Worst President in History?!?

[pilotman2105]

re:1--well, duh?

It's called a fact. Hence why you can't dispute it.

re:2--Does "others" include the U.S.? Did we not willingly allow the 9/11 terrorists into our country? Did we not willingly "harbor" them until they attacked on 9/11?

http://www.dictionary.com

Harbor (v) - 1.To give shelter to: harbor refugees; harbor a fugitive. 2. To provide a place, home, or habitat for

Thus we did not "harbor" terrorists.

re:3--One man's terrorist is another man's "freedom fighter." If Bush had his way, all Americans that are anti-Bush would be labeled as "terrorists." Since he can't do this, he'll just have the IRS audit their tax returns. Welcome to the McCarthy era, part deux.

Are you trying to argue the point that the world is safer with terrorists? You're saying that more people live a better life with terrorists threatening their very existance?

re:4--I thought we went into Iraq to rid the country of weapons of mass desctruction...err, I mean liberate the people of Iraq? Yeah, that's the ticket...

Really? I thought that we were going to steal the oil and the sand for the beaches?

You mean there was a REAL reason we went to Iraq?!?

And whatever we do, "we must stay the course," even if we've f-ed up big time...

There is a double standard. If we stay, you'll complain about that. If we leave, then you'll complain about that.

And if you work for a major magazine that I read, I would be willing to bet that the editor is about ready to fire you. Your lack of ability to put a coherent thought onto paper (or into a post) is pretty embarassing.

 

[pilotman2105]

Actually, all INS had to do was a simple background check before letting these people into our country. Am I asking for too much here??

Talk to your buddy slick Willy. Since 9/11 was planned years in advance, I'm sure that he had a good idea what was going on under his watch as well.

By our government's deficiency in checking people coming into this country, we might as well had a banner up at the airport customs and immigration facilities that said, "Welcome terrorists." I stand by my statement that we willingly let them in (i.e.-"harbored" them), without any real background checks or other scrutiny before letting them through our border. That's a fact, Jack.

And I'll bet that if YOU ran the country that is the FIRST thing that you would have changed in the early months of 2001.

Ever heard the phrase "Hindsight is 20/20?"

Get a clue man...

 

[AeroBoy]

Alas, an independent in largely a sea of Republican hardliners. I am neither liberal nor conservative. Actually, I'm not a fan of Clinton, Gore, Bush, Cheney or Kerry. I make it a point to vote, even in the primaries and other dinky elections, and it's sad when I'm forced to choose the lesser of two evils for our country's top job of president.

Yes, hindsight is 20/20. However, that doesn't excuse the gross errors our government made. Period.

Harbor--To provide a place, home, or habitat for. We allowed the 9/11 hijackers into the country. We opened the doors to our house ("home" as per your definition)–i.e. our country–to them, without properly checking their credentials. I'd just like to know why.

And as far as the grammar police: a) this is a Web board, not an edited magazine; and b) I have the flu and I've still been working long hours in the office nonetheless (magazine's gotta get out somehow). So just back off there, Tex. Anyways, I've seen some of the fine writing skills from many "professional" pilots, and my minuscule error pales in comparison. And I don't publicly humiliate them; in fact, I happily edit their letters when we publish them to make the letter writer seem intelligent, without changing it for meaning, of course (lest I next be accused of bending their opinions).

 

[Typhoon1244]

Since 9/11 was planned years in advance, I'm sure that [Clinton] had a good idea what was going on under his watch as well.

If that were the case, then W knew about it too...since their staffs received terrorism briefings from the same people.

Sort of makes nonsense out of thattheory, doesn't it?

I'll say this for the 9/11 hijackers, they understood a concept many in our government don't: how to keep a secret.

 

[AeroBoy]

Typhoon--cute kid.

There is a double standard. If we stay, you'll complain about that. If we leave, then you'll complain about that.

We're already knee-deep in the muck. We need to finish cleaning up our mess, since our elected officials (executive and legislative branches) caused us to get into this situation. I'm not complaining about staying, but it's long been suggested that we never had enough manpower on the ground to properly do the job. Bush should have known better, and he was advised beforehand by many military experts that the number of troops he was sending in was insufficient.

And if you work for a major magazine that I read, I would be willing to bet that the editor is about ready to fire you. Your lack of ability to put a coherent thought onto paper (or into a post) is pretty embarassing.

