The reason they fumbled the ball was that the Saudis were unwilling to take custody of bin Laden, and the Clintonites decided they didn't have enough evidence to indict bin Laden in an American court. Indict him? Why wasn't he killed? Such are the fruits of treating terrorism as a simple criminal offense, rather than an act of war.
Woops. Somebody is having trouble drawing within the lines. Of a sudden, all constitutions of all free nations are shit. Apparently, there are crimes that don't need judging? Also, you'll have to excuse me, but I will not accept terrorism as an act of war. War is fought between countries. As soon as Al Qaeda gets UN recognition for its countryship, I'll accept this term. And even if it WERE a legit war the US is fighting against Al Qaeda, then still there is a certain Geneva convention with which mister Bush happily wipes his rear end.
More underwhelming still, Aquafire. I never knew you were this militarist and belligerent.
Some of the best.....Washington, Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt. Worst, well I don't know so much about bad Presidents from way back so I'll go with Nixon, Reagan and Dubya. I was born in 1970 and didn't feel like we had a decent President in my lifetime till Clinton.
my biggest problems with clinton were that the great economic boom of the 90's seemed to be founded on the dot.com's that eventually dissolved into dot.bombs at or around 2000, and the likes of enron and their evil corporate pals.
i'm not sure how much of the latter was his fault (or his assembled administration), seeing as how enron had help from arthur andersen to evade the authorities, but even a blind person could tell that the dot.com's were gonna make a lot of people very, very bankrupt. product? profit? who needs 'em?!?
plus, wasn't clinton just as behind dereg'ing of power as gray davis? having just come from toronto, i could have told you that deregulation of power doesn't work, and shafts the common person (kinda like how they privatized the postal system up there, and it is a shambles). who knows when they'll have that mess cleared up.
but somehow, clinton was well-spoken enough to make me (and everyone else) feel okay about everything, and talk his way out of trouble at every turn. whereas, now it seems like bush et al. are stuck cleaning up the mess left behind, and are bloody TERRIBLE about making anyone -- domestic or abroad -- feel better about what they are doing about it.
crap, didn't i say i was going to stay out of this thread???
I'd say my favorite president was Woodrow Wilson. I haven't seen him mentioned here yet. He was put in a very tricky situation, what with the beginning of World War I, and he managed to delay US involvement for a while even though it was basically inevitable that the US would have to send in troops eventually. His League of Nations and Fourteen Points were excellent forerunners to the modern United Nations. This was a man who really put his entire life into going for world peace.
Strangely, another favorite president of mine is Teddy Roosevelt. I just admire him as a person... a real outdoorsy type, and he created the national park system which I am very thankful for. Even though he was more of a war hawk than I would like, he still seems like quite a character.
My least favorite president is Andrew Jackson by far. Did you know he was the only president who was also a murderer? He killed an Indian in a bar fight, sometime before he was elected.
I don't like Reagan either... not as a person, because he wasn't a mean old bastard like Jackson, but I don't think he was a very good president. He got the country into a HUGE deficit, largest ever. I don't know why people say he did a lot for the economy... I mean, deficit spending is a really easy way to buy lots of planes and bombs and tanks, but I don't think it's very good for the economy.
Wilson was one of the weakest and most ineffective Presidents in history. The league of nations was even more of a dismal failure than the UN is today.
Roosevelt was excellent...as most historians will tell you.
Reagan: You're holding some really typical false ideas about Reagan. Here we go again: Gov't revenue went UP...(two fold) after his tax policies were implemented. Deficits were caused by 1) Discretionary (Non-Defense) Spending and 2) Defense Spending. The latter was necessary at the time to demonstrate to the Soviets that they could not compete with us militarily because of our Capitalistic free market. It worked. As you know, this was called Peace Through Stength. Reagan was perhaps the second best President in history, second only to Lincoln. Reagan won the cold war (notice the lack of derisive liberal quotes around the word), liberated Grenada, bombed Lybia (who we haven't heard a word from since, btw), revolutionized the tax system as revived the country from a near depression. It is amazing that there are people who think like you: "Reagan spent too much on bombs!" "We don't need more bombs!" "War monger!!!".
