And that's why GWB will remembered as quite good POTUS
Tomasz Radko
Colin William
> http://www.slate.com/id/2169344/
Why, because the American public makes a point of remembering who nominated
certain justices? Most people can't even name the justices, let alone who
nominated them.
But if, for you, two justices offsets the rest of the clusterf**k that has
been this presidency, then enjoy.
Colin
zig zigalo
he'll need to come through on the immigration reform to make a crappy
presidency into merely an awful one. don't get me wrong, i find the SCOTUS
appointments the bright spot of his time in office, but certainly not enough
to offset the debacle in iraq (which all of politics not far left or far
right shares blame in), budgets that would make clinton blush, and saying
nu-cyoo-ler to the point of embarrasment.
--
zig zigalo
Jon Stewart: I have some advice for you...
Space Ghost: Wait, let me guess: work extra hard when the guest is hung
over?
Hutcheson, Sam
> http://www.slate.com/id/2169344/
What, because he fucked up the SCOTUS nearly as badly as he fucked up
Iraq. Your standards are pathetically low.
George W. Bush will not be remembed as a "quite good POTUS," Tomasz.
He won't be remembed as any kind of a "good POTUS." He will be
rightly remembered as a complete clusterfuck of a president who let an
authoritarian tyrant run roughshod through him via the VP's office.
Only the most revisionistic and reactionary of buffoons will attempt
to remember the last eight years as anything other than catastrophic.
Hi Paul.
s/
Jolly Rogers
> http://www.slate.com/id/2169344/
Today, Roberts had a chance to disable discrimination in colleges, and he
failed.
Bush enjoyed 6+ years of virtually unlimited opportunity to correct problems
in America, and he failed. Now, he is trying to betray America by
accelerating our decline to third-world status by creating an amnesty
program for felons and undesirables, but he failed at that too, fortunately.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070628/D8Q20QH00.html
America's problem is that we have no real alternatives. The only viable,
electable alternative to the likes of Bush and his appointed Chief Justice,
is usually something far worse.
--
Jolly Rogers
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Tomasz Radko
> "Tomasz Radko" <tr...@interia.pl> wrote ...
>> http://www.slate.com/id/2169344/
>
> Why, because the American public makes a point of remembering who nominated
> certain justices? Most people can't even name the justices, let alone who
> nominated them.
Most people think JFK was the greatest POTUS of all time.
> But if, for you, two justices offsets the rest of the clusterf**k that has
> been this presidency, then enjoy.
Why should I enjoy? Had GWB spent his political capital on reform of
social securities and making tax cuts permanent instead of on Iraq war -
different story. Then he'd be anti-FDR in my book. Now - he's mediocre.
There were worse, there were better.
pzdr
TRad
Tomasz Radko
> On Jun 28, 4:40 pm, Tomasz Radko <t...@interia.pl> wrote:
>
>> http://www.slate.com/id/2169344/
>
> What, because he fucked up the SCOTUS nearly as badly as he fucked up
> Iraq. Your standards are pathetically low.
Sam. His nominations were _brilliant_. And I like your anger. That's
when you know somebody has done something right: when socialists are crying.
pzdr
TRad
Lance Freezeland
gave us:
>Colin William pisze:
>> "Tomasz Radko" <tr...@interia.pl> wrote ...
>>> http://www.slate.com/id/2169344/
>> Why, because the American public makes a point of remembering who nominated
>> certain justices? Most people can't even name the justices, let alone who
>> nominated them.
>Most people think JFK was the greatest POTUS of all time.
Those are the same people who believe that "Congress shall make no law
abridging the right to chicken done right" is the 12th Amendment.
--
Lance
"Where, oh where, are you tonight? How could you leave me here
all alone? I searched the world over and thought I found true
love. You met another and PFFT you were gone!"
-- noted American philosopher Archie Campbell
TimV
"Tomasz Radko" <tr...@interia.pl> wrote in message
news:f61am1$7si$2...@news.interia.pl...
> Colin William pisze:
>> "Tomasz Radko" <tr...@interia.pl> wrote ...
>>> http://www.slate.com/id/2169344/
>>
>> Why, because the American public makes a point of remembering who
>> nominated certain justices? Most people can't even name the justices, let
>> alone who nominated them.
>
> Most people think JFK was the greatest POTUS of all time.
I can't remember a single instance of anyone who believes that. Washington,
Lincoln and FDR usually top the lists. A lot of people like JFK and idolize
him but no one really believes that he was anywhere in the top echelons of
Presidents. However, even if they did, how does that bear on SCOTUS noms?
>
>> But if, for you, two justices offsets the rest of the clusterf**k that
>> has been this presidency, then enjoy.
>
> Why should I enjoy? Had GWB spent his political capital on reform of
> social securities and making tax cuts permanent instead of on Iraq war -
> different story. Then he'd be anti-FDR in my book. Now - he's mediocre.
> There were worse, there were better.
>
I honestly cannot think of too many that were worse. Harding or Buchanan
were worse. Maybe Andrew Johnson.
In terms of the SCOTUS noms, he had a ton of conservative judges with
impecable credentials to choose from and a Republican dominated Senate. He
really couldn't screw that up. Yet, he almost managed to with the nomination
of Harriet Miers and would likely have tried Alberto Gonzales if there was
another opening.
T
TimV
"Lance Freezeland" <freezeland...@consolidated.net> wrote in message
news:hsb8835k3ulp213m6...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 23:58:57 +0200, Tomasz Radko <tr...@interia.pl>
> gave us:
>>Colin William pisze:
>>> "Tomasz Radko" <tr...@interia.pl> wrote ...
>>>> http://www.slate.com/id/2169344/
>
>>> Why, because the American public makes a point of remembering who
>>> nominated
>>> certain justices? Most people can't even name the justices, let alone
>>> who
>>> nominated them.
>
>>Most people think JFK was the greatest POTUS of all time.
>
> Those are the same people who believe that "Congress shall make no law
> abridging the right to chicken done right" is the 12th Amendment.
>
What do you mean it's not? It clearly says so on Wikipedia.
T
Dirk
Quite good POTUS? He barely qualifies as a quite good POS.
Jolly Rogers
>> What, because he fucked up the SCOTUS nearly as badly as he fucked up
>> Iraq. Your standards are pathetically low.
>
> Sam. His nominations were _brilliant_. And I like your anger. That's when
> you know somebody has done something right: when socialists are crying.
Excellent post. Platinum star.
--
Jolly Rogers
Lance Freezeland
<tvanwagoner_...@ou.edu> gave us:
>"Tomasz Radko" <tr...@interia.pl> wrote in message
>news:f61am1$7si$2...@news.interia.pl...
>> Colin William pisze:
>>> "Tomasz Radko" <tr...@interia.pl> wrote ...
>>>> http://www.slate.com/id/2169344/
>>> Why, because the American public makes a point of remembering who
>>> nominated certain justices? Most people can't even name the justices, let
>>> alone who nominated them.
>> Most people think JFK was the greatest POTUS of all time.
>I can't remember a single instance of anyone who believes that. Washington,
>Lincoln and FDR usually top the lists. A lot of people like JFK and idolize
>him but no one really believes that he was anywhere in the top echelons of
>Presidents. However, even if they did, how does that bear on SCOTUS noms?
Wizzer White was a pretty good justice, though.
>>> But if, for you, two justices offsets the rest of the clusterf**k that
>>> has been this presidency, then enjoy.
>> Why should I enjoy? Had GWB spent his political capital on reform of
>> social securities and making tax cuts permanent instead of on Iraq war -
>> different story. Then he'd be anti-FDR in my book. Now - he's mediocre.
>> There were worse, there were better.
>I honestly cannot think of too many that were worse. Harding or Buchanan
>were worse. Maybe Andrew Johnson.
On what are we judging them, though? Many would put FDR at the bottom
for what he did in terms of growing the government and enacting
entitlement programs. And any list of bad Presidents has to have
Jimmy Carter pretty near the top.
>In terms of the SCOTUS noms, he had a ton of conservative judges with
>impecable credentials to choose from and a Republican dominated Senate. He
>really couldn't screw that up. Yet, he almost managed to with the nomination
>of Harriet Miers and would likely have tried Alberto Gonzales if there was
>another opening.
I don't think that we're going to have the perspective to judge GWB
for a while. Ask me again in 20 years. I know that Dick will still
be here.
--
Lance
"In a world filled with hate, prejudice, and protest,
I find that I too am filled with hate, prejudice, and
protest." -- Bob Gibson
Tomasz Radko
> "Tomasz Radko" <tr...@interia.pl> wrote in message
> news:f61am1$7si$2...@news.interia.pl...
>> Colin William pisze:
>>> "Tomasz Radko" <tr...@interia.pl> wrote ...
