0
   

The Worst President in History?

 
 
Asherman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Aug, 2006 08:32 pm
Strange? How so?

I make no pretense of following anyone's "line", and so my opinions often don't mesh what other think. My opinions and analysis are based on my understanding of history. I'm a great fan of the Constitution and the republican system of government that has evolved here since the late 18th century. I generally trust the People to be responsible and choose those leaders and policies best suited to our collective needs. That does not mean that I have any liking for pure democracy where the commons are involved in every decision of government. I dislike popularity as a means of deciding which of all choices is best. I try to be as non-judgemental as possible about our political leaders from Washington to Bush, because the more I study them the more it is evident that very one of them had both good and bad traits. They were, afterall human. If men were angles, there would be no need of government ... but our species would no longer exist.

BTW, being a conservative Republican means that I dream fondly of oceans of blood spilt to make a few wealthy individuals all powerful. I'm defined by some as a neo-con who is out to enslave the world to American imperialism. Obviously driven by Christian fanaticism to expand that faith by the destruction of Islam. Hey wait one darned moment, I'm a Buddhist ... but perhaps thats just another sneaky way of grinding the poor under my hobnailed boots. LOL

You say I have strange ideas; have you read any postings by F4F, or the other conspiracy nuts posting from the day rooms of lunatic asylums?
0 Replies
 
gustavratzenhofer
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Aug, 2006 08:35 pm
Asherman wrote:
Are this administration's economic policies wrong simply because they differ from the agenda of the Democratic Party and its dedication to socialize the nation? There has been a continual tug of war between those who value individualism and property, and those who seek social and economic equality regardless of cost


That paragraph indicates someone who grew up fearing communism and socialism.

It indicates someone who would prefer an oligarchy.

So be it. I can't change him. The ghost of Stalin tortures him and causes his thought process to border on the paranoid.
0 Replies
 
gustavratzenhofer
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Aug, 2006 08:38 pm
I made the post before I read yours, Asherman.

I can't begrudge you for your mindset. All I can do is hope you see the light before it is too late.
0 Replies
 
Asherman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Aug, 2006 08:40 pm
Fear isn't the correct word ... hate is better. I hate and detest Communism and I'm deeply suspicious of Socialism. The grasshopper can fiddle a beautiful tune, but why oh why should the industrious ant go hungry to feed the grasshopper when the snows are deep?
0 Replies
 
gustavratzenhofer
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Aug, 2006 08:45 pm
How about the grasshoppers with only one leg?
0 Replies
 
gustavratzenhofer
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Aug, 2006 08:46 pm
Nice talking to you, Asherman. I'm off to beat up a few Republicans.
0 Replies
 
Asherman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Aug, 2006 08:47 pm
What is it that you fear is going to happen? That the Republican Party is going to stage a coupe? That current policies are going to result in a Police State like Stalin's? What exactly is it that I'm missing that is so terrible about an Administration that is no better nor worse than many others? All these partisan tears that the sky is falling because the opposition has been elected have been standard operating procedures for all political parties since before the Revolution of 1800. I think the republic will survive, and that the great majority of Americans are quite content with their government.
0 Replies
 
Asherman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Aug, 2006 08:48 pm
Take your pitchfork, you old devil Democrat you ... you'll need it.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Aug, 2006 09:53 pm
Asherman wrote:
Fear isn't the correct word ... hate is better. I hate and detest Communism and I'm deeply suspicious of Socialism. The grasshopper can fiddle a beautiful tune, but why oh why should the industrious ant go hungry to feed the grasshopper when the snows are deep?


Asherman, congratulations to you. You have it exactly right. I am constantly amazed at the intellectuals prowling these whereabouts that somehow still cling to the possibility that communism or socialism would work so well, if only the bad apples like Stalin did not screw things up with doing it wrong. People like yourself that are unabashed in declaring communism and socialism just bad ideas that haven't worked and never will work as well as what we have going here are poked fun of and ridiculed for just being uneducated about history, and that perhaps someday you will wake up to the light of truth about the whole thing. They can't get it throught their intellectual heads that what sounds good in the world of academia, or what looks good on paper, does not work as projected. Perhaps the problem is academia, as such opinions always seem to originate in academia. I wish they would join the world of reality, the world of practicality, where the realization sinks in that because of a few principles of human nature, many things do not work in real life as they are drawn on paper.