Best: Lyndon Johnson (Great Society, War on Poverty, Civil Rights, Affirmative Action)
Worst: Definitely GWB. Even Nixon, his father, Harding or Reagan weren't as bad.
(Interesting by best and worst are Texans, although GWB technically isn't a Texan since he wasn't born in Texas)
All US history
Best: George Washington
Worst: Andrew Johnson
The Great Society!?!?!?! Can you spell "F-A-I-L-U-R-E"??? How about "total mismanagement of the Vietnam war"???
And, of course you'd say GWB. Of course. How about some reasons?
der kopf:
Quote:
Terrorism? Call me a kitten (to avoid the nasty word), but I don't believe unearthing the structures of Al Qaeda is the way to go. What I do believe is that solving the problems that might cause an Al Qaeda can be fruitful.
And how do we do that? I am so sick and tired of ridiculous, meaningless statments like this. What are these problems? What needs to be changed? These people hate Western Civilization in general, not just the US. Speciffically though, they hate American capitalism and success around the world. Do what exactly? Talk nicely to them?
Eugene:
Quote:
Another thing Clinton didn't do that every president I can remember did is salute soldiers...whether stepping out of Marine 1 or just walking by a guard house.
This is nitpicking of course.
In his defense, I don't think Presidents who didn't serve in the military do that.
kopf again:
Quote:
Woops. Somebody is having trouble drawing within the lines. Of a sudden, all constitutions of all free nations are shit. Apparently, there are crimes that don't need judging? Also, you'll have to excuse me, but I will not accept terrorism as an act of war. War is fought between countries. As soon as Al Qaeda gets UN recognition for its countryship, I'll accept this term. And even if it WERE a legit war the US is fighting against Al Qaeda, then still there is a certain Geneva convention with which mister Bush happily wipes his rear end.
More underwhelming still, Aquafire. I never knew you were this militarist and belligerent
Wow. Just, wow. Treating terror like a felony or misdemeanor is exactly the problem. You want to apply judicial standards to terrorist organizations...as did Clinton. Clinton's refusal to act may have CONTRIBUTED to the 9/11 terror attack. He took no real responsive action to the Embassy bombings, the Cole, etc. He launched a few cruise missiles, stirred up the hornet's nest, and went back to his BJ and cigar. Thank God you are not running the country. Really. Terrorists aren't robbing banks or running red lights. They are murdering Americans and promise to contnue to do so. They are willing to give their lives to destroy this country and our lifestyle...and you want to see them on Court TV. Yeah...good idea.
my biggest problems with clinton were that the great economic boom of the 90's seemed to be founded on the dot.com's that eventually dissolved into dot.bombs at or around 2000, and the likes of enron and their evil corporate pals.
i'm not sure how much of the latter was his fault (or his assembled administration), seeing as how enron had help from arthur andersen to evade the authorities, but even a blind person could tell that the dot.com's were gonna make a lot of people very, very bankrupt. product? profit? who needs 'em?!?
plus, wasn't clinton just as behind dereg'ing of power as gray davis? having just come from toronto, i could have told you that deregulation of power doesn't work, and shafts the common person (kinda like how they privatized the postal system up there, and it is a shambles). who knows when they'll have that mess cleared up.
but somehow, clinton was well-spoken enough to make me (and everyone else) feel okay about everything, and talk his way out of trouble at every turn. whereas, now it seems like bush et al. are stuck cleaning up the mess left behind, and are bloody TERRIBLE about making anyone -- domestic or abroad -- feel better about what they are doing about it.
crap, didn't i say i was going to stay out of this thread???
Some here may pop there eyes out, but I don't blame Clinton for those things. I don't give him any credit for the economy either, but the dot-coms aren;t and wern't his fault. High taxes and a lack of energy policy were his fault.