>>>> http://www.slate.com/id/2169344/
>>> Why, because the American public makes a point of remembering who
>>> nominated certain justices? Most people can't even name the justices, let
>>> alone who nominated them.
>> Most people think JFK was the greatest POTUS of all time.
>
> I can't remember a single instance of anyone who believes that. Washington,
> Lincoln and FDR usually top the lists. A lot of people like JFK and idolize
> him but no one really believes that he was anywhere in the top echelons of
> Presidents. However, even if they did, how does that bear on SCOTUS noms?
That what most people think means absolutely nothing.
>>> But if, for you, two justices offsets the rest of the clusterf**k that
>>> has been this presidency, then enjoy.
>> Why should I enjoy? Had GWB spent his political capital on reform of
>> social securities and making tax cuts permanent instead of on Iraq war -
>> different story. Then he'd be anti-FDR in my book. Now - he's mediocre.
>> There were worse, there were better.
>>
>
> I honestly cannot think of too many that were worse. Harding or Buchanan
> were worse. Maybe Andrew Johnson.
Only from last century: Carter and Harding - for sure. Hoover - maybe. GHB.
> In terms of the SCOTUS noms, he had a ton of conservative judges with
> impecable credentials to choose from and a Republican dominated Senate. He
> really couldn't screw that up.
Yes, he could.
> Yet, he almost managed to with the nomination
> of Harriet Miers and would likely have tried Alberto Gonzales if there was
> another opening.
Exactly. And he could always sell nomination to Dems for, I don't know,
more school spending?
Of course I've completely forgotten about his spending. OK, I'm changing
note from "quite good" to "not that bad".
pzdr
TRad
Tomasz Radko
>> I honestly cannot think of too many that were worse. Harding or Buchanan
>> were worse. Maybe Andrew Johnson.
>
> On what are we judging them, though? Many would put FDR at the bottom
> for what he did in terms of growing the government and enacting
> entitlement programs.
Lance, I disagree with almost everything FDR has done in internal
politic - and with most of what he's done on international scene, but at
least he has a vision. Harding, Carter?
> And any list of bad Presidents has to have
> Jimmy Carter pretty near the top.
Ditto.
There are some things that GWB has done right. What about Carter?
>> In terms of the SCOTUS noms, he had a ton of conservative judges with
>> impecable credentials to choose from and a Republican dominated Senate. He
>> really couldn't screw that up. Yet, he almost managed to with the nomination
>> of Harriet Miers and would likely have tried Alberto Gonzales if there was
>> another opening.
>
> I don't think that we're going to have the perspective to judge GWB
> for a while. Ask me again in 20 years.
AFAIR Reagan's perception in his last two years were far from positive?
pzdr
TRad
bgs
news:EnWgi.22962$C96....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
:
: "Tomasz Radko" <tr...@interia.pl> wrote in message
Yeah, but most of us were only this many [holds up fingers] when he was
President. I think a lot of us idolize his quotes. I know of none better,
though Reagan had some good ones. And we associate him with a simpler time
despite the cold war and irrational fears.
--
SB
TimV
> On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 17:12:50 -0500, "TimV"
> <tvanwagoner_...@ou.edu> gave us:
>>"Tomasz Radko" <tr...@interia.pl> wrote in message
>>news:f61am1$7si$2...@news.interia.pl...
>>> Colin William pisze:
>>>> "Tomasz Radko" <tr...@interia.pl> wrote ...
>>>>> http://www.slate.com/id/2169344/
>
>>>> Why, because the American public makes a point of remembering who
>>>> nominated certain justices? Most people can't even name the justices,
>>>> let
>>>> alone who nominated them.
>
>>> Most people think JFK was the greatest POTUS of all time.
>
>>I can't remember a single instance of anyone who believes that.
>>Washington,
>>Lincoln and FDR usually top the lists. A lot of people like JFK and
>>idolize
>>him but no one really believes that he was anywhere in the top echelons of
>>Presidents. However, even if they did, how does that bear on SCOTUS noms?
>
> Wizzer White was a pretty good justice, though.
He was a great one.
>>>> But if, for you, two justices offsets the rest of the clusterf**k that
>>>> has been this presidency, then enjoy.
>
>>> Why should I enjoy? Had GWB spent his political capital on reform of
>>> social securities and making tax cuts permanent instead of on Iraq war -
>>> different story. Then he'd be anti-FDR in my book. Now - he's mediocre.
>>> There were worse, there were better.
>
>>I honestly cannot think of too many that were worse. Harding or Buchanan
>>were worse. Maybe Andrew Johnson.
>
> On what are we judging them, though? Many would put FDR at the bottom
> for what he did in terms of growing the government and enacting
> entitlement programs. And any list of bad Presidents has to have
> Jimmy Carter pretty near the top.
If the list was limited to 20th century Presidents only, Carter would be
near the top of bad ones (I'd place him at 3rd worst in the 20th behind
Harding and Hoover). There were some truly horrific Presidents in the 19th
century.
Even so, I truly believe that Bush is worse than Carter was. Bush's current
approval rating is actually lower than any Carter had and Bush is presiding
over a fairly robust economy. Carter's economy contributed heavily to the
misery index at the time. However, Carter really can't be blamed for that
economy. He inherited a terrible situation and merely didn't manage to fix
it. Even Reagan's policies wouldn't have fixed it and likely would have
worsened it (he was actually opposed to the Fed's actions that managed to
squash the inflation).
>>In terms of the SCOTUS noms, he had a ton of conservative judges with
>>impecable credentials to choose from and a Republican dominated Senate. He
>>really couldn't screw that up. Yet, he almost managed to with the
>>nomination
>>of Harriet Miers and would likely have tried Alberto Gonzales if there was
>>another opening.
>
> I don't think that we're going to have the perspective to judge GWB
> for a while. Ask me again in 20 years. I know that Dick will still
> be here.
>
> --
The only things that could change my opinion on Bush would be if someone
miracles Iraq into a shining paragon of freedom and the magic debt fairy
waves her wand and disappears his fiscal irresponsibility. Since I have a
better chance of winning the Powerball even given the fact that I've never
purchased a ticket in my life, I think it is fair to give Bush a big fat F.
The only question that can be answered by revisionist thinking in 20 years
is whether he merely is among the top 10 worst Presidents or the acme. *All
this also dependent on whether Hillary manages to get elected. Something
tells me that 4 years of her nonsense might make Bush look like a genious.
T
TimV
news:31d883d9jn8deo0lr...@4ax.com...
>
> for what he did in terms of growing the government and enacting
> entitlement programs.
Forgot to address this. Personally, I can't stand FDR or his results. Yet no
serious Presidential scholar could ever argue that he wasn't effective and
that his impact and popularity transcended generations. If you actually take
an objective look at his presidency, given the time in which he presided, a
time in which Communism and Socialism spread like wildfire and Keynesian
economics ruled the day, his policies could have been way, way worse. I'd
hold my distaste more for Lyndon Johnson and his Great Society, proposed and
enacted when we should have known better and when the world's economy wasn't
in the dump.
Also remember that there are some people out there who are quite serious in
their beliefs that Lincoln was the worst President ever.
T
TimV
You also forgot:
federalizing education
the Patriot Act (and other assorted foibles)
the Medicare Prescription Drug act
this immigration debacle
blowing universal goodwill towards the U.S., post-9/11 on a needless war
screwing up said needless war
screwing up a necessary war in Afghanistan
blowing it with both North Korea and Iran because rhetoric is always more
important than results
In all honesty, what has he really managed to do right? Tax cuts are fine,
but said tax cuts, simultaneous with increased spending and an already
unethical federal debt should be considered downright criminal. And don't
try the argument that tax cuts help the economy. Tax cuts combined with
increased Federal spending only results in inflation and a shirking of
responsibilities onto and crippling future generations. Any monetarist knows
that the Fed is perfectly capable of controlling the economy itself and that
the Congress (and the President) meddling in it through Governmental fiscal
policies only makes matters worse.
T
Tomasz Radko
> unethical federal debt should be considered downright criminal. And don't
> try the argument that tax cuts help the economy. Tax cuts combined with
> increased Federal spending only results in inflation and a shirking of
> responsibilities onto and crippling future generations. Any monetarist knows
> that the Fed is perfectly capable of controlling the economy itself
O yeah? So put income tax rate at 100% - and let Fed control _that_.
Low taxes - good. High taxes - bad.
Of course: low spending - good. High spending - bad.
pzdr
TRad
TimV
In an extreme situation like that, sure. But taxes were not high. Cutting
those taxes would have been great if they could have maintained cutting the
debt and also sliced the federal budget up. They did neither. This will rank
as the most fiscally irresponsible adminstration in American history.
