

I'm not trying to 'America bash.'

It was said in jest, and I was able to do the same by his response. It's all in fun.

 

[MarkK]

What laws did Bush break by toppling the Iraq dictatorship? Just curious.

Generally for war to be considered justified it must be in self-defense, or be sanctioned by some international body. Korea, the Gulf War, and Somalia were sanctioned by the UN. Croatia was sanctioned by NATO. In these examples too, it was generally the consensus that the aggression had already occurred.
Bush, by contrast, invaded Iraq without taking the time to generate consensus at any international organization, and Iraq was not the origin of any attack or threat to the US. Remember that UN weapons inspectors on the ground were withdrawn from Iraq for their safety before the US invaded. A legitimizing process was underway and Bush did not avail himself of it.
I don't see how it can be argued that the United States was anything but the aggressor nation in Iraq, and if murder is a crime, aggressive war must be one too. The United States itself has tried, convicted and executed people for the crime of 'waging aggressive war.'
Is this a sufficiently qualified answer?

 

[Vassago]

Generally for war to be considered justified it must be in self-defense, or be sanctioned by some international body. Korea, the Gulf War, and Somalia were sanctioned by the UN. Croatia was sanctioned by NATO. In these examples too, it was generally the consensus that the aggression had already occurred.
Bush, by contrast, invaded Iraq without taking the time to generate consensus at any international organization, and Iraq was not the origin of any attack or threat to the US. Remember that UN weapons inspectors on the ground were withdrawn from Iraq for their safety before the US invaded. A legitimizing process was underway and Bush did not avail himself of it.
I don't see how it can be argued that the United States was anything but the aggressor nation in Iraq, and if murder is a crime, aggressive war must be one too. The United States itself has tried, convicted and executed people for the crime of 'waging aggressive war.'
Is this a sufficiently qualified answer?

Don't bother, he complained about people not justifying their answers, but then made the exact same argument about Obama without justifying his reason for believing he "clearly" committed criminal acts.

 

[Brianwarnock]

Ok, you asked for it. Petard is/was an explosive used to breach walls. The name actually comes from the French word for fart (no kidding!). To hoist one on one's own petard means to blow yourself up with your own explosive. A bad (and stupid) thing to do. I think the phrase was first used by Shakespeare if I am not mistaken.

Quite correct, Hamlet in fact.

"For tis the sport to have the enginer Hoist with his owne petar".

petar is I think the old English version, petard is the more correct.

Brian

 

[Friday]

When I think of best/worst President, the word leader comes to my mind. Although I was not physically present, I would deem the leadership of FDR/Truman/Churchill as the great leaders of the past few centuries. It is hard to not connect the three as one when you read about it. If I had to vote for a leader of all time, it would be Churchill. Worst leader/President? Raygun. Without a doubt. Trickle-down economics almost killed the middle/lower class. he is still held in such adoration for his defeat of the Soviet Union, but he really didn't have anything to do with it (except spend them to death, and nearly cripple his own country's economy in the process). I remember when he traveled to Topeka, Ks to "confer" with Alf Landon. Alf Landon at the time was so senile, he thought aliens were after him (really, my wife worked at the hospital were he was treated-it was a standing joke when he came in). What kind of advice did Reagan get from Alf...

 

[joseph.larrew]

This would indeed start up a fire storm. To Vassago I would say "What was the national debt before Obama? What is it even now that he is still in office after only two years?" Especially with his massive Healthcare plan that will make healthcare affordable for none. Obama also issued bailouts just like Bush that valued more than Bush's, if I remember correctly on that. Not to mention the amount of money he has printed is double what it has been for the past 96 years totaled up. I'm not saying either Bush or Obama are the worst presidents. They both were pretty bad. Neither understand, nor do most of the incumbents, what it means to save money or jobs. Neither of them have been good for the economy.

 

[the_net_2.0]

I'm not saying either Bush or Obama are the worst presidents. They both were pretty bad.

Joseph,

This leads me to the question: "has ANY president been good?" I don't actually remember anyone ever saying that any of our presidents have been "good". It's always negative. Why is that? Because they don't solve EVERYTHING?

