Andrew f'ing Jackson?!!!! The same f'ing president who booted the Cherokee of their land EVEN after the Supreme Court ordered him not to?? -- "I'm the one with the army." So much for the "law of the land."
What a total f'nut of a president. I HATE THAT GUY WITH A PASSION. Glad he's dead.
US: Clinton (hmmm... Bush, Regan or li'l Bush are the other choices...)
Canada: Treadeu (SP?), this guy was the MAN!
Ancient
US: FDR, bloody cool guy. Though Clinton got in shit for playing with a cigar, FDR had rooms for his mistrises in the whitehouse. After that maybe Thomas Jefferson ("Beer is proof that god loves us and wants us to be happy")
Canada: Tough one, I really dont think that I could pick one out of the bunch.
Nah, Teddy R. would have shut M$ down.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Interestingly enough, while TR was known as the "Trust Buster", Taft actually broke up more trusts. (just thought I'd share that random tidbit of information)
First, he actually made American's feel proud to be American and wasn't part of the hate/blame America first crowd. He was also very good at communicating why socialism is actually bad...he came from the left, he lived and trained in it (Hollywood) and then left it for serious reasons...reasons which people die over. He stood his ground no matter what it cost him.
Plus, like it or not, it was his economic policies which created the boom in this country, the boom which Bush and Clinton both enjoyed.
As for Clinton, he's the reason parents had to explain what a blowjob was to 7 year old children. He had a total lack of any measure of personal responsibility. And as for terrorism, his responses to Somalia, the embassy bombings, and the Cole were a direct impact on the WTC attacks.
<strong>As for Clinton, he's the reason parents had to explain what a blowjob was to 7 year old children. He had a total lack of any measure of personal responsibility. And as for terrorism, his responses to Somalia, the embassy bombings, and the Cole were a direct impact on the WTC attacks.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<strong>As for Clinton, .... And as for terrorism, his responses to Somalia, the embassy bombings, and the Cole were a direct impact on the WTC attacks.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The New York Times (link requires registration) has a timely reminder of what it was like when America was too timid to defend its interests. The paper interviews Rodney Sickman, who was a Marine guard at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran when terrorists took it over in 1979:
On orders from his superiors, Sergeant Sickmann did not so much as lob a tear gas grenade at the mob coming to occupy the embassy. Now he thinks he and his fellow guards should have started shooting.
"Had we opened fire on them, maybe we would only have lasted an hour," he said. But if he and 51 others had died there, rather than becoming hostages for the next 444 days, "we could have changed history," he said, by sending the message that Americans could not be attacked without cost. Instead, he said, the surrender sent the message that there was no penalty for attacking the United States.
"If you look back, it started in 1979; it's just escalated," he said in an interview.<hr></blockquote>
Clinton's polls didn't tell him to fight the war on terror. But none of the other presidents acted that well either.
More "blame America first" from the right-wing.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Wake the eff up. Clinton dropped the ball when it came to dealing with terrorism. If he'd have taken Sudan's offer when they were prepared to turn bin Laden over, nobody would have been able to even think about "wag the dog".
I also think Reagan had a hand in encouraging terrorists with his screwed up effort in Lebanon. He at least undid some of that damage with the raid on Libya.
My beef with Clinton stems from Somalia. Even though public reaction and Congress urged him to get out, the message sent was simple: kill a few American soldiers and we pack up and leave. Total lack of political will and totally driven by poll numbers. The outcome then affected how Bosina was conducted, from the air so no soldiers were killed. Terrorists notice this behavior and few it as weak.
<strong>Hee hee.</strong><hr></blockquote>Yeah, that was my Scott_H-like response. It's kinda fun, actually; I can see why he does it. It just ticks people off and you don't have to really say anything of substance yourself.
<strong>No it's more "Blame Clinton First". Which is easy because he ****ed up so bad.</strong><hr></blockquote>
[quote]Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
<strong>Wake the eff up. Clinton dropped the ball when it came to dealing with terrorism.</strong><hr></blockquote>You guys think it's OK to blame America, as long as it's an American you don't like. Clinton, homos in San Francisco, whoever your bad guy is, it's their fault. (And what is it with political discourse from right-wingers that they can't avoid emotional arguments and **** words.)