It's likely that you do read the magazine I edit and write for. Your assertion that I'm on the verge of being fired is quite laughable--far from it. I like how you pull your "facts" from out of the air. My incoherency is probably due to the fact that I'm fighting the flu and have been working 14-hour days (16 if you include my commute time) this week. I'd like to see you do this with the fevers and fatigue. So go fly a kite, or something.

 

[pilotman2105]

We're already knee-deep in the muck. We need to finish cleaning up our mess, since our elected officials (executive and legislative branches) caused us to get into this situation. I'm not complaining about staying, but it's long been suggested that we never had enough manpower on the ground to properly do the job. Bush should have known better, and he was advised beforehand by many military experts that the number of troops he was sending in was insufficient.

I'm willing to entertain that if you provide proof. I have not heard that theory. Where are you getting your information?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And if you work for a major magazine that I read, I would be willing to bet that the editor is about ready to fire you. Your lack of ability to put a coherent thought onto paper (or into a post) is pretty embarassing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



It's likely that you do read the magazine I edit and write for. Your assertion that I'm on the verge of being fired is quite laughable--far from it. I like how you pull your "facts" from out of the air. My incoherency is probably due to the fact that I'm fighting the flu and have been working 14-hour days (16 if you include my commute time) this week. I'd like to see you do this with the fevers and fatigue. So go fly a kite, or something.

I never asserted that statement as fact. It was an assumption on my behalf (hence why I said "I would be willing to bet.") It is an assumption that I believe to be true. If it was fact, I would have stated "Your editor is about to fire you."

Edit:

And as far as the grammar police: a) this is a Web board, not an edited magazine; and b) I have the flu and I've still been working long hours in the office nonetheless (magazine's gotta get out somehow). So just back off there, Tex. Anyways, I've seen some of the fine writing skills from many "professional" pilots, and my minuscule error pales in comparison. And I don't publicly humiliate them; in fact, I happily edit their letters when we publish them to make the letter writer seem intelligent, without changing it for meaning, of course (lest I next be accused of bending their opinions).

Sorry that you do not take enough time to put effort into your posts. Continues with the credibility thing of your posts. I'm merely pointing out that you'll be more likely to "convince" people and lend yourself to being a professional by touching up those minor points.

 

[pilotman2105]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by pilotman2105
Since 9/11 was planned years in advance, I'm sure that [Clinton] had a good idea what was going on under his watch as well.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If that were the case, then W knew about it too...since their staffs received terrorism briefings from the same people.

Harbor--To provide a place, home, or habitat for. We allowed the 9/11 hijackers into the country. We opened the doors to our house ("home" as per your definition)–i.e. our country–to them, without properly checking their credentials. I'd just like to know why.

I won't deny the fact that security was lax which let them into the country. I will defend the fact that Bush can't be held 100% accountable for this problem. Just because 9/11 happened under his watch, does that excuse the lack of security during the Clinton and previous administrations?

If "we opened the doors to our house/home," then that must have been done prior to the Bush administration.

 

[TonyC]

Harbor--To provide a place, home, or habitat for. We allowed the 9/11 hijackers into the country. We opened the doors to our house ("home" as per your definition)–i.e. our country–to them, without properly checking their credentials. I'd just like to know why.

And as far as the grammar police: a) this is a Web board, not an edited magazine; and b) I have the flu and I've still been working long hours in the office nonetheless (magazine's gotta get out somehow). So just back off there, Tex.

By your abuse of the word, we also harbor murderers, rapists, child molesters, and bad rap singers (are there good ones?) just because they "live" within the borders of the U.S. Such a claim is preposterous.

I'll repeat my original assessment of your ignorance. Your grasp of the meaning of the word harbor is inferior to the grasp of those who claim English as their second or third language.

Perhaps you should take your flu to bed and don't come back until you're well - - you're embarrassing yourself.

 

[AeroBoy]

By your abuse of the word, we also harbor murderers, rapists, child molesters, and bad rap singers (are there good ones?) just because they "live" within the borders of the U.S. Such a claim is preposterous.

Yes, it is preposterous...and not what I said in the first place. Since when have we willingly allowed these types of people (bad rap singers aside) to enter our country? After they get in, all bets are off, of course. But the 9/11 terrorists went to al Qaeda training camps before coming here, not after they arrived on our soil. Background checks might have caught this--at least to catch a few of them and raise a red flag that something bad was going to happen. And it is just as much the Clinton Administration's fault as it is the Bush Administration's. I've never said otherwise. Read what I write, not what you interpret it as.

I'll repeat my original assessment of your ignorance. Your grasp of the meaning of the word harbor is inferior to the grasp of those who claim English as their second or third language.

