Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

George W. Bush

lol if you don't read the rest of what I say and just go on a rant at me.

I don't know that there is such a thing.

And for those who say lincoln, you need to read up on your history. You will find that Lincoln actually just about ripped apart this country in an effort to save it. He was more militiristic than Bush, and had the potential of being more damaging.

At 9/19/05 09:36 PM, TimeFrame wrote:

At 9/19/05 09:34 PM, Dulnar wrote:

Did you read the .pdf? He did a lot more than what I put up there. And sometimes doing something drastic can hurt the country more than help it.

Would you feel better if I said he didnt do anything big?

He did plent big. It was just on top of his desk, not in his policy. ;-)

At 9/19/05 09:39 PM, Ride_The_Lightning wrote:

Clinton was our best president ever, your obviously an ignorant Republican who if he ran over a 2 year old with a car, would blame the kids parents instead of yourself( i know this is off topic, but im proving a point here)

1. I never said he was a horrible president
2. I hate people who blame their problems on society or their parents

At 9/19/05 09:39 PM, Grish_Noren wrote: George W. Bush

lol if you don't read the rest of what I say and just go on a rant at me.

I don't know that there is such a thing.

And for those who say lincoln, you need to read up on your history. You will find that Lincoln actually just about ripped apart this country in an effort to save it. He was more militiristic than Bush, and had the potential of being more damaging.

you want to talk about a president tearing a country apart, how many Democrats now hate Republicans and vice versa, more than ever. how many anti Clinton bumper sticker did you see, none. how many anti Bush, i see one evry minute of every day. heres a good one. NO MORE BUSHIT!!!!

lol

At 9/19/05 10:03 PM, Ride_The_Lightning wrote:

you want to talk about a president tearing a country apart,

What the hell are you talking about? I didnt say he was tearing the country apart.

how many anti Clinton bumper sticker did you see, none.

Not anymore, but there were plenty in his presidency (as well with every other president).

how many anti Bush, i see one evry minute of every day.

Even while you're posting on the bbs?

timeframe i was talking to Grish Noren, and i am very into my politics so dont take anything personally.

At 9/19/05 10:13 PM, Ride_The_Lightning wrote: timeframe i was talking to Grish Noren, and i am very into my politics so dont take anything personally.

politics = propaganda

lol

At 9/19/05 09:39 PM, Grish_Noren wrote:
And for those who say lincoln, you need to read up on your history. You will find that Lincoln actually just about ripped apart this country in an effort to save it. He was more militiristic than Bush, and had the potential of being more damaging.

He kept the country together, without him there would be a Confederate States of America, he was far less militiristic than Bush. He took the risk of keeping the country together and threw emancipation into the mix.

At 9/19/05 10:13 PM, Ride_The_Lightning wrote: timeframe i was talking to Grish Noren, and i am very into my politics so dont take anything personally.

The first time you replied to me and called me an ignorant republican, so I assumed you replied to me again. My fault for not looking.

At 9/19/05 10:16 PM, Grish_Noren wrote:

At 9/19/05 10:13 PM, Ride_The_Lightning wrote: timeframe i was talking to Grish Noren, and i am very into my politics so dont take anything personally.

politics = propaganda

lol

that's something even Republicans and Democrats can agree on. lol btw (IM Democrat)

At 9/19/05 10:20 PM, TimeFrame wrote:

At 9/19/05 10:13 PM, Ride_The_Lightning wrote: timeframe i was talking to Grish Noren, and i am very into my politics so dont take anything personally.

The first time you replied to me and called me an ignorant republican, so I assumed you replied to me again. My fault for not looking.

your right, and i apolagize, i am really sorry.

At 9/19/05 09:39 PM, Grish_Noren wrote: And for those who say lincoln, you need to read up on your history. You will find that Lincoln actually just about ripped apart this country in an effort to save it. He was more militiristic than Bush, and had the potential of being more damaging.

Wait, if he didnt do anything, would there still be a country? No. Shut up. Your logic sucks ass.

At 9/19/05 09:28 PM, Dulnar wrote: I'd like to take a look at Clinton's achievements while in office.

Is it just me or do all of those "good things" hinge on the economy?

FYI, the President affects the economy very little. And dont tell me he turned around the short recession from Bush 1. The economy was already turning around before he took office and Bush 2 just inherited the Bubble Burst.

Clinton was a President who I think we could use now again. He did exactly what was needed at the time, just let things happen.