Deregulation can and does work. I'm in PA, and we have electric choice. We're fine now.
As far as Clinton's speaking: He made me fell good about nothing. I never felt anyone was really in charge. He undermined national security and caused many of the problems we have today. Though I said he was one of our worst Presidents, he won;t go down in hisotry as that...mostly because of the booming economy.
Terrorists aren't robbing banks or running red lights. They are murdering Americans and promise to contnue to do so. They are willing to give their lives to destroy this country and our lifestyle...and you want to see them on Court TV.
You put it a bit harsh, but that's basically what I believe, yes. These free countries we supposedly live in have a judicial system that is built on the experience of generations of crime and punishment. I don't think it's a good idea to start picking certain extra horrendous crimes and put them besides the law. That would be inquisition, and would lead, in my opinion, to a general erosion of the judicial system. Soon enough, we'd see people get their hands chopped of immediately after they're put under formal suspicion of stealing 3 video tapes of 'Free Willy'. No matter how fierce the crime, everybody should be granted a fair trial.
[this, for easyness' sake, does not include all things war-related]
The time between this post and your last one was 3 1/2 minutes at the most...
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001 to Existence
And, of course you'd say GWB. Of course. How about some reasons?
You've already demonstrated that you are willing to ignore reasons (see above).
Quote:
Treating terror like a felony or misdemeanor is exactly the problem. You want to apply judicial standards to terrorist organizations...as did Clinton. Clinton's refusal to act may have CONTRIBUTED to the 9/11 terror attack. He took no real responsive action to the Embassy bombings, the Cole, etc. He launched a few cruise missiles, stirred up the hornet's nest, and went back to his BJ and cigar. Thank God you are not running the country. Really. Terrorists aren't robbing banks or running red lights. They are murdering Americans and promise to contnue to do so. They are willing to give their lives to destroy this country and our lifestyle...and you want to see them on Court TV.
Rational man has developed the court system for a reason. It protects individuals from abuse and lets us be as sure as possible that the individual in question is not innocent. The court system is designed to take care of crimes, including murder, regardless if the motive is political or not. The thing it has a hard time dealing with is the international status of many politically driven suspects, and that just means we need to adapt the system. Giving the government a green light to just kill or even indefintely detain suspected murderers simply because of their political motives is unacceptable, especially when there is no effort being made to adapt the judicial system to handle these cases.
Woops. Somebody is having trouble drawing within the lines. Of a sudden, all constitutions of all free nations are shit. Apparently, there are crimes that don't
need judging? Also, you'll have to excuse me, but I will not accept terrorism as an act of war. War is fought between countries. As soon as Al Qaeda gets UN
recognition for its countryship, I'll accept this term. And even if it WERE a legit war the US is fighting against Al Qaeda, then still there is a certain Geneva
convention with which mister Bush happily wipes his rear end.
Actually by Geneva convention a recognized warring party has certain protections that terrorists don't have. By Geneva convetions on the rules of war a terrorist does not have the same protections, ask the Tupac Amaru in Peru. They were once considered a legitimate warring party fighting a civil war, since their hostage takeover of the Japanese emabassy circa 95-96 their status became terrorist organization, they don't get a trial, they get shot.
PS these aren't my rules of war, these were adopted multi-laterally in Geneva, I'll post a link as soon as I find one.
Some here may pop there eyes out, but I don't blame Clinton for those things. I don't give him any credit for the economy either, but the dot-coms aren;t and wern't his fault. High taxes and a lack of energy policy were his fault.
Deregulation can and does work. I'm in PA, and we have electric choice. We're fine now.
As far as Clinton's speaking: He made me fell good about nothing. I never felt anyone was really in charge. He undermined national security and caused many of the problems we have today. Though I said he was one of our worst Presidents, he won;t go down in hisotry as that...mostly because of the booming economy.
Dufus is on TV right now and Bush makes me feel insecure about everything.
He get's on TV to crow about Saddam's sons and then doesn't give definite answers about anything! Why did they have this news conference?
