Worst President in history ?

[The Redneck]

he numbers come heaviest down on america. and we know why don't we?

And yet you try to tell us exactly the opposite; that the UN is not anti-American.

becasue america has the highest co2 output ratio of any developed country. therfore they should clean up more than everyone else. that is just common sense.america has the most to change.

Supporting the world tends to do that. In the meantime, there's no reason to assume we should cripple our economy to take part in a treaty that will do nothing overall in averting a non-existant threat.

the word of your 80th attorney general is citing breach of human rights as declared by the un human rights charter and signed by the us.

Again, incorrect, as this applies to prisoners of war, not captured terrorists.

also the usa patriot act is breaks the us constitution in sections 505 and 805.

And what are sections 505 and 805, that supposedly violate the Constitution?

and i hate to say it as i have studied nazism for 4 years the similarites between us at present and germany after the reichstag fires are shocking.

Except that the only similarities exist in the wild accusations of people who hate America considerably more than they hated the Nazis.

moazzam begg, was arrested in islamabad. held in afghanistan for a year and then in cuba for 2. anoher helpful little link for you different from the one i used before when i was asked the same question for the sake of variety. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moazzam_Begg

The unlawful combatant who trained with al-Quaeda? Yeah, we got an innocent, there. Whose claims of torture come from... him. But his lawyer believes them....

suggest also reading and watching the first two parts as well as they contain great detail on the start of the jihad and will answer another questions you have on why isay the jihad is not a religous war on america

Actually, the people waging the religious war on America are very clear in just what is its they're doing.

and why i regard the war on terror as a joke and al-qaeda a bigger one.

Would that be their opinion that Al-qaeda doesnt' exist? (part III-- FADE TO BLACK ]

[ FADE TO AFGHANISTAN EXTERIOR ]

VO: The terrible truth was that there was nothing there because Al Qaeda as an organisation did not exist.)

thought the pictures gives a far greater presentation of this fabrication.

"RUSSERT : A complex... ...sophisticated operation."

Point conceded--we did indeed have intelligence that led us to believe that Al-Qaeda had underground complexes rather than a few caves--that's probably part of what lead to work on the "Bunker-Buster" bombs. To assume that this therefore must be a "fabrication", however, is a curious leap of logic.

"VO: And now, they took their revenge on the foreign fighters. The Americans believed that these men were Al Qaeda terrorists, and the Northern Alliance did nothing to disabuse them of this, because they were paid by the Americans for each prisoner they delivered."

Sorry, but the narrator for a work of anti-American propoganda does not evidence make--if this is actually something that could be considered a source, wait until I go to Freerepublic.com and start grabbing random forum-posts.

actually graveyeards in iraq are growing because every day a car bomb goes off that kills a few more innocent iraqi's. is this american justice or the great american war against terror? was this the great plan to rid of the world of an evil man? to have children blown up in the street?

So when terrorists blow someone up, it's the fault of America? Truly, your hatred knows no bounds.....

and to cut through the gassing of villages. the most popular reference for this being halabja. there's a slight problem there. and that's to do with timing and who hlped fund that operation. who supplied iraq with those chemical weapons? the bombs needed to contain them? the planes to drop them? traied the pilots that flew them? installed the systems to guide them? that would have been america who at the time were concerned with iran and had no objections to gassing people then. now when it suits america gassing people is all of a sudden wrong and an evil they funded it in the first place and are so ultimately to blame for it. america was responsible for halabja.

Actually, we provided them with small samples of various chemical weapons that were needed to make gear and antidotes, and which may or may not have been used to make more. To infer that selling them planes to attack Iran with means that we helped them to gas their own people is another curious leap of logic. Or hatred.

america has greatly angered the muslim world

By not converting to islam and not letting them kill Jews--they've been very clear on this.

and so this is why you needn't be shocked if bombs are planted in manhattan. people should start thinking that these people are so determined to show their hate for america that they will take their own lives .