T
Tomasz Radko
I haven't checked lately: is US federal budget deficit higher than in
Reagan's time? Relatively to whole economy?
pzdr
TRad
Jolly Rogers
The welfare state is the best way for large corporations to siphon money
from the lower class via the middle and upper class, because poor people
return every penny of their welfare money to Wal-mart, Coca-Cola, Nike,
Coors, etc. In turn, the politicians who ensure the continuation of the
scheme receive nice kickbacks, and probably a plush consulting job in their
post congressional careers.
Why else, in God's green Earth, would someone like Trent Lott of all people,
shamelessly team with Liberal Democrats to wholeheartedly endorse an amnesty
program for felons and other undesirables from the third-world? Did he
suddenly find compassion? I doubt it. More likely, the biggest political
contributors told their puppets to "...approve amnesty because we need cheap
labor." Nothing else matters to big businesses beyond shareholder wealth,
and a big part of shareholder wealth is ensuring an abundant supply of
cheap, obedient labor is present.
Remember! Welfare checks go directly from the pockets of responsible people
through the welfare recipients and into the pockets of large, powerful
corporations who wield tremendous political influence.
--
Jolly Rogers
Jolly Rogers
>> O yeah? So put income tax rate at 100% - and let Fed control _that_.
>> Low taxes - good. High taxes - bad.
>> Of course: low spending - good. High spending - bad.
>>
>
> In an extreme situation like that, sure. But taxes were not high. Cutting
> those taxes would have been great if they could have maintained cutting
> the debt and also sliced the federal budget up. They did neither. This
> will rank as the most fiscally irresponsible adminstration in American
> history.
Perfectly said, Tim. I couldn't have said it better. I very strongly agree.
What happened during a 6 year period of unbridled Republican control of the
entire Federal government is beyond words. Why didn't they slice Federal
spending? To appease corporate political donors? After all, consider who
benefits the most from exuberant government spending.
Colin William
"Tomasz Radko" <tr...@interia.pl> wrote
>> But if, for you, two justices offsets the rest of the clusterf**k that
>> has been this presidency, then enjoy.
>
> Why should I enjoy? Had GWB spent his political capital on reform of
> social securities and making tax cuts permanent instead of on Iraq war -
> different story. Then he'd be anti-FDR in my book. Now - he's mediocre.
> There were worse, there were better.
Well, if you think that now he's mediocre and not "quite good", you might
oughta change your subject accordingly.
Colin
Colin William
"Lance Freezeland" <freezeland...@consolidated.net> wrote
> On what are we judging them, though? Many would put FDR at the bottom
> for what he did in terms of growing the government and enacting
> entitlement programs. And any list of bad Presidents has to have
> Jimmy Carter pretty near the top.
I imagine a good many of those people who condemn FDR for his domestic
policies will be the same people who spent much of the last 7 years
forgiving Bush his because they saw the war stuff as more important.
Colin
Colin William
"Tomasz Radko" <tr...@interia.pl> wrote
> Of course I've completely forgotten about his spending. OK, I'm changing
> note from "quite good" to "not that bad".
Destroyed our international credibility (even after having the world on our
side post-9/11), alienated most of our allies, likely leaves office with us
committed irrevocably to a clusterf**k in Iraq courtesy of his presiding
over poor execution of the occupation, monstrously increased entitlements
with the prescription drug act, escalated federal involvement in schools by
a few orders of magnitude, and left his veto pen in his pocket while his
party took spending to astronomical levels.
Not that bad???? Are you that erect over Roberts and Alito?
Colin
Tomasz Radko
Say whatever you want about GWB - he didn't imprisoned thousands of
american citizens - basing on their ethnicity only.
pzdr
TRad
Tomasz Radko
And economy. And I disagree about Iraq. And about allies (why do you
need allies if they don't support you?). And I don't know about any
president veting his party spending. And if you think educational and
medical spending is monstrous - just wait for another president. Yes,
were Bush a brilliant POTUS, he'd vetoed that. But he wasn't brilliant.
He was just "not so bad". Overall D+.
pzdr
TRad
Dirk
> TimV pisze:
>
>
>
> > "Tomasz Radko" <t...@interia.pl> wrote in message
Dirk
I'm not sure that the federal budget deficit is such a great
yardstick, given the accounting irregularities applied to the budget
it in a given year in order to make it seem as if progress is being
made. As an example of this tomfoolery, see the chart given here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/outlook.html
I believe (an actual economist can challenge this, I'm just going with
the gut here) that the nation's overall debt as a percentage of GDP
seems a more reasonable thing to chart as an indicator of fiscal
responsibility. And how you view that depends on whether you're, say,
the Heritage Foundation:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/bg1820.cfm
or just some wee PhD economist who consults to the electrical
utilities:
Tomasz Radko
> I believe (an actual economist can challenge this, I'm just going with
> the gut here) that the nation's overall debt as a percentage of GDP
> seems a more reasonable thing to chart as an indicator of fiscal
> responsibility.
OK, but not debt per se, but its growth year-to-year, am I right?
pzdr
TRad
Tomasz Radko
> I believe (an actual economist can challenge this, I'm just going with
> the gut here) that the nation's overall debt as a percentage of GDP
> seems a more reasonable thing to chart as an indicator of fiscal
> responsibility. And how you view that depends on whether you're, say,
> the Heritage Foundation:
>
> http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/bg1820.cfm
Ah, so it's about Soacial Security and Medicare, programs introduced by
Dems. As I've always said: too bad GWB couldn't press more to reform
Social Security.
pzdr
TRad
Colin William
"Tomasz Radko" <tr...@interia.pl> wrote
>> Not that bad???? Are you that erect over Roberts and Alito?
>
> And economy.
But the big picture of the economy is not so pretty. Soo things rebounded
from the recession of the early 2000s, but at the expense of a tremendous
additional burden placed on future generations.
> And I disagree about Iraq. And about allies (why do you need allies if
> they don't support you?).
Because, as I've discussed before, if you are participating in what you
claim is a long-term global war, you can't dismissively piss off your
allies. Just because they don't agree with you today doesn't mean you won't
need them tomorrow. Thus, it was extremely shortsighted and
counterproductive for members of the admin to be so pissy toward " old
Europe", because we will still need the help and cooperation of the security
services of "old Europe" in the long term.
Or, to paraphrase Rumsfeld, you go to war with the allies you have, not the
allies you wish you had.
So what, you're crediting him and his party for lack of principle?
> And if you think educational and medical spending is monstrous - just wait
> for another president.
Oh, I'm sure it'll go up. But the next President won't be in the situation
of Republican President with Republican House and republican Senate. You
know, the party that claims to be on the side of smaller government.
> Yes, were Bush a brilliant POTUS, he'd vetoed that. But he wasn't
> brilliant.
He didn't just "not veto" the medicare prescription drug program and No
Child Left Behind. He was their biggest proponent.
Colin
Colin William
"Tomasz Radko" <tr...@interia.pl> wrote
> Ah, so it's about Soacial Security and Medicare, programs introduced by
> Dems. As I've always said: too bad GWB couldn't press more to reform
> Social Security.
It wasn't that he couldn't, he just chose not to.
Well, not entirely true - he presented an idea of where he wanted it to be,
but presented no actual plan for how to get there.
And the republicans who held congress for over a decade felt it was more
important to continue holding office than to do anything about these.
Colin
Tomasz Radko
True.
pzdr
TRad
Tomasz Radko
>> And if you think educational and medical spending is monstrous - just wait
>> for another president.
>
> Oh, I'm sure it'll go up. But the next President won't be in the situation
> of Republican President with Republican House and republican Senate. You
> know, the party that claims to be on the side of smaller government.
And that's one of the reasons the were kicked out in last election.
>> Yes, were Bush a brilliant POTUS, he'd vetoed that. But he wasn't
>> brilliant.
>
> He didn't just "not veto" the medicare prescription drug program and No
> Child Left Behind. He was their biggest proponent.
Because he's a socialist girlie man.
pzdr
TRad
zig zigalo
i thought he was going to be remembered as quite good?
i'm all confused now.
--
zig zigalo
Jon Stewart: I have some advice for you...
Space Ghost: Wait, let me guess: work extra hard when the guest is hung
over?
Tomasz Radko
> Tomasz Radko wrote:
>> Colin William pisze:
>>
>>>> And if you think educational and medical spending is monstrous -
>>>> just wait for another president.
>>> Oh, I'm sure it'll go up. But the next President won't be in the
>>> situation of Republican President with Republican House and
>>> republican Senate. You know, the party that claims to be on the side
>>> of smaller government.
>> And that's one of the reasons the were kicked out in last election.
>>
>>>> Yes, were Bush a brilliant POTUS, he'd vetoed that. But he wasn't
>>>> brilliant.
>>> He didn't just "not veto" the medicare prescription drug program and
>>> No Child Left Behind. He was their biggest proponent.