By the way I noticed Katie Couric noting that it was Dubya's 9th news conference while Clinton by this time had 30. Now SDW will see that as " Liberal news casting ". I see it as telling and the truth.
Wasn't Ronald Wilson Reagan in charge during the Iran-Contra scandal? People lost their lives for political expedience, blowjobs in the White House be damned. Either Reagan knew (inconceivable that he didn't) and his foreign affairs policy was self-serving, immoral and arrogant, or he didn't and he was incompetent.
Either way, his administration had no business training and funding the Contras. Terrorists are not OK, even if you agree with their aims and they're killing other people.
Ronald Reagan was an actor. He was the man who didn't realise the mic was on before a nationwide broadcast and announced "My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes."
A fool. A laughing stock.
He blighted my childhood. I remember when he refused to ratify the SALT treaty on arms limitation even though Gorbachev's cabinet OK'd it. I was really frightened of nuclear war breaking out every minute of every day. I'm not being melodramatic, I was a kid.
You can argue about Reagan's economic policy amongst yourselves; I don't just think he was one of the worst presidents America ever had, he's one of the people in this world I hate the most.
To rebut one of SDW's points on Ronald Wilson Reagan, the man didn't 'win' the Cold War at all. Glasnost and Perestroika - Gorbachev's policies of openness and restructuring - lost it for the Soviet Union. That's where the deadlock was broken. Reagan did nothing to make the world a safer place; he ratcheted up the tension and spent billions on arms. Gorbachev lost it. Reagan didn't win it. We're incredibly fortunate we didn't have two decades of Andropov.
Actually by Geneva convention a recognized warring party has certain protections that terrorists don't have.
That's the precise deadlock I'm talking about. I think they should be tried as any normal suspected criminal would. They are not, because SDW and his government consider them prisoners of war. Yet, for some dark reason, that doesn't give them the rights war prisoners/criminals should get. What'll it be?
Comments
Ps My hammering away at Clinton doesn't mean that I esteem Bush... nope..
I still haven't really made my mind up at the Bushwhaka
Besides which he's got some ways to go yet before the end of his term...
The reason they fumbled the ball was that the Saudis were unwilling to take custody of bin Laden, and the Clintonites decided they didn't have enough evidence to indict bin Laden in an American court. Indict him? Why wasn't he killed? Such are the fruits of treating terrorism as a simple criminal offense, rather than an act of war.
Woops. Somebody is having trouble drawing within the lines. Of a sudden, all constitutions of all free nations are shit. Apparently, there are crimes that don't need judging? Also, you'll have to excuse me, but I will not accept terrorism as an act of war. War is fought between countries. As soon as Al Qaeda gets UN recognition for its countryship, I'll accept this term. And even if it WERE a legit war the US is fighting against Al Qaeda, then still there is a certain Geneva convention with which mister Bush happily wipes his rear end.
More underwhelming still, Aquafire. I never knew you were this militarist and belligerent.
Originally posted by trick fall
Some of the best.....Washington, Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt. Worst, well I don't know so much about bad Presidents from way back so I'll go with Nixon, Reagan and Dubya. I was born in 1970 and didn't feel like we had a decent President in my lifetime till Clinton.
Oh my God.
i'm not sure how much of the latter was his fault (or his assembled administration), seeing as how enron had help from arthur andersen to evade the authorities, but even a blind person could tell that the dot.com's were gonna make a lot of people very, very bankrupt. product? profit? who needs 'em?!?
plus, wasn't clinton just as behind dereg'ing of power as gray davis? having just come from toronto, i could have told you that deregulation of power doesn't work, and shafts the common person (kinda like how they privatized the postal system up there, and it is a shambles). who knows when they'll have that mess cleared up.
but somehow, clinton was well-spoken enough to make me (and everyone else) feel okay about everything, and talk his way out of trouble at every turn. whereas, now it seems like bush et al. are stuck cleaning up the mess left behind, and are bloody TERRIBLE about making anyone -- domestic or abroad -- feel better about what they are doing about it.
crap, didn't i say i was going to stay out of this thread???