Personally, I think the majority of the population in our world does not have the mental ability to comprehend how much work it takes to simply keep a country going, and MOVING. I don't think 99% of the people out there realize that the type of person getting elected as US president every 4 years is the type that (usually) has the ability to keep the storm at sea and not bring it onto the mainland.

The ultimate question: Will they ever realize that there are seriously evil and power-driven people in the government? I would much rather live here where there is a constant war between good and evil in Congress than live in a place like North Korea, where you obviously have to comply with the ruler or you'll get shot.

I think people miss that point every day of their life, and in this day in age I think we should be mighty thankful that we still live in a country where we have the ability to fight for what we believe in, because someday the parade might be over.

As a side note to this though, that is completely unrelated...I personally think that a government's intention is to always maintain its power over the people. And if that's true, we should be thanking the strong willed people of the USA for allowing freedom to exist for as long as it has. Because the government will do anything to keep the power aside from keeping it at the expense of a revolt. Thus, if the people of a country will lay down and die and not saying anything to challenge leadership as long as those leaders feed them, that government will take everything from the people except food.

I think that's a good indicator of what's happening in this country right now...the people in this country are getting weaker and say more and more everyday "oh well, I don't care". Keep not caring, and the government will take and take from you until you have nothing left.

 

[statsman]

Some very good points stated very well.

If you study history, one of the first things you discover is that it is very difficult to go from bad to good.

It is very easy to go from bad to worse.

 

[jamesmor]

as much as I'd like to bash every president there has been (a few might have been decent)

the biggest problem with our government is our congress in general. the house and senate are a bunch of good ol' boys looking out for the good ol' boys and they don't give a hoot who they screw over in the process.

the issue arises when a president has a truely good idea, at some point it will be opposed for one of two reasons:

1. the person opposing it is in the opposite party

or

2. the person opposing it doesn't get what they want from the deal

like the nebraska senator basically saying "if I don't have to pay my portion of the health care bill, I'm all for it."

If you think congress is out to make things better for the common man, you need to pull your head out of the sand.

 

[Vassago]

as much as I'd like to bash every president there has been (a few might have been decent)

the biggest problem with our government is our congress in general. the house and senate are a bunch of good ol' boys looking out for the good ol' boys and they don't give a hoot who they screw over in the process.

the issue arises when a president has a truely good idea, at some point it will be opposed for one of two reasons:

1. the person opposing it is in the opposite party

or

2. the person opposing it doesn't get what they want from the deal

like the nebraska senator basically saying "if I don't have to pay my portion of the health care bill, I'm all for it."

If you think congress is out to make things better for the common man, you need to pull your head out of the sand.

And who's fault is that really? We vote them into office. People keep voting for someone in one of the two political parties that only care about self-interest, or rather corporate interest in the corporations that support their party. I've been trying to push more people to think outside the box.

 

[the_net_2.0]

the biggest problem with our government is our congress in general. the house and senate are a bunch of good ol' boys looking out for the good ol' boys and they don't give a hoot who they screw over in the process.

This is truly an ignorant statement. IMO, the intelligent people in Congress, if there are any, would not make any sort of a claim like that, and neither would respectable leaders in any industry. That's not a diplomatic attitude.

I'm aware of what a 'good ol boy' is, and yes, unfortunately the USA still has bias toward the white male population in terms of power. And guess what? It's primarily because of THAT very reason that this country is in the shape it's in. The people in Congress have become so damn busy fighting to keep their 'peoples' seats that they have forgotten to do their damn jobs! The other sickening thing? Here we are 2 years (or whatever) into Obama's presidency and the "black" and "supposed minorities" of this country now are still sooooooooo happy that there is a black man in the Oval Office that they truly don't care if they earn any income and provide a good life for themselves.

That is most disgusting thing I've ever seen happen. It is exactly what happens in countries like Iran, Iraq, North Korea, and probably most African countries as well. People are so concerned with getting their "kind" into a power-driven position, that in the process they manage to bring their country to its knees because they take their eye off the ball.