>> Because he's a socialist girlie man.
>>
>
> i thought he was going to be remembered as quite good?
> i'm all confused now.
I've changed that to "not that bad".
And remember, that for me almost all 20th century's US presidents were
socialist girlie men. There is one exception and I let you guess.
pzdr
TRad
zig zigalo
the great one, st. ronnie. and on this we agree.
Tomasz Radko
> Tomasz Radko wrote:
>> zig zigalo pisze:
>>> Tomasz Radko wrote:
>>>> Colin William pisze:
>>>>
>>>>>> And if you think educational and medical spending is monstrous -
>>>>>> just wait for another president.
>>>>> Oh, I'm sure it'll go up. But the next President won't be in the
>>>>> situation of Republican President with Republican House and
>>>>> republican Senate. You know, the party that claims to be on the
>>>>> side of smaller government.
>>>> And that's one of the reasons the were kicked out in last election.
>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, were Bush a brilliant POTUS, he'd vetoed that. But he wasn't
>>>>>> brilliant.
>>>>> He didn't just "not veto" the medicare prescription drug program
>>>>> and No Child Left Behind. He was their biggest proponent.
>>>> Because he's a socialist girlie man.
>>>>
>>> i thought he was going to be remembered as quite good?
>>> i'm all confused now.
>> I've changed that to "not that bad".
>>
>> And remember, that for me almost all 20th century's US presidents were
>> socialist girlie men. There is one exception and I let you guess.
>>
>
> the great one, st. ronnie. and on this we agree.
Seriously speaking I deify Ronald Reagan, but no, I was thinking about
Coolidge. Of course it's understandable why he put international
politics above internal, but spending went up, bureaucracy went up,
O'Connor went to SCOTUS, GHB was a vicepresident.
pzdr
TRad
zig zigalo
rita coolidge?
Tomasz Radko
When we're talking about singing women - I prefer Emmylou Harris.
Hutcheson, Sam
> The only things that could change my opinion on Bush would be if someone
> miracles Iraq into a shining paragon of freedom and the magic debt fairy
> waves her wand and disappears his fiscal irresponsibility. Since I have a
> better chance of winning the Powerball even given the fact that I've never
> purchased a ticket in my life, I think it is fair to give Bush a big fat F.
> The only question that can be answered by revisionist thinking in 20 years
> is whether he merely is among the top 10 worst Presidents or the acme. *All
> this also dependent on whether Hillary manages to get elected. Something
> tells me that 4 years of her nonsense might make Bush look like a genious.
Rodham-Clinton has many of the same negative qualities as Cheney.
She's hyper sensitive to the point of paranoia, loves secrecy for the
sake of secrecy and has a real authoritarian streak to her basic
personality. With that said, she has been enormously successful at
every endeavor she's ever undertaken (aside from being the Iron First
Lady of Healthcare Reform in 1992.) She's painfully smart, incredibly
perceptive and a natural manager of detailed, complex problems. In
that regard, she is as much unlike Bush, a man incapable of
understanding complex problems who has failed at every single endeavor
in his life, as you could possibly be.
Clinton is by far not my first choice for POTUS 2008 but at the very
worst she would be a moderate domestic liberal with hawkish foreign
policy instincts on par with Joe Lieberman and a competent if
unlikeable placeholder for a true statesman or -woman.
s/
zig zigalo
> On Jun 28, 6:38 pm, "TimV" <tvanwagoner_yourknicke...@ou.edu> wrote:
>
>> The only things that could change my opinion on Bush would be if
>> someone miracles Iraq into a shining paragon of freedom and the
>> magic debt fairy waves her wand and disappears his fiscal
>> irresponsibility. Since I have a better chance of winning the
>> Powerball even given the fact that I've never purchased a ticket in
>> my life, I think it is fair to give Bush a big fat F. The only
>> question that can be answered by revisionist thinking in 20 years is
>> whether he merely is among the top 10 worst Presidents or the acme.
>> *All this also dependent on whether Hillary manages to get elected.
>> Something tells me that 4 years of her nonsense might make Bush look
>
> Rodham-Clinton has many of the same negative qualities as Cheney.
> She's hyper sensitive to the point of paranoia, loves secrecy for the
> sake of secrecy and has a real authoritarian streak to her basic
> personality. With that said, she has been enormously successful at
> every endeavor she's ever undertaken (aside from being the Iron First
> Lady of Healthcare Reform in 1992.) She's painfully smart, incredibly
> perceptive and a natural manager of detailed, complex problems. In
> that regard, she is as much unlike Bush, a man incapable of
> understanding complex problems who has failed at every single endeavor
> in his life, as you could possibly be.
>
> Clinton is by far not my first choice for POTUS 2008 but at the very
> worst she would be a moderate domestic liberal with hawkish foreign
> policy instincts on par with Joe Lieberman and a competent if
> unlikeable placeholder for a true statesman or -woman.
>
not sure if i ought to be frightened. i rather agree with the above
analysis.
Jolly Rogers
> ...Bush [...] who has failed at every single endeavor in his life...
Are you serious? Although he has some faults, one can scarcely be a failure
in life and ascend to the presidency, Sam. Are you sure you're not judging
him largely by his Texas drawl, his occasional use of malapropisms, or his
mispronunciation of a few words?
He's hardly a failure, Sam.
Tomasz Radko
> "Hutcheson, Sam" <sa...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>> ...Bush [...] who has failed at every single endeavor in his life...
>
> Are you serious? Although he has some faults, one can scarcely be a failure
> in life and ascend to the presidency, Sam. Are you sure you're not judging
> him largely by his Texas drawl, his occasional use of malapropisms, or his
> mispronunciation of a few words?
>
> He's hardly a failure, Sam.
Guy has won every election except the first one.
pzdr
TRad
Hutcheson, Sam
> "Hutcheson, Sam" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > ...Bush [...] who has failed at every single endeavor in his life...
>
> Are you serious? Although he has some faults, one can scarcely be a failure
> in life and ascend to the presidency, Sam. Are you sure you're not judging
> him largely by his Texas drawl, his occasional use of malapropisms, or his
> mispronunciation of a few words?
He went AWOL from the military.
Every business he ever started went bankrupt and had to be bought out
by his father's friends.
His father's name and contacts bought him into politics.
He ruined Texas as governor.
He's the worst president of any living human being's lifetime.
He has failed in every singel endeavor of his life. He is the walking
definition of failure, candy-coated by an uber-powerful, mega-rich
family which buys him out of all of his fuckups. They even tried to
buy him out of his pathetic legacy as POTUS but he was too stupid to
take their help.
Complete, total fuckup.
s/
Hutcheson, Sam
> Guy has won every election except the first one.
Money, his daddy's name and friends, and more money.
s/
Tomasz Radko
> On Jun 29, 12:29 pm, Tomasz Radko <t...@interia.pl> wrote:
>
>
>> Guy has won every election except the first one.
>
> Money, his daddy's name and friends, and more money.
Tell that Teddy Kennedy or Al Gore.
pzdr
TRad
Tomasz Radko
> On Jun 29, 12:28 pm, "Jolly Rogers" <jollyrog...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> "Hutcheson, Sam" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>> ...Bush [...] who has failed at every single endeavor in his life...
>> Are you serious? Although he has some faults, one can scarcely be a failure
>> in life and ascend to the presidency, Sam. Are you sure you're not judging
>> him largely by his Texas drawl, his occasional use of malapropisms, or his
>> mispronunciation of a few words?
>
> He went AWOL from the military.
>
> Every business he ever started went bankrupt and had to be bought out
> by his father's friends.
>
> His father's name and contacts bought him into politics.
>
> He ruined Texas as governor.
>
> He's the worst president of any living human being's lifetime.
>
> He has failed in every singel endeavor of his life.
He beat Democrats every time - except his first campaign. He's a born
winner. And you're a sour whiner.
pzdr
TRad
Hutcheson, Sam
Once again, a counterexample, even a poor one that doesn't really fit
like Gore, doesn't negate the point of the original example. So Ted
Kennedy is living on his family's name and connections. Okay. That
doesn't mean GWB isn't doing the same thing.
Do you guys have any argument OTHER than "but Clinton did it first?"
For ANYTHING?
s/
Hutcheson, Sam
He was elected. His policies once elected, at every level, left the
state or nation he "led" in worse shape. Jimmy Carter was elected.