Originally posted by Luca Rescigno
I'd say my favorite president was Woodrow Wilson. I haven't seen him mentioned here yet. He was put in a very tricky situation, what with the beginning of World War I, and he managed to delay US involvement for a while even though it was basically inevitable that the US would have to send in troops eventually. His League of Nations and Fourteen Points were excellent forerunners to the modern United Nations. This was a man who really put his entire life into going for world peace.
Strangely, another favorite president of mine is Teddy Roosevelt. I just admire him as a person... a real outdoorsy type, and he created the national park system which I am very thankful for. Even though he was more of a war hawk than I would like, he still seems like quite a character.
My least favorite president is Andrew Jackson by far. Did you know he was the only president who was also a murderer? He killed an Indian in a bar fight, sometime before he was elected.
I don't like Reagan either... not as a person, because he wasn't a mean old bastard like Jackson, but I don't think he was a very good president. He got the country into a HUGE deficit, largest ever. I don't know why people say he did a lot for the economy... I mean, deficit spending is a really easy way to buy lots of planes and bombs and tanks, but I don't think it's very good for the economy.
Wilson was one of the weakest and most ineffective Presidents in history. The league of nations was even more of a dismal failure than the UN is today.
Roosevelt was excellent...as most historians will tell you.
Reagan: You're holding some really typical false ideas about Reagan. Here we go again: Gov't revenue went UP...(two fold) after his tax policies were implemented. Deficits were caused by 1) Discretionary (Non-Defense) Spending and 2) Defense Spending. The latter was necessary at the time to demonstrate to the Soviets that they could not compete with us militarily because of our Capitalistic free market. It worked. As you know, this was called Peace Through Stength. Reagan was perhaps the second best President in history, second only to Lincoln. Reagan won the cold war (notice the lack of derisive liberal quotes around the word), liberated Grenada, bombed Lybia (who we haven't heard a word from since, btw), revolutionized the tax system as revived the country from a near depression. It is amazing that there are people who think like you: "Reagan spent too much on bombs!" "We don't need more bombs!" "War monger!!!".
Originally posted by giant
George Akerlof says Bush is worst:
http://www.irna.ir/en/head/030729143608.ehe.shtml
http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/0,1518,258983,00.html
Gee, I couldn't have predicted that.
Originally posted by Existence
Modern times (1877-present)
Best: Lyndon Johnson (Great Society, War on Poverty, Civil Rights, Affirmative Action)
Worst: Definitely GWB. Even Nixon, his father, Harding or Reagan weren't as bad.
(Interesting by best and worst are Texans, although GWB technically isn't a Texan since he wasn't born in Texas)
All US history
Best: George Washington
Worst: Andrew Johnson
The Great Society!?!?!?! Can you spell "F-A-I-L-U-R-E"??? How about "total mismanagement of the Vietnam war"???
And, of course you'd say GWB. Of course. How about some reasons?
der kopf:
Terrorism? Call me a kitten (to avoid the nasty word), but I don't believe unearthing the structures of Al Qaeda is the way to go. What I do believe is that solving the problems that might cause an Al Qaeda can be fruitful.
And how do we do that? I am so sick and tired of ridiculous, meaningless statments like this. What are these problems? What needs to be changed? These people hate Western Civilization in general, not just the US. Speciffically though, they hate American capitalism and success around the world. Do what exactly? Talk nicely to them?
Eugene:
Another thing Clinton didn't do that every president I can remember did is salute soldiers...whether stepping out of Marine 1 or just walking by a guard house.
This is nitpicking of course.
In his defense, I don't think Presidents who didn't serve in the military do that.
kopf again:
Woops. Somebody is having trouble drawing within the lines. Of a sudden, all constitutions of all free nations are shit. Apparently, there are crimes that don't need judging? Also, you'll have to excuse me, but I will not accept terrorism as an act of war. War is fought between countries. As soon as Al Qaeda gets UN recognition for its countryship, I'll accept this term. And even if it WERE a legit war the US is fighting against Al Qaeda, then still there is a certain Geneva convention with which mister Bush happily wipes his rear end.
