Bush's former press secretary says Bush misled U.S. on Iraq

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by dblanch66

Republican, Democrat, Independent, Green, Whig, Tory...doesn't matter. Bush sucks as a president. I don't care how much of a "good guy" he is, he was our worst president besides Hoover. I'd rather have a president who's an asshole as long as he or she knows how to run the country with forsight, intelligence, tact, diplomacy, creativity, toughness, open mindedness and humility. None of which George Bush possesses.

I wasn't alive for Hoover but I was for Jimmy Carter and all the adults around me were ready to revolt if he had been reelected. There's no way he would have survived a second term. He was positively reviled. Also, Bush will not face an impeachment hearing which is something Clinton, Nixon, and Johnson couldn't say. In addition, James Buchanan, who was an homosexual, allowed the country to slip to the brink of civil war, so your history is off.

[70Chip]

Christopher Hitchens weighs in:

If you want to read a serious book about the intervention in Iraq, try War and Decision. - By Christopher Hitchens - Slate Magazine

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

I wasn't alive for Hoover but I was for Jimmy Carter and all the adults around me were ready to revolt if he had been reelected. There's no way he would have survived a second term. He was positively reviled. Also, Bush will not face an impeachment hearing which is something Clinton, Nixon, and Johnson couldn't say. In addition, James Buchanan, who was an homosexual, allowed the country to slip to the brink of civil war, so your history is off.

Everything I heard and read about Carter indicates he was pretty awful, and has only made things worse over the years. Maybe he should have just stuck with Habitat for Humanity

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/v...10824?page=all

Buchanan is interesting, because his worst crime (apart from apparently being pro-slavery) is that he really did nothing because he felt (I think correctly) that constitutionally he didn't have the power to do anything (in regards to secession). Today, we complain when a President invokes executive power and takes action, but we could have avoided a major civil war had Buchanan (and Pierce) done such a thing over 150 years ago. (I mean I believe Lincoln did so during the Civil War) Then again, it may have made no difference.

As for the homosexual part. I never knew that was actually proven. I've only heard it speculated. Secondly, what does it matter? What was the point of even throwing that comment in there?

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Everything I heard and read about Carter indicates he was pretty awful, and has only made things worse over the years. Maybe he should have just stuck with Habitat for Humanity

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/v...10824?page=all

Buchanan is interesting, because his worst crime (apart from apparently being pro-slavery) is that he really did nothing because he felt (I think correctly) that constitutionally he didn't have the power to do anything (in regards to secession). Today, we complain when a President invokes executive power and takes action, but we could have avoided a major civil war had Buchanan (and Pierce) done such a thing over 150 years ago. (I mean I believe Lincoln did so during the Civil War) Then again, it may have made no difference.

Despite how we view Honest Abe we can trace the socialization of our republic back to his decisions. Up until the Civil war our country operated much differently and more within the ideals of the founding fathers in terms of limited national government. After the war our country became much more nationalistic and states rights have been eroding ever since.

[steveo395]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Despite how we view Honest Abe we can trace the socialization of our republic back to his decisions. Up until the Civil war our country operated much differently and more within the ideals of the founding fathers in terms of limited national government. After the war our country became much more nationalistic and states rights have been eroding ever since.

FDR had a big part in that too

[dblanch66]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

I wasn't alive for Hoover but I was for Jimmy Carter and all the adults around me were ready to revolt if he had been reelected. There's no way he would have survived a second term. He was positively reviled. Also, Bush will not face an impeachment hearing which is something Clinton, Nixon, and Johnson couldn't say. In addition, James Buchanan, who was an homosexual, allowed the country to slip to the brink of civil war, so your history is off.

Just because Bush didn't face impeachment doesn't mean he SHOULDN'T. He managed to worm out of that due to a lack of intestinal fortitude by the Dems. My history is not "off". I suppose you believe Pearl Harbor was a "surprise attack" and that Oswald acted alone. Mine is a matter of opinion based on fact. Gee...you would't be a ....republican that voted for Bush would you? Hoover was mentioned as an example, not ultimate definition. Were there other bad presidents? Of course. None, however, could possibly have been as braindead and dogmatic as the current President Fuckhead.