Does that mean his presidency was successful? Clinton? FDR was
elected four fucking times. By your standard he's the most successful
president ever. Somehow I doubt you'll be so generous to those last
three.
s/
Tomasz Radko
Sam, you're whinner's whinner. GWB has _won_. Twice state elections,
twice presidential. He kicked a***s of yours golden Dems boys. Beat them
fair and square. What are sore loser you are. It's about time to accept
reality.
pzdr
TRad
Tomasz Radko
> On Jun 29, 4:45 pm, Tomasz Radko <t...@interia.pl> wrote:
>> Hutcheson, Sam pisze:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 29, 12:28 pm, "Jolly Rogers" <jollyrog...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>> "Hutcheson, Sam" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>>> ...Bush [...] who has failed at every single endeavor in his life...
>>>> Are you serious? Although he has some faults, one can scarcely be a failure
>>>> in life and ascend to the presidency, Sam. Are you sure you're not judging
>>>> him largely by his Texas drawl, his occasional use of malapropisms, or his
>>>> mispronunciation of a few words?
>>> He went AWOL from the military.
>>> Every business he ever started went bankrupt and had to be bought out
>>> by his father's friends.
>>> His father's name and contacts bought him into politics.
>>> He ruined Texas as governor.
>>> He's the worst president of any living human being's lifetime.
>>> He has failed in every singel endeavor of his life.
>> He beat Democrats every time - except his first campaign. He's a born
>> winner. And you're a sour whiner.
>
> He was elected. His policies once elected, at every level, left the
> state or nation he "led" in worse shape.
Whinny whinner, that's who you are.
Jimmy Carter was elected.
> Does that mean his presidency was successful? Clinton? FDR was
> elected four fucking times. By your standard he's the most successful
> president ever.
Of course he is. He changed USA like nobody else (except Washington, of
course). I don't agree with his policys, but I'd never call him a loser.
Carter was a governor, then won over poor Jerry Ford, and then beat
Teddy Kennedy in primaries. Was he a good president? No. Has he failed
"at every single endavour"? Absolutely, no.
Same with Clinton. He won over governing president. Then he survived in
very hostile political environment. Failure? What are you smoking?
I'm a Niners fan. So when Colts win Super Bowl - am I supposed to call
them a failure only because they aren't "my" team? Are you completely mad?
pzdr
TRad
Hutcheson, Sam
Tomasz, you have no idea who my "golden boys" are. You really, truly
don't. You haven't a singular clue as to this subject. Trust me. I
repeat: if winning an election is the only criteria you have for
being a "successful" president, then by definition every president has
been a success. Carter was a success by your standards. FDR was the
msot successful president in history by your standards.
Because your standards are not standards at all, but simply cheering
squad hoo-ha.
s/
Hutcheson, Sam
No, but you should try looking at things a little less in home
colors. Nothing Bush has accomplished as president can be called a
success. Nothing. Everything he's touched has turned to shit. The
fact that there were enough morons in 2004 to put him back into office
to turn more things to shit doesn't change the fact that what he does,
time and time again, is fail miserably.
s/
Tomasz Radko
> On Jun 29, 6:11 pm, Tomasz Radko <t...@interia.pl> wrote:
>> Hutcheson, Sam pisze:
>>
>>> On Jun 29, 4:40 pm, Tomasz Radko <t...@interia.pl> wrote:
>>>> Hutcheson, Sam pisze:
>>>>> On Jun 29, 12:29 pm, Tomasz Radko <t...@interia.pl> wrote:
>>>>>> Guy has won every election except the first one.
>>>>> Money, his daddy's name and friends, and more money.
>>>> Tell that Teddy Kennedy or Al Gore.
>>> Once again, a counterexample, even a poor one that doesn't really fit
>>> like Gore, doesn't negate the point of the original example. So Ted
>>> Kennedy is living on his family's name and connections. Okay. That
>>> doesn't mean GWB isn't doing the same thing.
>>> Do you guys have any argument OTHER than "but Clinton did it first?"
>>> For ANYTHING?
>> Sam, you're whinner's whinner. GWB has _won_. Twice state elections,
>> twice presidential. He kicked a***s of yours golden Dems boys. Beat them
>> fair and square. What are sore loser you are. It's about time to accept
>> reality.
>
> Tomasz, you have no idea who my "golden boys" are. You really, truly
> don't. You haven't a singular clue as to this subject. Trust me. I
> repeat: if winning an election is the only criteria you have for
> being a "successful" president, then by definition every president has
> been a success.
Not so fast. You weren't talking about GWB presidency, but about GWB as
a person. And now you're changing subject.
> Carter was a success by your standards. FDR was the
> msot successful president in history by your standards.
>
> Because your standards are not standards at all, but simply cheering
> squad hoo-ha.
You're not only whinner and sore loser - but also a liar. I've written
that FDR was the most important american politic in 20th century. I've
written that he was man of success. I've written many, many times, that
GWB isn't my hero. I've written that I wouldn't voted for him. Not in
2000, neither in 2004. And you dare call me a cheerleader? You're
completely unhonest, lying, totalitarian, hater of people having
opinions other than yours. You don't have even a bit of decency in
yourself. I feel sorry for you, Sam.
pzdr
TRad
Tomasz Radko
> No, but you should try looking at things a little less in home
> colors. Nothing Bush has accomplished as president can be called a
> success. Nothing.
Yeah, right. Taxes and SCOTUS nominations weren't his successes.
Recovery after Clinotn's recession and post 09-11 shock naither.
What's wrong with you, Sam? Hate is unhealthy. It screws your reception
of reality. You're delusional. You're losing contact with reality.
pzdr
Trad
Jolly Rogers
>> Are you serious? Although he has some faults, one can scarcely be a
>> failure
>> in life and ascend to the presidency, Sam. Are you sure you're not
>> judging
>> him largely by his Texas drawl, his occasional use of malapropisms, or
>> his
>> mispronunciation of a few words?
>
> He went AWOL from the military.
Source?
> Every business he ever started went bankrupt and had to be bought out
> by his father's friends.
Source?
> His father's name and contacts bought him into politics.
Your conjecture.
> He ruined Texas as governor.
Your opinion.
> He's the worst president of any living human being's lifetime.
Your opinion.
> He has failed in every singel endeavor of his life. He is the walking
> definition of failure, candy-coated by an uber-powerful, mega-rich
> family which buys him out of all of his fuckups. They even tried to
> buy him out of his pathetic legacy as POTUS but he was too stupid to
> take their help.
Your opinion.
> Complete, total fuckup.
That's your opinion, and it does not prove your assertion that Bush Jr. has
"failed in every singel [sic] endeavor of his life."
Your hatred of him, apparently just for the sake of hating him, and your use
of hyperbole to describe him and his presidency are well noted in this
newsgroup.
Jolly Rogers
> He was elected. His policies once elected, at every level, left the
> state or nation he "led" in worse shape. Jimmy Carter was elected.
> Does that mean his presidency was successful? Clinton? FDR was
> elected four fucking times. By your standard he's the most successful
> president ever. Somehow I doubt you'll be so generous to those last
> three.
Sam, many Conservatives (most?) are on record as being very disappointed
with Bush's presidency. He had 6 years of complete Republican control of all
three branches of the federal government to advance traditional
Conservativism in America, and he largely failed to do so.
The issue in this thread, however, is your assertion that Bush has been a
complete failure in life. I don't think anyone buys that.
Hutcheson, Sam
No, I'm not. I'm using a rational yardstick by which to measure
"success." You apparently think that if you borrow venture capital
and "found a business" you're a "successful business man", even if
every business you found goes belly up within a couple of years.
(Like George W. Bush.)
You apparently think that getting elected is the standard by which a
politician should be judged as successful or not. So as long as you
get elected you're a "success" no matter how badly you run the state
or country into the ground (like George W. Bush, both as governor or
president.)
I, on the other hand, propose a standard of success by which we don't
call passing the entry gate (election) success but rather where we
look at the actual results of a business (in Bush's case bankruptcy
and buyout every single time) or office-holder (massive debt,
incompetency and rank corruption in every level of the administration
- both in Texas and now the federal government) and judge how
"successful" someone has been by that measure. If, for example, a guy
joins the National Guard but then deserts before serving his
obligatory time we would not call him a successful soldier just
because he made it through boot camp. Rather we would call him a
failed soldier because he went AWOL and failed to fullfil his duty and
service.
See the difference there, sweetcheeks?
> > Carter was a success by your standards. FDR was the
> > msot successful president in history by your standards.
>
> > Because your standards are not standards at all, but simply cheering
> > squad hoo-ha.
>
> You're not only whinner and sore loser - but also a liar. I've written
> that FDR was the most important american politic in 20th century. I've
> written that he was man of success. I've written many, many times, that
> GWB isn't my hero. I've written that I wouldn't voted for him. Not in
> 2000, neither in 2004. And you dare call me a cheerleader? You're
> completely unhonest, lying, totalitarian, hater of people having
> opinions other than yours. You don't have even a bit of decency in
> yourself. I feel sorry for you, Sam.