We are indeed aware of this. That's why we're tearing down their organizations and killing them.

the un was broekn down over iraq. and the un stood up for what it believed in.

Oil profits, apparently.

it was determind to allow the inspectors to finish their duty rather than invade without needed evidence.

17 years wasn't enough? Is America the only nation that understood that the inspectors weren't going to "finish their duty" with Sodom trailing them and threatening to kill the families of any scientists who spoke with inspectors? Apparently not, since several other nations joined us.

america decided to roll over the top of this and invade anyway. and still found nothing.

Something about nations with veto power making it clear that no amount of evidence would convince them to allow it.

the un supported america 100% of afghanistan. that isn't corruption or anti-americanism. they saw an injustice and supported america.

Again, untrue. The UN made a resolution demanding the Taliban turn over bin Laden, but provided no method of enforcing it, and did not support the invasion of Afghanistan. The US, Austrailia, England and the Northern Alliance did the work.

they saw iraq and saw that it was illegal.

I'll say again--shooting at our planes. Even if the rest of it--pursuing weapons of mass destruction, state sponsor of terrorism, hostility to the US--were not true--and it is--Houssein was firing on American troops, which in and of itself is reason for action to remove him.

that day america lost all the support it had gained in 2001 and threw it away to fight an illegal war.

Ahh, that mythical support. Countries that have hated us for decades now hate us.

When you say christainsation you mean the fact htat the republicans that are neo-conservatives are hiding behind christainity right?

Maybe that has something to do with the outright hostility of liberalism to Christianity.

As for the saddam thing and BTW redneck i know this isnt int eh topic but american oil companies are holding the oil reserves in Iraq.I just wanted to get that out there.

That's something I hadn't heard. Got any evidence for it?

can't blame the enviroment on a president but i can blame the refusal to do anything to improve the situation on him.

You mean he won't cripple our nation for apocalyptic junk-science? Well, I'm sure y'all can come up with some other reason he should.

[edczxcvbnm]

can't blame the enviroment on a president but i can blame the refusal to do anything to improve the situation on him.

You mean he won't cripple our nation for apocalyptic junk-science? Well, I'm sure y'all can come up with some other reason he should.

Better safe than sorry. This is something that both Clinton and Bush Sr. should have worked towards so it wouldn't be so bad to keep cracking down now. I would like to hear why it is junk science anyways. Its not like 50% of scientists say this and the other 50% say that. Its more like 90 to 10...if that. I think I will choose to believe the 90 over the 10.

I will state the part I really care about again so it gets answered. Why is it junk-science?

[Cloud No.9]

actually the kyoto agreement is not part of the un. and it comes down heaviest on the us because they are the heaviest polluters with most to change. it will not cripple your economy. it will in fact bolster it. creating a new industry and power source and making your systems more effecient is a boost to country who's economy is on shaky ground not a destruction.

tut tut redneck you made a mistake. the human rights charter actually applies to all humans hence it's name. the us signed it and so is obliged to keep it. breach of it is breach of human rights we hung people at nuremburg for the same thing. the geneva convention thoough only applies to POWs however....... civillian prisoners who aren't combatants like...... lets say a man who's door you kick in in islamabad are also covered and have very stict rules regarding their treatment.

section 805 declares that expert advice or assistance can be declared as material support to terrorism. that breaches the 1st and 5th ammendemnts

505 allows the government to obtain customer records and this breaches the 1st and fourth ammendments

also the gag orders in the act are also illegal under us law.

similarities between nazi germany and the us in easy steps.

the reichstag and 9-11. both countries passed act following to restrict liberties. both broke their own constitution. both were passed to protect against a threat that was pushed hard in propaganda.

camps have been set up in both countries to contain suspects without trial indefinetly. (i don't refer to death camps but concentration camps for communist before the wannasse conference)

both ignored an internation governing body.

both had international support for military actions until an unlawful invasion.