[steveo395]

Originally Posted by dblanch66

Just because Bush didn't face impeachment doesn't mean he SHOULDN'T. He managed to worm out of that due to a lack of intestinal fortitude by the Dems. My history is not "off". I suppose you believe Pearl Harbor was a "surprise attack" and that Oswald acted alone. Mine is a matter of opinion based on fact. Gee...you would't be a ....republican that voted for Bush would you? Hoover was mentioned as an example, not ultimate definition. Were there other bad presidents? Of course. None, however, could possibly have been as braindead and dogmatic as the current President Fuckhead.

What law did he break that should have gotten him impeached

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by steveo395

What law did he break that should have gotten him impeached

This will go nowhere. We already had at least one thread all about this in the past that was highly unproductive

[dblanch66]

QUOTE=steveo395;451206]What law did he break that should have gotten him impeached[/QUOTE]
startling. just startling.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by dblanch66

startling. just startling.

Good comeback?

Stick to football, dude.

[dblanch66]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Good comeback?

Stick to football, dude.

Hurt. Pain. You beast!

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by dblanch66

Just because Bush didn't face impeachment doesn't mean he SHOULDN'T. He managed to worm out of that due to a lack of intestinal fortitude by the Dems. My history is not "off". I suppose you believe Pearl Harbor was a "surprise attack" and that Oswald acted alone. Mine is a matter of opinion based on fact. Gee...you would't be a ....republican that voted for Bush would you? Hoover was mentioned as an example, not ultimate definition. Were there other bad presidents? Of course. None, however, could possibly have been as braindead and dogmatic as the current President Fuckhead.

Dude, I think Asian American is the preferred nomenclature. But to your points:

1. The Democrats do lack intestinal fortitude, but they also lack even a sniff of a rationale for impeachment. You have to have something.

2. I think a strong case can be made that someone must have at least had an inclination that the Japanese were about to move. However, wouldn't that mean that you should have cited Roosevelt instead of Hoover? Hoover was incompetent in the face of economic crisis, but he never engaged in that sort of deceit.

3. Indeed, I do believe that Oswald acted alone.

4. While I am not formally affiliated with the Republican Party, I have only voted for two Democrats in my life. The first time was an accident. In those days the ballots in Virginia did not identify the candidates by party and this guy sure sounded like a Republican. The second time was in the recent primary when I cast my vote for HRC. And, before you accuse me of doing Limbaugh's bidding, I thought of it first. Sort of. In 2000 a lot of Liberals here voted strategically for McCain and I merely followed their excellent example.

[dblanch66]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

Dude, I think Asian American is the preferred nomenclature. But to your points:

1. The Democrats do lack intestinal fortitude, but they also lack even a sniff of a rationale for impeachment. You have to have something.

2. I think a strong case can be made that someone must have at least had an inclination that the Japanese were about to move. However, wouldn't that mean that you should have cited Roosevelt instead of Hoover? Hoover was incompetent in the face of economic crisis, but he never engaged in that sort of deceit.

3. Indeed, I do believe that Oswald acted alone.

4. While I am not formally affiliated with the Republican Party, I have only voted for two Democrats in my life. The first time was an accident. In those days the ballots in Virginia did not identify the candidates by party and this guy sure sounded like a Republican. The second time was in the recent primary when I cast my vote for HRC. And, before you accuse me of doing Limbaugh's bidding, I thought of it first. Sort of. In 2000 a lot of Liberals here voted strategically for McCain and I merely followed their excellent example.

Once again...Hoover was a random example. Not a specific citation. Watch the Zapruder film and take a physics class. And...if you want a toe, I can get you a toe. I can get you a toe by 2 o'clock.

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by dblanch66

Once again...Hoover was a random example. Not a specific citation. Watch the Zapruder film and take a physics class. And...if you want a toe, I can get you a toe. I can get you a toe by 2 o'clock.

That's interesting, man.

It's amazing how Jeff Bridges can bring us together. I think HE'S the "Lightworker".

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by dblanch66

Not a specific citation. Watch the Zapruder film and take a physics class.

What does this even mean?

Are you implying that an understanding of physics would prove to someone that Kennedy was killed via conspiracy? Do you even know what you are talking about? I dare you to find one reputable, REPUTABLE, source who has done any scientific research into this topic who claims that Kennedy was killed by someone other than Oswald. I will find you numerous others to the contrary. Sure there are a bunch of crackpot semi-scientists who do this and that and bellow on about the grassy knoll but when sujected to rigorous scientific experiment it has been shown that not only was it possible for Oswald to have been the lone shooter it was actually almost impossible for him to have not been. There have been scientifically conducting recreations which exactly recreated the bullet trajectories into Kennedy and the governor.