If you want my opinion, the current preisdent is doing just that. I don't care one way or another if the man was born in 'trash city' down in Chicago or Greenwich Village, CT. The fact that he doesn't know a thing about how to maintain this country's standard as it's been established for the past 300 years is bringing this country down. This administration is like a call center rep for a fortune 500 company getting immediately promoted to the CEO position...'up the creek without a paddle'. Or how about, 'having one of the inmates run this asylum'??

Well, it's not like we stop the inevitable, but at least we can change our little corner of the world. I'm sorry, but it makes me sick to see the manipulation of weaker minds that goes on in this world, and in this country especially. I am part of a bowling league on Thus nights, and every week I go and see a lot of these types of people. It makes me sad to know that no matter how much I would preach to these people about the BS they listen to from their 'demigods', they'll fall right back into 'worship mode' as soon as they listen to the next speech.

 

[jamesmor]

This is truly an ignorant statement. IMO, the intelligent people in Congress, if there are any, would not make any sort of a claim like that, and neither would respectable leaders in any industry. That's not a diplomatic attitude.

I'm not sure you understood my statement. I'll explain, and hopefully you'll pick it up this time.

I wasn't saying anything about race/sex/religion, hell I don't really care if the government is made up of one eyed, one horned, purple people eaters.

I'm saying that our congress, no matter what sex/race/religion, are out for themselves. They care not about the common man, and care only about what they can do to pad their pockets further, and keep themselves in office longer.

Next time, try not to be so quick to pull out the race card.

 

[ChipperT]

And who's fault is that really? We vote them into office. People keep voting for someone in one of the two political parties that only care about self-interest, or rather corporate interest in the corporations that support their party. I've been trying to push more people to think outside the box.

While jamemor's point is way to broad of a generalization to be factual (there are in fact many in Congress and the Senate who care very much about what they do and who they serve), your suggestion that we not vote for one of the two party candidates is unworkable right now for several reasons.

First and most important is that a third party is just not viable right now. Not enough support to raise the cash it takes to get elected. In addition, a viable third party would have to be a Moderate party and most "third party" alternatives tend to spring up even further right or left than the Dems and Repubs we have now.

Second, people are indeed self-serving and as long as the scalawags in office keep tossing the folk back home enough Federal money in the form of pork then voters are loath to upset the apple cart and lose what leverage they have in the legislative branch right now.

Third, the ones running for office, even third party, tend to be just the same sort of scalawag as you decry. They got to the position where they can run at a national level by playing exactly the same kind of politics that is there already.

I think the best alternative right now is a term limit, and a severe one. One term for Senators, two for Congressmen and the you can NEVER run for that office again. Change the Presidential term to one six-year term. Right now the President starts campaigning for that second term in their second year, getting little done. If we had these term limits then the people in office could actually get things done without fear of voter backlash, since they would not be serving again anyway.

 

[Vassago]

While jamemor's point is way to broad of a generalization to be factual (there are in fact many in Congress and the Senate who care very much about what they do and who they serve), your suggestion that we not vote for one of the two party candidates is unworkable right now for several reasons.

First and most important is that a third party is just not viable right now. Not enough support to raise the cash it takes to get elected. In addition, a viable third party would have to be a Moderate party and most "third party" alternatives tend to spring up even further right or left than the Dems and Repubs we have now.

Second, people are indeed self-serving and as long as the scalawags in office keep tossing the folk back home enough Federal money in the form of pork then voters are loath to upset the apple cart and lose what leverage they have in the legislative branch right now.

Third, the ones running for office, even third party, tend to be just the same sort of scalawag as you decry. They got to the position where they can run at a national level by playing exactly the same kind of politics that is there already.

I think the best alternative right now is a term limit, and a severe one. One term for Senators, two for Congressmen and the you can NEVER run for that office again. Change the Presidential term to one six-year term. Right now the President starts campaigning for that second term in their second year, getting little done. If we had these term limits then the people in office could actually get things done without fear of voter backlash, since they would not be serving again anyway.