I'll sob myself to sleep knowing you cry for me, Tommy. In the
meantime, if you don't want to be accused of being a blind cheerleader
for GWB, stop blindly cheerleading for GWB.
s/
Tomasz Radko
> I'll sob myself to sleep knowing you cry for me, Tommy. In the
> meantime, if you don't want to be accused of being a blind cheerleader
> for GWB, stop blindly cheerleading for GWB.
You're liar.
TRad
Hutcheson, Sam
You have no case.
s/
zig zigalo
you really miss paul, don't you.
:)
Tomasz Radko
If you were Pinocchio, the tip of your nose would be between Jupiter and
Saturn.
Hutcheson, Sam
Stating a false claim does not make it true regardless of how often
you autistically repeat yourself.
s/
Tomasz Radko
It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of
wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it
was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the
season of Darkness, it was the time of truth, it was the time of Sam
Hutcheson.
Dick Sidbury
Tomasz Radko <tr...@interia.pl> wrote:
OK, raise your hand if you remember (in the original group) those
wonderful discussions between sam and todd (rotis).
dick
-- and people thing us old guys don't have good memories.
zig zigalo
*raises hand*
and somehow i recall being on todd's side more often than not...
Hutcheson, Sam
And how'd that turn out for you? How is Br*t B**n* doing these days
anyway?
s/
bgs
Okay, time out. Do you realize how much funnier this retort would have been
had you gone just one planet deeper in the line-up?
-- Even Sam would've chuckled I think
Scott
bgs
ouch, that hurt my shoulder.
--
SB
bgs
Whoa, whoa.... wasn't Hitler elected?
--three words, hang-ing-chad
SB
Tomasz Radko
Well... yes and no. He's lost presidential election in 1932. But his
party has won parliamentary election and in January 1933 was nominated
as Chancellor (prime minister).
And remember, that until autumn 1938 hitler was a well respected
politician. IIRC he was chosen by Time The Man of the Year 1938. You may
read here: http://www.thirdreich.net/AH_Man_of_Year.html how he was
perceived _then_.
pzdr
TRad
zig zigalo
> anyway?
>
yeah, i didn't say i was pleased with the results.
--
zig zigalo
"ride fast, take lots of chances"- curt
bgs
Dood, if this is recall, you are way older than me... older than Dick too,
perhaps.
--
Scott
Ben B
> Tomasz Radko wrote:
> >> If you were Pinocchio, the tip of your nose would be between Jupiter
> >> and Saturn.
>
> Okay, time out. Do you realize how much funnier this retort would have been
> had you gone just one planet deeper in the line-up?
>
> -- Even Sam would've chuckled I think
but the joke would have been cheapened by the inevitable "klingons"
reference.
--
Ben
bgs
news:1183382195.3...@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Or some of that nasty Vogon poetry.
Lance Freezeland
>>>> You have no case.
Damn, I'm glad that I read deeper into this thread before posting.
--
Lance
Go St. Louis Cardinals!
2006 WORLD SERIES CHAMPIONS
National League Central Division Champions
1996, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2004, 2005, 2006
bgs
>> On Sun, 1 Jul 2007 13:57:31 -0500, "bgs" <b...@mindless.com> gave us:
>>> Tomasz Radko wrote:
>>>>> Hutcheson, Sam pisze:
>>>>>> On Jun 30, 9:49 am, Tomasz Radko <t...@interia.pl> wrote:
>>>>>>> Hutcheson, Sam pisze:
>>
>>>>>>>> I'll sob myself to sleep knowing you cry for me, Tommy. In the
>>>>>>>> meantime, if you don't want to be accused of being a blind
>>>>>>>> cheerleader for GWB, stop blindly cheerleading for GWB.
>>>>>>> You're liar.
>>
>>>>>> You have no case.
>>
>>>>> If you were Pinocchio, the tip of your nose would be between
>>>>> Jupiter and Saturn.
>>
>>> Okay, time out. Do you realize how much funnier this retort would
>>> have been had you gone just one planet deeper in the line-up?
>>
>> Damn, I'm glad that I read deeper into this thread before posting.
>>
>> --
>> Lance
I'm still waiting for TRad to process this... and sam to chuckle
--
SB
Atlanta Cardfan
> "Lance Freezeland" <freezeland...@consolidated.net> wrote in message
> news:31d883d9jn8deo0lr...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 17:12:50 -0500, "TimV"
>> <tvanwagoner_...@ou.edu> gave us:
>>> "Tomasz Radko" <tr...@interia.pl> wrote in message
>>> news:f61am1$7si$2...@news.interia.pl...
>>>> Colin William pisze:
>>>>> "Tomasz Radko" <tr...@interia.pl> wrote ...
>>>>>> http://www.slate.com/id/2169344/
>>>>> Why, because the American public makes a point of remembering who
>>>>> nominated certain justices? Most people can't even name the justices,
>>>>> let
>>>>> alone who nominated them.
>>>> Most people think JFK was the greatest POTUS of all time.
>>> I can't remember a single instance of anyone who believes that.
>>> Washington,
>>> Lincoln and FDR usually top the lists. A lot of people like JFK and
>>> idolize
>>> him but no one really believes that he was anywhere in the top echelons of
>>> Presidents. However, even if they did, how does that bear on SCOTUS noms?
>> Wizzer White was a pretty good justice, though.
>
> He was a great one.
>
>>>>> But if, for you, two justices offsets the rest of the clusterf**k that
>>>>> has been this presidency, then enjoy.
>>>> Why should I enjoy? Had GWB spent his political capital on reform of
>>>> social securities and making tax cuts permanent instead of on Iraq war -
>>>> different story. Then he'd be anti-FDR in my book. Now - he's mediocre.
>>>> There were worse, there were better.
>>> I honestly cannot think of too many that were worse. Harding or Buchanan
>>> were worse. Maybe Andrew Johnson.
>> On what are we judging them, though? Many would put FDR at the bottom
>> for what he did in terms of growing the government and enacting
>> entitlement programs. And any list of bad Presidents has to have
>> Jimmy Carter pretty near the top.
>
> If the list was limited to 20th century Presidents only, Carter would be
> near the top of bad ones (I'd place him at 3rd worst in the 20th behind
> Harding and Hoover). There were some truly horrific Presidents in the 19th
> century.
>
> Even so, I truly believe that Bush is worse than Carter was. Bush's current
> approval rating is actually lower than any Carter had and Bush is presiding
> over a fairly robust economy. Carter's economy contributed heavily to the
> misery index at the time. However, Carter really can't be blamed for that
> economy.
Can't be blamed for that economy? Is there any sole individual
that can be blamed more than his Jimmyness? Being attacked by
the Rabbit from Caerbannog only typified his lameness.
He inherited a terrible situation and merely didn't manage to fix
> it. Even Reagan's policies wouldn't have fixed it and likely would have
> worsened it (he was actually opposed to the Fed's actions that managed to
> squash the inflation).
>
Yeah. All hail the Fed. In Volcker we Trust, ad nauseum.
>>> In terms of the SCOTUS noms, he had a ton of conservative judges with
>>> impecable credentials to choose from and a Republican dominated Senate. He
>>> really couldn't screw that up. Yet, he almost managed to with the
>>> nomination
>>> of Harriet Miers and would likely have tried Alberto Gonzales if there was
>>> another opening.
>> I don't think that we're going to have the perspective to judge GWB
>> for a while. Ask me again in 20 years. I know that Dick will still
>> be here.
>>
>> --
>
> The only things that could change my opinion on Bush would be if someone
> miracles Iraq into a shining paragon of freedom and the magic debt fairy
> waves her wand and disappears his fiscal irresponsibility. Since I have a
> better chance of winning the Powerball even given the fact that I've never
> purchased a ticket in my life, I think it is fair to give Bush a big fat F.
> The only question that can be answered by revisionist thinking in 20 years
> is whether he merely is among the top 10 worst Presidents or the acme. *All
> this also dependent on whether Hillary manages to get elected. Something
> tells me that 4 years of her nonsense might make Bush look like a genious.
>
Right. Those tumbleweeds must make for pretty damn good drugs.
The "magic" debt fairy has already "waved her wand", but then again,
you wouldn't have noticed. Since you can't seem to understand
political compromise (which Democrats will not allow unless you
completely capitulate - one of GWB's failings) he still managed to
get _some_ things accomplished - whether you like those things or
not.
The only reason you'd be giving him such a low grade is because
he didn't completely toe the line with his base - which should
have given him points from those opponents with which he compromised.
Still, had he simply gone along with the Republican base instead
of trying to cobble a compromise on the Border issues, he'd still
have an approval close to 40%. He simply isn't a populist, and
perhaps that is what you would prefer.
One is coming, from either party - I don't believe we'll have
another idealist President for two decades.