I use the definition correctly. You obviously don't like it when your line of reasoning cannot be justified, so you just call me ignorant. That's mighty ignorant, if I must say so myself.

I'm willing to entertain that if you provide proof. I have not heard that theory. Where are you getting your information?

Both John McCain and Wes Clarke have made these assertions, among others. I find it interesting when a Republican and Democrat agree. For McCain's comments, see http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1834874 and http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-11-05-mccain-usat_x.htm -- See, I'm really not making this stuff up! Though I suppose it'll be dismissed by many here as info from the "liberal" media.

Sorry that you do not take enough time to put effort into your posts. Continues with the credibility thing of your posts. I'm merely pointing out that you'll be more likely to "convince" people and lend yourself to being a professional by touching up those minor points.

I don't necessarily have the time to footnote everything I write on a freaking Web board. Do some independent thinking and go to google and search for news stories on these topics. You're old enough that people shouldn't have to hold your hand...unless you're CitationKid. Sorry, couldn't resist.

I hardly think I'm embarrasing myself. Actually, some people's lack of having an open mind is the real embarassment here. Stop repeating the Republican party line like a good little robot. Ask questions, and don't accept everything at face value. That's all I ask, in addition to giving me a small amount of leeway on grammar (then again, when people tend to attack grammar, they do it because they don't have facts to counter an argument).

 

[pilotman2105]

Comment reserved for a time when I have gotten more than 3 hours of sleep. Rest assured however, comment is coming.

 

[AxisVDP]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Unsubstantiated Opinions

Actually, all INS had to do was a simple background check before letting these people into our country. Am I asking for too much here??



By our government's deficiency in checking people coming into this country, we might as well had a banner up at the airport customs and immigration facilities that said, "Welcome terrorists." I stand by my statement that we willingly let them in (i.e.-"harbored" them), without any real background checks or other scrutiny before letting them through our border. That's a fact, Jack.

When you say that I have "utter ignorance of vocabulary," you couldn't be more wrong. I write and edit stories for a magazine that you probably read religiously every month.

Running a background check for everyone entering the country would require omnipotence and possibly a program like SETI@Home... The point is we don't have the man power or technology to know how many people are coming into this country by hopping the border or hiding the back of a truck. Maybe we should build a huge metal dome that cover the entire contiguous U.S. and some smaller ones from Alaska, Hawaii, and our territories.

 

[FN FAL]

Maybe we should build a huge metal dome that cover the entire contiguous U.S. and some smaller ones from Alaska, Hawaii, and our territories.

Maybe placing a bounty on illegals would be a good start. By placing people's heads on sticks at the borders, you won't be needing no chain link fence to keep people out. You could make some really good scarecrows out drug runners and mules that make a living out of transporting illegals...and if you found any real terrorists in the fodder, you could put them on a post still flailing. It would be like a talking barricade.

 

[shooter13]

Lincoln and Davis

Both were responsible for the death of 900,000 americans. Lincoln gets a monument for his "achievement" Davis is largely ignored.

 

[ibaflyer]

Public Service Annuoncement.

This just in...

Refering to Terrorists as "Towel Heads" is not considered to be politlcally correct.

The material is actually a sheet. Therefore, Terrorists should be called "Sheet Heads".

Now back to our reguarly scheduled posts.

 

[Jedi_Cheese]

Seriously, if we actually made it not worthwhile to come to the US illegally, they wouldn't come. When an illegal alien is caught, the goverment should take all their possessions and money, put them in jail for a while (say a year or two), find out what they have been up to and who helped them or keep them in jail till we do, and then ship them home. Anyone that helped them (in an illegal way) should be thrown in jail for at least 5 years (smuggler, counterfitter, employeer, ect).

 

[TonyC]

Comment reserved for a time when I have gotten more than 3 hours of sleep. Rest assured however, comment is coming.

Pilotman:

I considered another exchange with AeroBoy, but realize the futility. It reminds me of a discussion with a 3-year-old:

"Why?"

"Beca-a--a-ause"

"But because why?"

"Just beca-a-a-use"

"Didn't you know it was wrong to hit Jimmy?

"Uh-huh."

"Then why did you hit him?"

"Beca-a-a-a-use"

It's a method that was taught in USAF Survival school to deal with interrogators. It doesn't matter whether the answer makes sense or can be defended by logic, so long as you can consistently stick to it. That's what Aeroboy is doing. No preponderance of evidence or logic will persuade him differently.

If you can't even agree on the definition and usage of a simple word, how can you be expected to understand global politics? Just leave him to write his monthly feature in Highlights Magazine.