I agree with your campaign limitations, but I don't agree with your ideals on third parties. That's exactly the attitude that keeps the two parties we have in office in power. People are afraid that any votes for a third party will not count, so they go with the "lesser of two evils" of the parties in control. It's this attitude that needs to change, and I'm doing what I can to change it.

 

[the_net_2.0]

I'm not sure you understood my statement. I'll explain, and hopefully you'll pick it up this time.

I wasn't saying anything about race/sex/religion, hell I don't really care if the government is made up of one eyed, one horned, purple people eaters.

I'm saying that our congress, no matter what sex/race/religion, are out for themselves. They care not about the common man, and care only about what they can do to pad their pockets further, and keep themselves in office longer.

Next time, try not to be so quick to pull out the race card.

It was a rant because I felt like doing it. I'm not actually frustrated with the government, I ticked off at them. I rarely use the word "frustrated", because in all reality, in today's world it means "I really want to smack you, but the Obama way of life says that I have to 'be nice'".

As a short side note to this james, I don't really find anything wrong with Obama as a person, except for the fact that the man is incredibly naive. He really reminds me of a college graduate going after that first corporate job with the belief that he's going to be entering a "friendly" environment. Yeah right. Man, I just think that the guy does not enough "hard nose" attitude to be a leader in any position. If someone can look at you and determine that you have even a little bit of that 'roll over and die' tendency, that someone will test you if you threaten their power. E.g. - A stance on Iran's ridiculous beliefs about nuclear warfare. (just one example out of hundreds).

And Yes I get it. Hence, keep your corner clean and don't worry about Congress. As long as you realized it, why bother worrying about it? Look out for yourself, just like they do.

I find that the best way to avoid feeling bad about the people that don't know the difference between a lie and a truly soft heart is to not even bring up the issue. It's like religion...if you want to get something done with someone else, don't bring in controversial subjects.

At the very least, you can save yourself the realization that the person you're working with is really screwed up mentally.

 

[ChipperT]

I agree with your campaign limitations, but I don't agree with your ideals on third parties. That's exactly the attitude that keeps the two parties we have in office in power. People are afraid that any votes for a third party will not count, so they go with the "lesser of two evils" of the parties in control. It's this attitude that needs to change, and I'm doing what I can to change it.

I don't disagree with much of what you say, but I will NOT vote for a third party candidate just because they are that. I will vote for any candidate that most closely matches my own ideas of what needs to be done in government and how to do it, regardless of party affliation (or lack of). The problem is that I see no third party candidates that fit that, especially not the so-called Tea Party. I am very much a moderate in most things, although quite liberal or quite conservative in others.

 

[Vassago]

I don't disagree with much of what you say, but I will NOT vote for a third party candidate just because they are that. I will vote for any candidate that most closely matches my own ideas of what needs to be done in government and how to do it, regardless of party affliation (or lack of). The problem is that I see no third party candidates that fit that, especially not the so-called Tea Party. I am very much a moderate in most things, although quite liberal or quite conservative in others.

I agree. Of course you should only vote for someone who shares your ideals, just make sure they do so after office too. I find that once the Big Two get into office, they suddenly have an exact same mindset as their peers and forget their own identity.

 

[statsman]

I don't disagree with much of what you say, but I will NOT vote for a third party candidate just because they are that. I will vote for any candidate that most closely matches my own ideas of what needs to be done in government and how to do it, regardless of party affliation (or lack of). The problem is that I see no third party candidates that fit that, especially not the so-called Tea Party. I am very much a moderate in most things, although quite liberal or quite conservative in others.

I think America would benefit very much from a "third" party that actually has a chance of getting a bunch of people elected.
There are Democrats in both Houses of Congress who are reactionaries and there are Republicans who are socialists. Why are they members of the "wrong" party? Because the state or district they represent only elects members of that party and have done so for a long period of time.
I like my politics a little more simple. If I think the country should go to the left for awhile I vote that party. If a move to the right is required (IMO) then I vote that party.

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

Trump is the most interesting President since the actor.

 

[Isaac]

Reagan.