I have been accused of seeing the communist and socialist boogeyman around every corner here on this forum. Well, I will admit to a severe dislike and distrust of anything resembling such, or anyone wishing to borrow bits and pieces of such to incorporate into their programs and agendas. A government big enough to fix all of our problems is big enough to take all of our rights and freedoms away. I don't want none of it, period.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Aug, 2006 01:05 pm
Asherman, what are those democratic programs that are ruining our country? Would you include social security and Medicare?
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Aug, 2006 08:48 pm
Quote:
"Folks, We Are Being Set Up Again!"
Iran's Nuclear "Threat"

By JUAN COLE

08/25/06 "Counterpunch" -- -- Here is what the professionals are saying about the Republican-dominated Subcommittee on Intelligence Policy report on Iran that slams US intelligence professionals for poor intelligence on Iran: The report demonstrates that these Republicans have poor intelligence . . . on Iran. What follows is summaries of things I've seen from other experts but I can't identify them without permission..

First of all, former CIA professionals Larry Johnson and Jim Marcinkowski point out that the Republicans have a lot of damn gall. It was high members of this Republican administration who leaked to the Iranians and the whole world the name of Valerie Plame, an undercover CIA operative who spent her professional career combatting the proliferation of WMD and was, at the time she was betrayed by Traitor Rove and his merry band, working on Iran. Had it not been for these Republican figures, none of whom has yet been punished in any way for endangering US national security, we might know more about Iran.

It is being said that the staffer who headed the report is Frederick Fleitz, who was a special assistant to John Bolton when Bolton was undersecretary of state for proliferation issues. Fleitz was sent to the unemployment line when Condi wisely exiled Bolton to the United Nations, where there is a long history of ill-tempered despots who like to bang their shoes on the podium. So this report is the long arm of Bolton popping up in Congress. It is Neoconservative propaganda.

I repeat what I have said before, which is that John Bolton is just an ill-tempered lawyer who has no special expertise in nuclear issues or in Iran, and aside from an ability to scare the bejesus out of young gofers who bring him coffee and to thunderously denounce on cue any world leader on whom he is sicced, he has no particular qualifications for his job.

Nor do the Republican congressmen know anything special about Iran's nuclear energy program. They certainly know much less than the CIA agents who work on it full time, some of whom know Persian and have actually done . . . intelligence work.

We are beset by instant experts on contemporary Iran, like the medievalist Bernard Lewis, who wrongly predicted that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would attack Israel on August 22, based on Lewis's weird interpretation of his alleged millenarian beliefs. Once the Neoconservatives went so far as actually to make fun of reality in the hearing of a reporter, their game was up.

Pete Hoekstra, who is the chair of this committee, has a long history of saying things that are disconnected from reality. Like when he made a big deal about some old shells with mustard gas found in Iraq left over from the 1980s Iran-Iraq War, and claimed that these were the fabled and long-sought Iraqi WMD over which 2600 of our service people are six feet under and another 8000 in wheelchairs. Nope.

Bolton at one point was exercised about an imaginary Cuban biological weapons program, which even his own staffers wouldn't support him on, and at one point he was alleging that Iranian mullahs were sneaking into Havana to help with it.

This congressional report is full of the same sort of wild fantasies.

On page 9, the report alleges that "Iran is currently enriching uranium to weapons grade using a 164-machine centrifuge cascade at this facility in Natanz."

This is an outright lie. Enriching to weapons grade would require at least 80% enrichment. Iran claims . . . 2.5 per cent. See how that isn't the same thing? See how you can't blow up anything with 2.5 percent?

The claim is not only flat wrong, but it is misleading in another way. You need 16,000 centrifuges, hooked up so that they cascade, to make enough enriched uranium for a bomb in any realistic time fame, even if you know how to get the 80 percent! Iran has . . . 164. See how that isn't the same?

The report cites the International Atomic Energy Agency only when it is critical of Iran. It does not tell us what the IAEA actually has found.
By the way, here is what IAEA head Mohamed Elbaradei said in early March, 2003, about Iraq:

'After three months of intrusive inspections, we have to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons programme in Iraq.'


At the same time, Republicans like Donald Rumsfeld were saying he knew exactly where Iraq's WMD was!

Elbaradei was right then, and Fleitz was wrong. Can't get fooled again.

And here is what the IAEA said about Iran just last January:

"Iran has continued to facilitate access under its Safeguards Agreement as requested by the Agency, and to act as if the Additional Protocol is in force, including by providing in a timely manner the requisite declarations and access to locations."

Last April Elbaradei complained about the hype around Iran's nuclear research, and said that there is no imminent threat from Iran.