More underwhelming still, Aquafire. I never knew you were this militarist and belligerent
Wow. Just, wow. Treating terror like a felony or misdemeanor is exactly the problem. You want to apply judicial standards to terrorist organizations...as did Clinton. Clinton's refusal to act may have CONTRIBUTED to the 9/11 terror attack. He took no real responsive action to the Embassy bombings, the Cole, etc. He launched a few cruise missiles, stirred up the hornet's nest, and went back to his BJ and cigar. Thank God you are not running the country. Really. Terrorists aren't robbing banks or running red lights. They are murdering Americans and promise to contnue to do so. They are willing to give their lives to destroy this country and our lifestyle...and you want to see them on Court TV. Yeah...good idea.
Originally posted by rok
my biggest problems with clinton were that the great economic boom of the 90's seemed to be founded on the dot.com's that eventually dissolved into dot.bombs at or around 2000, and the likes of enron and their evil corporate pals.
i'm not sure how much of the latter was his fault (or his assembled administration), seeing as how enron had help from arthur andersen to evade the authorities, but even a blind person could tell that the dot.com's were gonna make a lot of people very, very bankrupt. product? profit? who needs 'em?!?
plus, wasn't clinton just as behind dereg'ing of power as gray davis? having just come from toronto, i could have told you that deregulation of power doesn't work, and shafts the common person (kinda like how they privatized the postal system up there, and it is a shambles). who knows when they'll have that mess cleared up.
but somehow, clinton was well-spoken enough to make me (and everyone else) feel okay about everything, and talk his way out of trouble at every turn. whereas, now it seems like bush et al. are stuck cleaning up the mess left behind, and are bloody TERRIBLE about making anyone -- domestic or abroad -- feel better about what they are doing about it.
crap, didn't i say i was going to stay out of this thread???
Some here may pop there eyes out, but I don't blame Clinton for those things. I don't give him any credit for the economy either, but the dot-coms aren;t and wern't his fault. High taxes and a lack of energy policy were his fault.
Deregulation can and does work. I'm in PA, and we have electric choice. We're fine now.
As far as Clinton's speaking: He made me fell good about nothing. I never felt anyone was really in charge. He undermined national security and caused many of the problems we have today. Though I said he was one of our worst Presidents, he won;t go down in hisotry as that...mostly because of the booming economy.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Terrorists aren't robbing banks or running red lights. They are murdering Americans and promise to contnue to do so. They are willing to give their lives to destroy this country and our lifestyle...and you want to see them on Court TV.
You put it a bit harsh, but that's basically what I believe, yes. These free countries we supposedly live in have a judicial system that is built on the experience of generations of crime and punishment. I don't think it's a good idea to start picking certain extra horrendous crimes and put them besides the law. That would be inquisition, and would lead, in my opinion, to a general erosion of the judicial system. Soon enough, we'd see people get their hands chopped of immediately after they're put under formal suspicion of stealing 3 video tapes of 'Free Willy'. No matter how fierce the crime, everybody should be granted a fair trial.
[this, for easyness' sake, does not include all things war-related]
Originally posted by SDW2001
Gee, I couldn't have predicted that.
The time between this post and your last one was 3 1/2 minutes at the most...
Originally posted by SDW2001 to Existence
And, of course you'd say GWB. Of course. How about some reasons?
You've already demonstrated that you are willing to ignore reasons (see above).
Treating terror like a felony or misdemeanor is exactly the problem. You want to apply judicial standards to terrorist organizations...as did Clinton. Clinton's refusal to act may have CONTRIBUTED to the 9/11 terror attack. He took no real responsive action to the Embassy bombings, the Cole, etc. He launched a few cruise missiles, stirred up the hornet's nest, and went back to his BJ and cigar. Thank God you are not running the country. Really. Terrorists aren't robbing banks or running red lights. They are murdering Americans and promise to contnue to do so. They are willing to give their lives to destroy this country and our lifestyle...and you want to see them on Court TV.