Paul
Hutcheson, Sam
> One is coming, from either party - I don't believe we'll have
> another idealist President for two decades.
You are absolutely cracked.
s/
Atlanta Cardfan
> On Jun 29, 12:28 pm, "Jolly Rogers" <jollyrog...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> "Hutcheson, Sam" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>> ...Bush [...] who has failed at every single endeavor in his life...
>> Are you serious? Although he has some faults, one can scarcely be a failure
>> in life and ascend to the presidency, Sam. Are you sure you're not judging
>> him largely by his Texas drawl, his occasional use of malapropisms, or his
>> mispronunciation of a few words?
>
> He went AWOL from the military.
>
> Every business he ever started went bankrupt and had to be bought out
> by his father's friends.
>
That's wrong as well, but why stop there?
> His father's name and contacts bought him into politics.
>
Wrong again.
> He ruined Texas as governor.
>
He was the best governor Texas had in the past half century - but
then again, you must be dredging up your old Molly Ivins columns.
The woman wouldn't have known what was good for Texas if it bit
her in the ass.
> He's the worst president of any living human being's lifetime.
>
He'll be remembered as one of the best of this Century.
> He has failed in every singel endeavor of his life. He is the walking
> definition of failure, candy-coated by an uber-powerful, mega-rich
> family which buys him out of all of his fuckups. They even tried to
> buy him out of his pathetic legacy as POTUS but he was too stupid to
> take their help.
>
Uber power, mega rich, whooo, hoo!! How much do you think the man
has, Sam? Anything close to John F. Kerry? How about the VP
candidate, John Edwards, and his what, 29,000 square foot mansion -
I guess he's showing us how the "other America" really lives..
Such fucking hypocrites.
> Complete, total fuckup.
>
Run for Congress, Sam. Show you're better.
I'll even put up signs for you.
Paul
Atlanta Cardfan
> "Lance Freezeland" <freezeland...@consolidated.net> wrote in message
> news:31d883d9jn8deo0lr...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 17:12:50 -0500, "TimV"
>>
>> for what he did in terms of growing the government and enacting
>> entitlement programs.
>
> serious Presidential scholar could ever argue that he wasn't effective and
> that his impact and popularity transcended generations. If you actually take
> an objective look at his presidency, given the time in which he presided, a
> time in which Communism and Socialism spread like wildfire and Keynesian
> economics ruled the day, his policies could have been way, way worse. I'd
> hold my distaste more for Lyndon Johnson and his Great Society, proposed and
> enacted when we should have known better and when the world's economy wasn't
> in the dump.
>
> Also remember that there are some people out there who are quite serious in
> their beliefs that Lincoln was the worst President ever.
>
Most of them are dead.
Frankly, Atlanta's power issues could be resolved by
attaching turbines to the masses of Confederates buried
at Oakland Cemetery - they've been spinning in their
graves so long, they've developed a pretty good RPM
by now.
Paul
PS: For those not from Atlanta, Oakland Cemetery is
not only the home to the "Lion of Atlanta", the
South's answer to the "Tomb of the Unknown Soldier",
but also the resting place for many (or most) of
the Civil Rights figures from the 1950's to present.
zig zigalo
> Hutcheson, Sam wrote:
>
>> Complete, total fuckup.
>>
>
> Run for Congress, Sam. Show you're better.
>
> I'll even put up signs for you.
>
> Paul
shall we try to draft sam again? we had some really nice campaign slogans a
while back, although most of them would never make it to a sign.
Lance Freezeland
gave us:
>Atlanta Cardfan wrote:
>> Hutcheson, Sam wrote:
>>> Complete, total fuckup.
>> Run for Congress, Sam. Show you're better.
>> I'll even put up signs for you.
>shall we try to draft sam again? we had some really nice campaign slogans a
>while back, although most of them would never make it to a sign.
The idea of Sam onstage in a debate, calling his opponents "batshit
fucking loons" almost makes me tear up with national pride.
--
Lance
"No matter what I talk about, I always get back to baseball."
-- Connie Mack
Atlanta Cardfan
> "Tomasz Radko" <tr...@interia.pl> wrote
>> Of course I've completely forgotten about his spending. OK, I'm changing
>> note from "quite good" to "not that bad".
>
> Destroyed our international credibility (even after having the world on our
> side post-9/11),
That's really a lark, Colin. Sort of like being Colin Powell
and having great numbers prior to entering the Presidential
race, only to be discovered that you're human.
The "world sides with you" is more fickle than even the
American public, so there was no "there" there to begin with.
alienated most of our allies,
You'd better take a check on that.. and just how much of
an ally is it if they leave you so easily? There are
some "friends" you can do without.
Of course, you've probably not been divorced yet, so I'll
leave you alone on this one.
likely leaves office with us
> committed irrevocably to a clusterf**k in Iraq courtesy of his presiding
> over poor execution of the occupation,
Well, he is the C in C, so the buck stops with him. Don't
remember the buck always stopping with the last one, but
this one is certainly a pincushion.
monstrously increased entitlements with the prescription drug act,
and the alternative with the Dems in charge would have been sooo
much cheaper! Really?
escalated federal involvement in schools by a few orders of magnitude,
and this bothers a Dem.. how?
and left his veto pen in his pocket while his party took spending to
astronomical levels.
Nope. Not even close. Embarrassing in a few accounts, but nowhere
near what you'll see from this year's (hidden) entitlements from the
Dems.
>
> Not that bad???? Are you that erect over Roberts and Alito?
>
Roberts and Alito were just icing on the cake as to finally having
someone in the WH with a spine rather than a forked tongue.
Paul
Colin William
> The "world sides with you" is more fickle than even the
> American public, so there was no "there" there to begin with.
> an ally is it if they leave you so easily? There are
> some "friends" you can do without.
However, as I seem to have to explain ad nauseam, you have to be prepared to
work with the allies you have, not the allies you wish you had. If you piss
those people off by being diplomatically dismissive, you make it harder to
fight your global war.
> monstrously increased entitlements with the prescription drug act,
> and the alternative with the Dems in charge would have been sooo
> much cheaper! Really?
Had a Democrat president implemented this clusterf**k I'd be equally pissed
off, but at least they wouldn't have been doing it while pretending to be
small government conservatives. Bush and other self-proclaimed conservatives
sold out their principle when they campaigned for and signed off on this
boondoggle.
> escalated federal involvement in schools by a few orders of magnitude,
>
> and this bothers a Dem.. how?
It bothers me on several levels, most notably its worshipping at the altar
of highly falliblse standardized testing as the be all and end all, along
with its introducing more levels of bureaucracy that interfere with the
abilities of teachers to do their jobs.
> Nope. Not even close. Embarrassing in a few accounts, but nowhere
> near what you'll see from this year's (hidden) entitlements from the
> Dems.
So you're not willing to denounce non-cnservative government as long as you
can rationalize that "Democrats could have been worse." Very principled
stand, Paul.
> Roberts and Alito were just icing on the cake as to finally having
> someone in the WH with a spine rather than a forked tongue.
You seem pretty isolated in the idea that there's a cake for the icing.
Colin
Hutcheson, Sam
> > He went AWOL from the military.
>
> That's bullshit, but that fact never stopped you from repeating it.
What would you call joining the National Guard and then disappearing
and not showing up for duty, Paul?
> > Every business he ever started went bankrupt and had to be bought out
> > by his father's friends.
>
> That's wrong as well, but why stop there?
Name a business that he founded that didn't fail. Hell, he even
fucked up the Rangers for a while.
> > His father's name and contacts bought him into politics.
>
> Wrong again.
Rubber. Glue.
> > He ruined Texas as governor.
>
> He was the best governor Texas had in the past half century
...
> He'll be remembered as one of the best of this Century.
You are cracked. You have no concept of reality. You are medically
admissible as delusional. Psychologically unhinged.
> Uber power, mega rich, whooo, hoo!! How much do you think the man
> has, Sam? Anything close to John F. Kerry? How about the VP
> candidate, John Edwards, and his what, 29,000 square foot mansion -
> I guess he's showing us how the "other America" really lives..
Are you incapable of understanding an argument at all? I mean, do you
have the intellectual ability to figure one out?
> > Complete, total fuckup.
>
> Run for Congress, Sam. Show you're better.
I show I'm better every day I don't.
s/
Hutcheson, Sam
> PS: For those not from Atlanta, Oakland Cemetery is
> not only the home to the "Lion of Atlanta", the
> South's answer to the "Tomb of the Unknown Soldier",
> but also the resting place for many (or most) of
> the Civil Rights figures from the 1950's to present
And right across Memorial from the original Six Feet Under, best fried
catfish and raw oysters in town.
s/
Tomasz Radko
>>> Complete, total fuckup.
>> Run for Congress, Sam. Show you're better.