The only thing that the IAEA knows for sure is that Iran has a peaceful nuclear energy research program. Such a program is not the same as a weapons program, and it is perfectly legal under the Nonproliferation Treaty, which Iran, unlike Israel, has actually signed.

The report allegedly vastly exaggerates the range of Iran's missiles and also exaggerates the number of its longer-range ones, and seems to think that Iran already has the Shahab-4, which it does not. It also doesn't seem to realize that Iran can't send missiles on other countries without receiving them back. Israel has more and longer-range missiles than Iran, and can quickly equip them with real nuclear warheads, not the imaginary variety in Fleitz's fevered brain.

Folks, we are being set up again.

Juan Cole is President of the Global Americana Institute. This article is extracted from Juan Cole's website.


Anyone know enough about the science of uranium enrichment to comment on this? If this is true then this whole argument about Iran building a bomb is nothing more than more fear mongering by the Bush administration.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Aug, 2006 10:13 am
x, thanks for the Cole piece. It is clear, relative to this administration, that the lunatics are running the asylum.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Aug, 2006 09:15 am
Principle (or at least the pretense of it) versus oil...again.

Quote:
With Kazakh's Visit, Bush Priorities Clash
Autocrat Leads an Oil-Rich Country

By Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, August 29, 2006; Page A01

President Bush launched an initiative this month to combat international kleptocracy, the sort of high-level corruption by foreign officials that he called "a grave and corrosive abuse of power" that "threatens our national interest and violates our values." The plan, he said, would be "a critical component of our freedom agenda."

Three weeks later, the White House is making arrangements to host the leader of Kazakhstan, an autocrat who runs a nation that is anything but free and who has been accused by U.S. prosecutors of pocketing the bulk of $78 million in bribes from an American businessman. Not only will President Nursultan Nazarbayev visit the White House, people involved say, but he also will travel to the Bush family compound in Maine.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/28/AR2006082801282.html?sub=AR
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Aug, 2006 09:45 am
There was a brief thread a while back hoping to discuss the notion of kleptocratic governments.
It didn't go far, but here it is.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Aug, 2006 09:48 am
Not far indeed. A pity.
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Aug, 2006 02:20 am
Setanta wrote:



If one recalls the eagerness with which business embraced Clinton in 1992, after the doldrums of the Pappy Bush admininstration--your comment about the Diggers is nothing short of hilariously delusional. I assert that the the economic policies are wrong because they have mortgaged the future of the nation with an enormous debt, staggering in scope compared to any debt run by any other administration of any complexion. Those policies are the more ruinous when one considers that the nation was prosperous and the budget ran a surplus prior the election of this administration. That surplus was produced by the properly elected representatives of the nation, so your little melodrama there just makes you look ridiculous. The nation has borne far heavier costs with this administration and a tax-and-spend conservative Congress and administration then you will be able to demonstrate was the case in the previous eight years of an administration by the Democrats, which faced for most of that time a Republican dominated House.

end of quote


I am very much afraid that Setanta is failing in his knowledge of basic Economics.

He talks about a "Enormous debt"

"Staggering in scope compared to any debt run by any other administration of any complexion"

Mr. Setanta knows very little about Economics.

One could say that the Administration has raised the Gross National Product ENORMOUSLY. One could say that the Gross National Product is "Staggering in scope compared to any GNP run by any other administration of any complexion"

Mr. Setanta obviously is not aware that:

l. Most of US History has seen the US in debt.

2. In 1916, at the start of World War I, the public debt was 1 Billion, rising to a peak of 26 Billion in 1919 to finance the war( WARS DO THAT)

3, The government's ability to finance its debt is tied to the strength and size of the economy or GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT.

4. As a percentage of GDP, debt held by the public was highest at the end of World War II, at 109 percent and then fell to 24 percent in 1974 before gradually rising to 65%. THE DECLINE FROM 109 percent to 24 percent OCCURED BECAUSE THE ECONOMY GREW FASTER THAN THE DEBT ACCUMULATED. Although debt held by the public rose from $242 Billion to 344 Billion between 1946 and 1974, EVEN THOUGH THE DEBT STILL GREW, THE ECONOMY GREW FASTER.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Aug, 2006 02:49 am
"I'd like to come back down here in about two years and walk your streets and see how vital this part of the world is going to be."
-- George W. Bush in Mississippi, 9-5-05,