Rational man has developed the court system for a reason. It protects individuals from abuse and lets us be as sure as possible that the individual in question is not innocent. The court system is designed to take care of crimes, including murder, regardless if the motive is political or not. The thing it has a hard time dealing with is the international status of many politically driven suspects, and that just means we need to adapt the system. Giving the government a green light to just kill or even indefintely detain suspected murderers simply because of their political motives is unacceptable, especially when there is no effort being made to adapt the judicial system to handle these cases.
Woops. Somebody is having trouble drawing within the lines. Of a sudden, all constitutions of all free nations are shit. Apparently, there are crimes that don't
need judging? Also, you'll have to excuse me, but I will not accept terrorism as an act of war. War is fought between countries. As soon as Al Qaeda gets UN
recognition for its countryship, I'll accept this term. And even if it WERE a legit war the US is fighting against Al Qaeda, then still there is a certain Geneva
convention with which mister Bush happily wipes his rear end.
Actually by Geneva convention a recognized warring party has certain protections that terrorists don't have. By Geneva convetions on the rules of war a terrorist does not have the same protections, ask the Tupac Amaru in Peru. They were once considered a legitimate warring party fighting a civil war, since their hostage takeover of the Japanese emabassy circa 95-96 their status became terrorist organization, they don't get a trial, they get shot.
PS these aren't my rules of war, these were adopted multi-laterally in Geneva, I'll post a link as soon as I find one.
http://fletcher.tufts.edu/multi/texts/BH708.txt]terrorism is not guaranteed humane treatement[/URL]
Oops! wrong format
again
Originally posted by SDW2001
Some here may pop there eyes out, but I don't blame Clinton for those things. I don't give him any credit for the economy either, but the dot-coms aren;t and wern't his fault. High taxes and a lack of energy policy were his fault.
Deregulation can and does work. I'm in PA, and we have electric choice. We're fine now.
As far as Clinton's speaking: He made me fell good about nothing. I never felt anyone was really in charge. He undermined national security and caused many of the problems we have today. Though I said he was one of our worst Presidents, he won;t go down in hisotry as that...mostly because of the booming economy.
Dufus is on TV right now and Bush makes me feel insecure about everything.
He get's on TV to crow about Saddam's sons
By the way I noticed Katie Couric noting that it was Dubya's 9th news conference while Clinton by this time had 30. Now SDW will see that as " Liberal news casting ". I see it as telling and the truth.
Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar
well this was a good thread. now it's not.
If you're talking about me Bush is a president and it's a valid observation. He may yet make the list ( and it won't be as best ).
Originally posted by jimmac
If you're talking about me Bush is a president and it's a valid observation. He may yet make the list ( and it won't be as best ).
no, i was talking about how it's turned into another right vs. left pissing contest, with the usual suspects.
Either way, his administration had no business training and funding the Contras. Terrorists are not OK, even if you agree with their aims and they're killing other people.
Ronald Reagan was an actor. He was the man who didn't realise the mic was on before a nationwide broadcast and announced "My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes."
A fool. A laughing stock.
He blighted my childhood. I remember when he refused to ratify the SALT treaty on arms limitation even though Gorbachev's cabinet OK'd it. I was really frightened of nuclear war breaking out every minute of every day. I'm not being melodramatic, I was a kid.
You can argue about Reagan's economic policy amongst yourselves; I don't just think he was one of the worst presidents America ever had, he's one of the people in this world I hate the most.
Originally posted by LiquidR
Actually by Geneva convention a recognized warring party has certain protections that terrorists don't have.
That's the precise deadlock I'm talking about. I think they should be tried as any normal suspected criminal would. They are not, because SDW and his government consider them prisoners of war. Yet, for some dark reason, that doesn't give them the rights war prisoners/criminals should get. What'll it be?