>
> I show I'm better every day I don't.
Yes, but only in lying, which would make you a perfect Democrat
congressman, BTW.
Jolly Rogers
>> > His father's name and contacts bought him into politics.
>>
>> Wrong again.
>
> Rubber. Glue.
The schoolyard "I am rubber, you are glue" comeback sums up your brilliant
career of countering facts and truths with your "deep, insightful
counterpoints". Excellent.
--
Jolly Rogers
bgs
>> On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 16:34:04 -0400, "zig zigalo" <zigg...@gmail.com>
>> gave us:
>>> Atlanta Cardfan wrote:
>>>> Hutcheson, Sam wrote:
>>
>>>>> Complete, total fuckup.
>>
>>>> Run for Congress, Sam. Show you're better.
>>
>>>> I'll even put up signs for you.
>>
>>> shall we try to draft sam again? we had some really nice campaign
>>> slogans a while back, although most of them would never make it to
>>> a sign.
>>
>> The idea of Sam onstage in a debate, calling his opponents "batshit
>> fucking loons" almost makes me tear up with national pride.
>>
>> --
>> Lance
I'm glad I wasn't in the middle of swallowing coca cola
--
Scott
zig zigalo
> On Jul 2, 4:17 pm, Atlanta Cardfan <u...@example.net> wrote:
>
>>> He went AWOL from the military.
>>
>> That's bullshit, but that fact never stopped you from repeating it.
>
> What would you call joining the National Guard and then disappearing
> and not showing up for duty, Paul?
>
something dan rather really wished were true?
Atlanta Cardfan
> On Jul 2, 4:17 pm, Atlanta Cardfan <u...@example.net> wrote:
>
>>> He went AWOL from the military.
>> That's bullshit, but that fact never stopped you from repeating it.
>
> What would you call joining the National Guard and then disappearing
> and not showing up for duty, Paul?
>
He's got something called a DD 214, just like I do. An Honorable Discharge.
You don't get one of those (Honorable Discharges) if you go AWOL.
Most of your Stalinist buddies don't know what one is.
>>> Every business he ever started went bankrupt and had to be bought out
>>> by his father's friends.
>> That's wrong as well, but why stop there?
>
> Name a business that he founded that didn't fail. Hell, he even
> fucked up the Rangers for a while.
>
You and your friends have to come clean somewhere.. either he
made money with the Rangers, or he fucked them up. You guys
are always riding the fence on that one.
>>> His father's name and contacts bought him into politics.
>> Wrong again.
>
> Rubber. Glue.
>
Just how much of Dad's money was involved? And just why does
that matter, anyway? Are you going to crawl up the rectum of
every politician (like you have Bush) to determine where their
initial campaign funds came from?
I'll wager that President Bush's inaugural Congressional run
had less screwy money in it than almost any you could name.
And I know where the money came from for our two existing
state Senators; they're not crooked either.
I do recall all sorts of issues with our prior President's
issues (or was it the current Presidential Candidates' issues?)
with certain land deals.
Geez, isn't this fun? Having a Dem supporter talk about
Republicans being dishonest. Shit, the line to the till
is so long on your side of the fence, there ain't no green
grass any more.
>>> He ruined Texas as governor.
>> He was the best governor Texas had in the past half century
>
> ...
Yeah, that's right. He was the best in the last 50 years.
Ask a real Texan.
If you know one.
>
>> He'll be remembered as one of the best of this Century.
>
> You are cracked. You have no concept of reality. You are medically
> admissible as delusional. Psychologically unhinged.
What was that? Rubber, Glue?
>
>> Uber power, mega rich, whooo, hoo!! How much do you think the man
>> has, Sam? Anything close to John F. Kerry? How about the VP
>> candidate, John Edwards, and his what, 29,000 square foot mansion -
>> I guess he's showing us how the "other America" really lives..
>
> Are you incapable of understanding an argument at all? I mean, do you
> have the intellectual ability to figure one out?
>
Yes. It's called defend your own POS.
>
>>> Complete, total fuckup.
>> Run for Congress, Sam. Show you're better.
>
> I show I'm better every day I don't.
It's called Public Service, Sam. Putting up with moonbats like
you that offer up baseless opinions, all for the idea that you
can help make the Country a better place.
At least I help put out signs.
Paul
Atlanta Cardfan
> "Atlanta Cardfan" <us...@example.net> wrote...
>> The "world sides with you" is more fickle than even the
>> American public, so there was no "there" there to begin with.
>> You'd better take a check on that.. and just how much of
>> an ally is it if they leave you so easily? There are
>> some "friends" you can do without.
>
> However, as I seem to have to explain ad nauseam, you have to be prepared to
> work with the allies you have, not the allies you wish you had. If you piss
> those people off by being diplomatically dismissive, you make it harder to
> fight your global war.
>
>> monstrously increased entitlements with the prescription drug act,
>> and the alternative with the Dems in charge would have been sooo
>> much cheaper! Really?
>
> Had a Democrat president implemented this clusterf**k I'd be equally pissed
> off, but at least they wouldn't have been doing it while pretending to be
> small government conservatives. Bush and other self-proclaimed conservatives
> sold out their principle when they campaigned for and signed off on this
> boondoggle.
>
I'm not ecstatic about huge import placed on Standardized Testing
either - no new plan with great change involved is perfect - but the
point was to get _some_ form of measurement in place, and it is finally
there. Testing of teachers was important, too - a time waster for
good schools, but very important in sucky ones.
I don't see it as the boondoggle you do. Schools that suck are under
a real big hurt to implement change. Maybe you haven't seen schools
that suck, I have. They have dozens of them in South Atlanta, quite
a few in DeKalb County. Many of them have faced the music and are
making changes that change things for the better. Some chose to
fight their battles politically, and I think they are losing.
>> escalated federal involvement in schools by a few orders of magnitude,
>>
>> and this bothers a Dem.. how?
>
> It bothers me on several levels, most notably its worshipping at the altar
> of highly falliblse standardized testing as the be all and end all, along
> with its introducing more levels of bureaucracy that interfere with the
> abilities of teachers to do their jobs.
>
No, it's called finding a way to means test the school age populace.
Tell me how its done without standardized testing, Colin. It has been
found that there are sucky schools out there, sucky teachers out there,
and they needed to be found.
Don't act like we didn't have the testing before, Colin. In order for
the students to get to you, they had to go through the process. What's
wrong with having them all have a chance at going through a standardized
test or two outside of the rich and tutored?
>> Nope. Not even close. Embarrassing in a few accounts, but nowhere
>> near what you'll see from this year's (hidden) entitlements from the
>> Dems.
>
> So you're not willing to denounce non-cnservative government as long as you
> can rationalize that "Democrats could have been worse." Very principled
> stand, Paul.
>
There is no "could." There is "would", will, as in, most certainly
will be worse. Plus, the spending you're referring to happened more
than two years ago - and you apparently haven't noticed the pleasant
surprises we consistently get in amount of revenues raised each year
and the surpluses we are receiving versus the projected deficits.
>> Roberts and Alito were just icing on the cake as to finally having
>> someone in the WH with a spine rather than a forked tongue.
>
> You seem pretty isolated in the idea that there's a cake for the icing.
>
I've been an island before. Didn't bother me then, either.
Paul
Ben B
>
> > I show I'm better every day I don't.
>
> Yes, but only in lying, which would make you a perfect
tomasz, you seem to have decided that your only reply to sam is going
to be to call him a liar. is there a reason for this? as often as the
man is wrong (and as rarely as he admits it) it's really not accurate
to call him a liar. and if he were, it would be much more effective to
point out the lie, rather than just calling him a liar without backing
it up.
--
Ben
Tomasz Radko
> to be to call him a liar. is there a reason for this?
Yes, of course. Find his post from 2007-06-30 15:03 and my answer from
15:49 (well, that's from my time zone, you should probably add 6 hours
or so)
as often as the
> man is wrong (and as rarely as he admits it) it's really not accurate
> to call him a liar.
In this case, it is.
and if he were, it would be much more effective to
> point out the lie,
I did. The sad truth is that Sam will tell any lie just to "prove" his
point.
pzdr
TRad
Hutcheson, Sam
> Hutcheson, Sam wrote:
> > On Jul 2, 4:17 pm, Atlanta Cardfan <u...@example.net> wrote:
>
> >>> He went AWOL from the military.
>
> >> That's bullshit, but that fact never stopped you from repeating it.
>
> > What would you call joining the National Guard and then disappearing
> > and not showing up for duty, Paul?
>
> something dan rather really wished were true?
Please. Look at the records. One set of questionable documents,
which have by no means been proven to be false, do not discredit the
rest of the military's record keeping. The man failed to complete his
service. He left and went to work for a political campaign in
Alabama. This isn't secret stuff.
s/