Let me ask you guys something - do you blame Bush too? He did absolutely nothing regarding terrorism for 9 months into office, and then under his watch we got nailed worse than any other time in history. Clinton did take several actions, and was criticized by the right-wing for taking those actions at all. And Clinton prevented a terrorist action on the scale of 9/11 (the Millennium bombing plot). Bush is more to blame than Clinton, if you're going to play that game.
But I personally blame the terrorists themselves for terrorism. You guys blame other Americans.
[quote]If he'd have taken Sudan's offer when they were prepared to turn bin Laden over, nobody would have been able to even think about "wag the dog".<hr></blockquote>
That was in what - 1994? Years before the Embassy bombings and the Cole. Sure, that would have been great, in hindsight. They had him expelled instead, and he just went to Afghanistan to operate, and so it was even harder to get to him. And now the Sudanese say they would have turned him over to us, but do we really know that? No. It could have been just like the Taliban. It's all hindsight.
But if you want to play that game, bin Laden was on the CIA's radar screen even during the previous Bush administration. So both HW and W are at least as much to blame as Clinton, if you're going that route.
Bush was working on a plan. He didn't get it done fast enough. You could blame him for that but ... he wasn't in office for a year yet. Clinton faded in the face of one terrorist attack after another. He failed to respond. He was not working on a plan of action.
Bush is more to blame than Clinton, if you're going to play that game.
But I personally blame the terrorists themselves for terrorism. You guys blame other Americans.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Right. You blame Bush but you don't really blame Bush.
Do you even read your own words? Have you ever said even one critical thing of Clinton? Do you really think it was an infallible 8 years? Clinton is responsible for his screwups. Holding him accountable for them doesn't mean I think America's enemies shouldn't be held responsible for the evil they do. Why is that too subtle a distinction for you to make?
Comments
What a total f'nut of a president. I HATE THAT GUY WITH A PASSION. Glad he's dead.
Being an American in Canada Ill rate both
Modern:
US: Clinton (hmmm... Bush, Regan or li'l Bush are the other choices...)
Canada: Treadeu (SP?), this guy was the MAN!
Ancient
US: FDR, bloody cool guy. Though Clinton got in shit for playing with a cigar, FDR had rooms for his mistrises in the whitehouse. After that maybe Thomas Jefferson ("Beer is proof that god loves us and wants us to be happy")
Canada: Tough one, I really dont think that I could pick one out of the bunch.
Nah, Teddy R. would have shut M$ down.
<strong>
Nah, Teddy R. would have shut M$ down.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Interestingly enough, while TR was known as the "Trust Buster", Taft actually broke up more trusts. (just thought I'd share that random tidbit of information)
First, he actually made American's feel proud to be American and wasn't part of the hate/blame America first crowd. He was also very good at communicating why socialism is actually bad...he came from the left, he lived and trained in it (Hollywood) and then left it for serious reasons...reasons which people die over. He stood his ground no matter what it cost him.
Plus, like it or not, it was his economic policies which created the boom in this country, the boom which Bush and Clinton both enjoyed.
As for Clinton, he's the reason parents had to explain what a blowjob was to 7 year old children. He had a total lack of any measure of personal responsibility. And as for terrorism, his responses to Somalia, the embassy bombings, and the Cole were a direct impact on the WTC attacks.
<strong>As for Clinton, he's the reason parents had to explain what a blowjob was to 7 year old children. He had a total lack of any measure of personal responsibility. And as for terrorism, his responses to Somalia, the embassy bombings, and the Cole were a direct impact on the WTC attacks.</strong><hr></blockquote>
More "blame America first" from the right-wing.
<strong>As for Clinton, .... And as for terrorism, his responses to Somalia, the embassy bombings, and the Cole were a direct impact on the WTC attacks.</strong><hr></blockquote>
To be fair ... I read <a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=100001670"; target="_blank">this</a> yesterday and found it very interesting.
[quote]<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/10/politics/10HOST.html"; target="_blank">They Shoulda Shot</a>
The New York Times (link requires registration) has a timely reminder of what it was like when America was too timid to defend its interests. The paper interviews Rodney Sickman, who was a Marine guard at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran when terrorists took it over in 1979:
On orders from his superiors, Sergeant Sickmann did not so much as lob a tear gas grenade at the mob coming to occupy the embassy. Now he thinks he and his fellow guards should have started shooting.