 

[wingnutt]

Just leave him to write his monthly feature in Highlights Magazine.

holy crap...is that even in publication anymore???

 

[Benhuntn]

worst pres

JIMMY (BIG GRIN) CARTER

He stabbed the Shah of Iran in the back and left him out to dry. Iran was taken over by the fanatics and the rest is history.

 

[DC4boy]

Extensive background checks: Requires man extra man power.

The CIA $ FBI: Throughout the course of the Clinton Admin, these two beureaus(sp?) reached all time lows in both funding and man power. Thanks Bill!

Exstensive background checks on evreyone entering the country.
Boy, the ACLU will have a field day with that..............

Borders, language,and colture............

 

[AeroBoy]

dc4boy--Have you been living under a rock? We're already running background checks and fingerprinting foreigners entering our country now. And why would the ACLU care about our government doing these background checks on non-U.S. citizens? After all, foreigners have limited rights when abroad.

Tony C--Well, since you can rebut my comments with any kind of fact(s), you just chalk it up to reasoning with a three-year-old kid. I don't think that many who read this board buy that BS. And add even more character assasination on top of that (the "Highlights" magazine comment)? Well I find that to be pretty low. You ought to be ashamed of yourself. Then again, this type of behavior is fairly common among hardline Republicans, or should I say "compassionate conservatives."

You can all now go back to watching the Fox News Network now...

 

[TonyC]

Tony C--Well, since you can rebut my comments with any kind of fact(s), you just chalk it up to reasoning with a three-year-old kid. I don't think that many who read this board buy that BS. And add even more character assasination on top of that (the "Highlights" magazine comment)? Well I find that to be pretty low. You ought to be ashamed of yourself. Then again, this type of behavior is fairly common among hardline Republicans, or should I say "compassionate conservatives."

You can all now go back to watching the Fox News Network now...

You're so caught up in defending your misuse of the word "harbor" that you've failed to notice that my comments to you have pertained solely to that event, and have in no way reflected ANY political persuasion or favoritism towards any particular TV network. If you'd wake up and look, there are a few facts close enough to your face that you might actually bump your nose on them. You're so entrenched in your own opinion that you appear unable to be bothered with facts.

So, any criticism that I have of you, and I'm accumulating more with each of your posts, is strictly centered on your abuse of our language. Even the Highlights comment is targeted at your inferior language skills. If you knew what real "character assasination" [sic] was, you'd realize that. Don't expect me to explain that term, either. In retrospect, I realize that I should NOT have used "preposterous" in a previous post - - you probably think that's a good thing.

character assassinationnoun
: the slandering of a person usually with the intention of destroying public confidence in that person

1 slan·der transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): slan·dered; slan·der·ing /-d(&-)ri[ng]/
: to utter slander against : DEFAME
synonym see MALIGN
- slan·der·er /-d&r-&r/ noun

2 slander noun
Etymology: Middle English sclaundre, slaundre, from Old French esclandre, from Late Latin scandalum stumbling block, offense -- more at SCANDAL
1 : the utterance of false charges or misrepresentations which defame and damage another's reputation
2 : a false and defamatory oral statement about a person -- compare LIBEL
- slan·der·ous /-d(&-)r&s/ adjective
- slan·der·ous·ly adverb
- slan·der·ous·ness noun

Finally, and I do mean finally...

The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search box to the right.

Suggestions for assasination:

1. assassination
2. assassinations
3. assignation
4. assassinator
5. assentations
6. assentation
7. ozonization
8. acetylation
9. assignations
10. essentialness

I have impeached your ability to comprehend and use the English language properly, and you have failed to contradict that accusation with a proper understanding of high-school level words. Your level appears to be that of the young children that read Highlights Magazine (yes, it's still in print, and it's on the web). At no point have I impeached your character, and at no point have I made personal attacks. Furthermore, I have stated nothing about you that is factually incorrect or that misrepresents your abilities. By at least two accounts, then, I have not committed character assassination - - but I CAN spell it.

 

[AeroBoy]

Two words: anger management. Look that up in your dictionary.

And another thing: if you're going to be the grammar police, then why didn't you beat dc4boy over the head about "colture?" I simply overlooked his misspelling and addressed the content of his message (it was clear what he meant). I've chosen the high road, and you and I (and the rest of the Web board) know what road you've chosen. Don't hide behind the grammar police badge--you were indeed attacking me personally, otherwise you would have been all over dc4boy, too. And in print, that's libel, not slander.