And hes not the best President ever, whoever said that. You are not very smart if you say that. Not smart at all and thats being nice.

is following the law a reqiurement for a good president? if so then u can count out clinton. perjury is a crime and in a normal society he wouldve been impeached. any idiot who says reagen wasnt so good the electoral college has to disagree with you in 1988 he won the biggest elctoral landslide IN HISTORY winning all but one state i think that can define him as a good president if 49 motherfukin states think so( including california)

At 9/19/05 10:50 PM, therealsylvos wrote: any idiot who says reagen wasnt so good the electoral college has to disagree with you in 1988 he won the biggest elctoral landslide IN HISTORY winning all but one state i think that can define him as a good president if 49 motherfukin states think so( including california)

He does hold the title for highest electoral votes with 525, but the only president to win everything was George Washington who refused to run a 3rd time.

At 9/19/05 10:50 PM, therealsylvos wrote: is following the law a reqiurement for a good president? if so then u can count out clinton. perjury is a crime and in a normal society he wouldve been impeached. any idiot who says reagen wasnt so good the electoral college has to disagree with you in 1988 he won the biggest elctoral landslide IN HISTORY winning all but one state i think that can define him as a good president if 49 motherfukin states think so( including california)

Going to war for no reason is illegal too. I believe I'd take a guy saying he didn't have oral sex with an ugly chick over a guy who lied to go to war, wouldn't you?

It was 1984 and 48 states. 1988 was Bush Sr.

Reagan's top polling was only 67% and Clinton's was 71%.

Reagan's administration had 237 people tried for various trade crimes. I think that alone is worth mentioning when we talk about Presidents breaking the law.

At 9/19/05 11:04 PM, Dulnar wrote:

Reagan's administration had 237 people tried for various trade crimes. I think that alone is worth mentioning when we talk about Presidents breaking the law.

Pretty much every president has done something "illigal" so to say. Such as Clinton selling out military secrets and Reagan with the Iran Contra affair.

But basically we'll be going back and forth determining who's better and worse because to us some of what they did doesnt matter.

At 9/19/05 11:08 PM, TimeFrame wrote: Pretty much every president has done something "illigal" so to say. Such as Clinton selling out military secrets and Reagan with the Iran Contra affair.

But basically we'll be going back and forth determining who's better and worse because to us some of what they did doesnt matter.

I was just making the point that it's very hard to judge a President's quality by the illegality of the things he did while in office. Some offenses are worse than others, but saying that the fact they did something illegal makes them a worse President than someone else is foolhardy and I was just pointing that out. So I'm just as trepidatious when talking about presidents breaking the law as you are.

At 9/19/05 08:23 PM, SmellyCat wrote: They should be looking at that, although not necessarily of developments like that. Today, a great SS program could have lasted longer than 50 years... All they need to do is update the currency amounts and change technologies.

Are you kidding me?

No, no, no. Thats just stupid. For one, what the hell purpose would the legislature have? Most of thier work is updating things, not making new laws. It makes the best sense to let them adjust it to fit with thier world as of now.

Second, are you dumb? Are you honestly saying that FDR should have predicted that people would live until 80 and that we would go off the gold standard and that computers would be invented and that the US would no longer be a manufacturing economy? Cause if you are you should kill yourself.

Third, if you write your bill trying to adjust for every possible advancement we will make in the future, you are gauranteed to be wrong at least once. It's better to let it be updated when new situations arise then to try and predict those new situations.

FDR
Thomas Jefferson
I'd be hard pressed to pick between the two.

At 9/20/05 05:15 PM, ScaryDeadGirl wrote: FDR
Thomas Jefferson
I'd be hard pressed to pick between the two.

Thomas Jefferson cracked me up. He was all about states' rights but he made one of the most important decisions in American history, the Louisiana purchase, as President.

At 9/19/05 08:41 PM, Ride_The_Lightning wrote:

At 9/19/05 12:10 AM, Nomader wrote:

At 9/19/05 12:06 AM, Wyrlum wrote: JAMES KNOX POLK

He is under-recognized for his achievements.