"Had we opened fire on them, maybe we would only have lasted an hour," he said. But if he and 51 others had died there, rather than becoming hostages for the next 444 days, "we could have changed history," he said, by sending the message that Americans could not be attacked without cost. Instead, he said, the surrender sent the message that there was no penalty for attacking the United States.
"If you look back, it started in 1979; it's just escalated," he said in an interview.<hr></blockquote>
Clinton's polls didn't tell him to fight the war on terror. But none of the other presidents acted that well either.
[ 02-12-2002: Message edited by: Scott H. ]</p>
<strong>
More "blame America first" from the right-wing.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Wake the eff up. Clinton dropped the ball when it came to dealing with terrorism. If he'd have taken Sudan's offer when they were prepared to turn bin Laden over, nobody would have been able to even think about "wag the dog".
I also think Reagan had a hand in encouraging terrorists with his screwed up effort in Lebanon. He at least undid some of that damage with the raid on Libya.
<strong>
More "blame America first" from the right-wing.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No it's more "Blame Clinton First". Which is easy because he ****ed up so bad.
More "blame America first" from the right-wing.<hr></blockquote>
Hee hee.
<strong>
No it's more "Blame Clinton First". Which is easy because he ****ed up so bad.</strong><hr></blockquote>
How so? (Your cryptic bashing isn't really enlightening any of us)
<strong>Hee hee.</strong><hr></blockquote>Yeah, that was my Scott_H-like response. It's kinda fun, actually; I can see why he does it. It just ticks people off and you don't have to really say anything of substance yourself.
<strong>I posted in the other thread. If you have to ask what Clinton ****ed up then you need to read some old news papers.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, then, I responded to the other thread, and I read the newspaper on a daily base. I just tend to let the facts cloud my reasoning.
<strong>No it's more "Blame Clinton First". Which is easy because he ****ed up so bad.</strong><hr></blockquote>
[quote]Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
<strong>Wake the eff up. Clinton dropped the ball when it came to dealing with terrorism.</strong><hr></blockquote>You guys think it's OK to blame America, as long as it's an American you don't like. Clinton, homos in San Francisco, whoever your bad guy is, it's their fault. (And what is it with political discourse from right-wingers that they can't avoid emotional arguments and **** words.)
Let me ask you guys something - do you blame Bush too? He did absolutely nothing regarding terrorism for 9 months into office, and then under his watch we got nailed worse than any other time in history. Clinton did take several actions, and was criticized by the right-wing for taking those actions at all. And Clinton prevented a terrorist action on the scale of 9/11 (the Millennium bombing plot). Bush is more to blame than Clinton, if you're going to play that game.
But I personally blame the terrorists themselves for terrorism. You guys blame other Americans.
[quote]If he'd have taken Sudan's offer when they were prepared to turn bin Laden over, nobody would have been able to even think about "wag the dog".<hr></blockquote>
That was in what - 1994? Years before the Embassy bombings and the Cole. Sure, that would have been great, in hindsight. They had him expelled instead, and he just went to Afghanistan to operate, and so it was even harder to get to him. And now the Sudanese say they would have turned him over to us, but do we really know that? No. It could have been just like the Taliban. It's all hindsight.
But if you want to play that game, bin Laden was on the CIA's radar screen even during the previous Bush administration. So both HW and W are at least as much to blame as Clinton, if you're going that route.
Bush was working on a plan. He didn't get it done fast enough. You could blame him for that but ... he wasn't in office for a year yet. Clinton faded in the face of one terrorist attack after another. He failed to respond. He was not working on a plan of action.
All he worked on what getting a blow job.
<strong>
Bush is more to blame than Clinton, if you're going to play that game.
But I personally blame the terrorists themselves for terrorism. You guys blame other Americans.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Right. You blame Bush but you don't really blame Bush.
Do you even read your own words? Have you ever said even one critical thing of Clinton? Do you really think it was an infallible 8 years? Clinton is responsible for his screwups. Holding him accountable for them doesn't mean I think America's enemies shouldn't be held responsible for the evil they do. Why is that too subtle a distinction for you to make?
<strong>
That was in what - 1994? Years before the Embassy bombings and the Cole.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It was after Mogadishu.