You can go back to reading Highlights now--so sorry for interrupting your story time.

 

[pilotman2105]

What was that about character attacks, AeroBoy?

You're right Tony. While I could spend a good 15 min putting together a rebuttle post as I had originally planned, I have more important stuff than AeroBoy's nonsense to tend to.

 

[jayme]

It's unfortunate that an important debate has turned into this nonsense.

People are so emotional about whether Bush sucks or rocks that they will not listen to even the most researched and factual arguement.

The next time you read a post on this thread, do me a small favor. Set aside your ideology for just a minute and give the other side the benefit of the doubt - they may just have a point worth taking.

 

[TonyC]

What was that about character attacks, AeroBoy?

You're right Tony. While I could spend a good 15 min putting together a rebuttle post as I had originally planned, I have more important stuff than AeroBoy's nonsense to tend to.

Now if I can just learn to take my own advice...

 

[enigma]

Well lets see. the worst President depends upon how you define " worst". The worst for our country was Woodrow Wilson. Wilson was in power when we instutued the Federal Reserve, when States lost the ability to elect Senators, when the income tax was implemented and other crap that started the US down the road to a loss of sovereignty.

The worst for States rights is obviously Abe Lincoln. Lincoln was a disengenous barstard who could have cared less about slaves. He only cared about his vision of a powerful central government. If he hadn't have been killed he would have probably invented communism. (just my opinion.)_

The worst President for the Office was William Jefferson Blythe Clinton. He disgraced the office. Was anyone aware that Clinton was "entertaining" Monica in the oval office the very day that the Sudanese ambassodor tried to offer OBL to us? Clinton lied under oath and turned laughter to tears at his Commerce Secretaries funeral. The man disgraced the office.

The least effective was probably Jimmy Carter. President Carter was the smarted President, yet he accomplished nothing of value.

The worst President to the concept of limited government was Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He instituted most of today's beauracracy.

The all around Worst had to have been Lyndon Baines Johnson. LBJ almost shames my Texan pride. He was the most corrupt, the least effective, a loser in military endevours (Vietnam), the second biggest instigator of big government. He won election in Texas by stuffing ballot boxes and murdering the opposition. He corrupted the US Senate by passing out oil money for bribes. He screwed the citizen with his programs intended to favor his buddies. He was in fact, ruthless. And, he most likely had a pivotal role in the death of JFK.

enigma

BTW, Aeroboy, do you work for the Publisher?

 

[mar]

You fascinate me

Enigma--I would give anything for three hours cozied up to a bar just to pick your brains.

You fascinate me.

 

[enigma]

Re: You fascinate me

Enigma--I would give anything for three hours cozied up to a bar just to pick your brains.

You fascinate me.

Man, I can just feel the luv.........But you're not getting my Bud Light.

I'm honored be be able to have had a thought that is found interesting.

Now, let me in on what interests you, the profundity of my musings, the idiocy of my pronouncements, the humor of my hypocracy, or is it just the confusion brought on by my ability to scatter so many differing thoughts on so many differing subjects.

Honestly, an,
enigma
(to myself and everyone who knows me) ( but most just don't care )

 

[mar]

Enigmatic. That's for sure.

What interests me about you?

Well. You're a thinker. I appreciate that.

I don't always agree with your thoughts (but I did like the one about dropping the speeding violations).

Uhm. Here are some gems that I think I would buy the beer to hear more about:

<<...other crap that started the US down the road to a loss of sovereignty>>

<<If he [Lincoln] hadn't have been killed he would have probably invented communism.>>

<<...he [Johnson] most likely had a pivotal role in the death of JFK.>>

Those alone could last us all night.

Clinton, I have the feeling wouldn't last the first little bowl of stuffed olives. We probably agree too much about that one.

But Carter, I'm afraid we'd have to come back another night to talk about him. I'm not so quick to dismiss the man's value to the citizens of the US. He is, without a doubt, hands down, the *most* productive EX-president in modern history.

I happen to admire the man. Perhaps he's making up for lost time from '76-'80 but he's not easily dismissed.

Anyway. Keep 'em coming. Thought provoking as always.

 

[Snakum]

President Carter was the smarted President, yet he accomplished nothing of value.

I disagree. While his work in the Middle East was not a permanent solution, it was a start, and it was more than anyone else had done.

Minh

(And please, no jokes about Beckwith's Breakdown in the desert being President Carter's Middle East 'work'. President Carter merely gave to go-ahead. Col. Beckwith planned the raid, and equipment malfunction and human error scuttled it. I still maintain it would have worked.)