Wasn't he the fattest President ever to hold office?

no, the fattest ass president was William Howard Taft. he was so fat his ass got stuck in the bathtub and he needed assitance to get out, lol.

lol - my bad - and wasn't he the first President to make a Presidential trip to Alaska? Or was that Harding?

thank you Jimsween for giving clinton some credit
im tired of hearing people say clinton was a bad president. so what if he cheated. he did help our economy. unlike all you people who think bush is so great. look at the deficite for the un needed war. that helped our economy lots. I think if the worst think clinton did was get a little than he was a damn good president. mabey not the best bt damn good

So how come when Clinton got caught banging an intern, and then lied about it to the entire nation he got let right off the hook, but when an average joe like me get's caught banging my co worker in the kennel at Pets' Plus they throw me out on my ass.

At 9/20/05 07:49 PM, The_Tank wrote: So how come when Clinton got caught banging an intern, and then lied about it to the entire nation he got let right off the hook, but when an average joe like me get's caught banging my co worker in the kennel at Pets' Plus they throw me out on my ass.

You have a point - and considering the fact that he led us into Somalia (we never should have been there), and the fact that as previously said, he lied to all of us, I'm not sure what's so great about him.

At 9/20/05 08:01 PM, Nomader wrote:

At 9/20/05 07:49 PM, The_Tank wrote: So how come when Clinton got caught banging an intern, and then lied about it to the entire nation he got let right off the hook, but when an average joe like me get's caught banging my co worker in the kennel at Pets' Plus they throw me out on my ass.

You have a point - and considering the fact that he led us into Somalia (we never should have been there), and the fact that as previously said, he lied to all of us, I'm not sure what's so great about him.

There was no evidence that the hummers between cabinet meetings affected his job. If anything, it made him look at things more optimistically, and how is that a bad thing?

At 9/20/05 08:14 PM, Dulnar wrote:

At 9/20/05 08:01 PM, Nomader wrote:

At 9/20/05 07:49 PM, The_Tank wrote: So how come when Clinton got caught banging an intern, and then lied about it to the entire nation he got let right off the hook, but when an average joe like me get's caught banging my co worker in the kennel at Pets' Plus they throw me out on my ass.

You have a point - and considering the fact that he led us into Somalia (we never should have been there), and the fact that as previously said, he lied to all of us, I'm not sure what's so great about him.

There was no evidence that the hummers between cabinet meetings affected his job. If anything, it made him look at things more optimistically, and how is that a bad thing?

Are you out of your mind? I think you are. How did sleeping with his intern help out his career? How did it help him in office? Be my guest, and strike back with, "But Bush has a horrible economic record!"

Yeah... thank 9/11 for that - it's called swings. Geez...

Also, can we go back to the Best Presidential Topic? I don't want Soviet seeing this and thinking how horrible Americans are - still.

i personally dont give rat's ass about what soviet thinks of my country

Alright, I am getting pretty sick and tired of people bashing Bush because they have no clue about the world, other than what the liberal media is broadcasting. To start off, I would like to correct the Katrina issue. Bush was NOT slow to act, a wide range of political corruption, particularly the mayor, blocked aid and were deemed by certain congressmen to be untrustworthy of federal aid (source below)

http://www.captainsq../archives/005397.php

Next I would like to address the war in Iraq. For starters I would like to pose the question: If Saddam did not have ties to terrorists, then explain this:

http://www.intelmess..rd/messages/826.html

Finally, to keep this brief, I would like to point out that the UN gave Saddam 24 hours notice before each weapons inspection, so I am still not convinced that he never had WMD's to begin with. Hell, in 24 hours HE COULD HAVE THOSE THINGS HALF WAY ACROSS THE ASIAN CONTENENT!!! How can we ever conclusively state "No WMD's in Iraq".

http://www.time.com/..,8599,353512,00.html

I guess what I am trying to say is, imagine you are the president. The world trade center is demolished and the Pentagon devestated. Saddam has sworn revenge on the US after the First Gulf War and has obvious ties to terrorists (see second link) and even has his security officials training them! It was also believed that he had WMD's. I often wonder if UN inspectors would have found Kim Jung Ill's nukes if they had inspected or if he would have simply moved them during the 24 hour notice.... But more importantly, I fear for what additional devestation could have befallen our nation if some other president were in office to simply turn the other way and ignore the problem (which liberals are so good at doing). Looking OBJECTIVELY at the facts (ignoring bias) would lead any rational person to do exactly what Bush did, and the negative reaction he gets from the world is immature at best. Moreover, blaming him for Katrina when there are obvious political issues is just low.

dude i agree with u and all that but WE KNOW he had wmd because he used em against the iranain's the kurds and his own people for crying outloud. also u forgot no flyovers