"I believe, 10 years from now April, you and I...will be trying to remember back what it was like 10 years ago."
-- George W. Bush, 8-28-06, to April Ryan of the American Urban Radio Networks
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Aug, 2006 02:58 am
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Setanta wrote:



If one recalls the eagerness with which business embraced Clinton in 1992, after the doldrums of the Pappy Bush admininstration--your comment about the Diggers is nothing short of hilariously delusional. I assert that the the economic policies are wrong because they have mortgaged the future of the nation with an enormous debt, staggering in scope compared to any debt run by any other administration of any complexion. Those policies are the more ruinous when one considers that the nation was prosperous and the budget ran a surplus prior the election of this administration. That surplus was produced by the properly elected representatives of the nation, so your little melodrama there just makes you look ridiculous. The nation has borne far heavier costs with this administration and a tax-and-spend conservative Congress and administration then you will be able to demonstrate was the case in the previous eight years of an administration by the Democrats, which faced for most of that time a Republican dominated House.

end of quote


I am very much afraid that Setanta is failing in his knowledge of basic Economics.

He talks about a "Enormous debt"

"Staggering in scope compared to any debt run by any other administration of any complexion"

Mr. Setanta knows very little about Economics.

One could say that the Administration has raised the Gross National Product ENORMOUSLY. One could say that the Gross National Product is "Staggering in scope compared to any GNP run by any other administration of any complexion"

Mr. Setanta obviously is not aware that:

l. Most of US History has seen the US in debt.

2. In 1916, at the start of World War I, the public debt was 1 Billion, rising to a peak of 26 Billion in 1919 to finance the war( WARS DO THAT)

3, The government's ability to finance its debt is tied to the strength and size of the economy or GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT.

4. As a percentage of GDP, debt held by the public was highest at the end of World War II, at 109 percent and then fell to 24 percent in 1974 before gradually rising to 65%. THE DECLINE FROM 109 percent to 24 percent OCCURED BECAUSE THE ECONOMY GREW FASTER THAN THE DEBT ACCUMULATED. Although debt held by the public rose from $242 Billion to 344 Billion between 1946 and 1974, EVEN THOUGH THE DEBT STILL GREW, THE ECONOMY GREW FASTER.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Aug, 2006 04:54 am
It does seem odd to see conservatives embrace one of the main doctrines of liberalism so tightly. After years of decrying Keynesian Economics, they now defend deficit spending. Amazing!

Only scant years ago, Newt and his freshmen were proposing as part of their Contract With America an Amendment to the Constitution called in it's various forms the Run America like a Business Amendment or The Balanced Budget Amendment. (They stopped calling it the Like a Business Amendment when someone pointed out to them that businesses don't like to run on balanced budgets, they like to make a profit.)

There would be no deficit spending in America, un uh.

Conservatives are still very big on proposing Amendments, it makes good election year copy. They just aren't sincere about following through with any of them.

So, what happened? Well, they got themselves elected to office and found out they don't know how to do two things: cut taxes for their wealthy base AND balance a budget. So they elected to do only one. Guess which one they picked?

To me, besides not knowing how to execute a war or a disaster recovery, or promote solid scientific research or even figure out how to make transportation, to say nothing of chemical plants, in this nation more secure, it's shows the true nature of this modern version of Conservative. They know how to shout down opposition, they just don't know how to govern.

They run deficits up to the sky while increasing the federal level of spending to it's greatest height ever, but neither is being done for the Keynesian reason of priming the economy. (Conservatives don't believe that it possible) They are doing it because they don't know what else to do.

It's what happens when people who don't believe in government are made part of the government. Chief example: George W. Bush who continues to exceed all our expectations at being the worst President ever.

Joe(Wait till you hear his next three speechs) Nation
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Aug, 2006 09:16 am
I wonder how much more taxes must be cut to balance the budget.

Running up the deficits is particularly dangerous to the country in these times. That is because there is going to be an unprecedented drain on government coffers once the baby boomers hit retirement. The payments to them are unavoidable, and there is nothing in the offing to solve the future disaster brought on by massive deficits.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY, EVERYONE! - Discussion by OmSigDAVID
WIND AND WATER - Discussion by Setanta
Who ordered the construction of the Berlin Wall? - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
True version of Vlad Dracula, 15'th century - Discussion by gungasnake
ONE SMALL STEP . . . - Discussion by Setanta
History of Gun Control - Discussion by gungasnake
Where did our notion of a 'scholar' come from? - Discussion by TuringEquivalent
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.17 seconds on 03/18/2025 at 04:16:10