both allowed people to hand over communists/terrorists and place them in camps. (can someone help me with the word for this? i've been struggling with it for a week)

moazzam begg actually never trained in afghanistan. he was interested in the islamic revolution and visited two training camps. he also visited bosnia but never took up arms. he was not arrest as an enemy combatant because he was not on the battlefield. if there as any thing that incriminated him he would not have been released. but after 3 years in cuba without charge was released a free man without explanation. the us government only claimed he was an unlawful combatant who trained with al-qaeda if they belived as much why let such a dangerous man go? or was it just that some half with NA guy wanted a quick buck and so shopped him and the us amry belived him in it's little search to find anything worthwhile in afghanistan?

you obviously didn't read those programs otherwise the reasons for the jihad as stated at the time and not warped afterwards would be clear for you. when i post links for you which you ask for please show me the courtesy of at least flicking through it.

the same for the evidence against a true structure for al qaeda.

the complexes in afghanistan were fabrication by someone.

because that documentatu doesn't say what you like it's anti-(german) american propaganda probably spread around by those nazi (communist jews) terrorists and liberals. i point again to my previous statement about the us becoming more like 1933 germany. the documentary if you cared to watch or read it was thoroughly well researched and above all things shown on the bbc which is not allowed to be biased and must research all it's information thoroughly before it airs it. this is even stricter now to prevent a repeat of the david kelly crisis. so the repost is about as impartial as you will get.

actually people blowing each other in iraq is the fault of america. it didn't happen before but now it does. an unlawful invasion triggered that kind of uprising which has led to thousands of deaths.

what america provided iraq with during the iraq-iran war.

771 dual use technolgies.
ultra high spec computers.
armored ambulances.
helicopters.
thiodiglycol (for making mustard gas)
pathogenic and toxigenic materials that were not were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction.
anthrax bacillus (the exact same type UN inspectors would find after the first gulf war).
24 firms exported arms.
14 agents who specialised in biological warfare.
$5 billion dollars.

a little bit more than a few chemicals.

france never used it's veto on iraq. and it actually said that it would use it if no substantial evidence was found. if the inspectors were to find a nice big nuke opr something that didn't amount to a petri dish in a sceientists home and iraq refused to remove it then france almost certainly would have went to war as it did for the first gulf war.

the un resolution on afghanistan gace legal precedent for the invasion. also just for future note england has not went to war for a few hundred years. the uk (or great britain, they are different) went to war with afghanistan. a few million other uk citizens are not english and have died in these wars a bit of respect for this is due.

i'll let lordblazer defend his own statements.

[lordblazer]

The thing is cloud 9 we agree with ya and mainly i agreew ith you on the kyoto thingy.It will help our economy but the problem is and sadlyAmerica is controled by corporations in the executive branch.Thus the reason why bush won't sign the kyoto.Also another thing about the kyoto treaty is that it is a treaty and that it must go through the senate before it gets approved by the USA gov. to follow that treaty.And thats really the toughest part of anyting thats the reason why the USA never joined the League Of Nations.

Now the Corporations actually see the money in developing resources and are trying to create these new industries.Signing a treaty will actually criple these companies because its tough for a company to get into a new Industry.When I mean tough i mean having to relearn everything.Having to learn how this new industry works.Is the real big problem.Thus i think thats why these oil and energy companies are trying to dry out our cash to get started into there new money making whatchamacallit. Whatever my head hurts now im gonna go take a nap.

[The Redneck]

Better safe than sorry. This is something that both Clinton and Bush Sr. should have worked towards so it wouldn't be so bad to keep cracking down now.

Not when it comes to crippling ourselves over with non-existant threats.

I would like to hear why it is junk science anyways.

Because the evidence doesn't match up to the theory. Computer models indicate a warming trend, but while actual temperature has risen in some places, it's fallen in others. stratospheric temperature, for example, has been below the average since 1994 (and at various times before that) while many others (such as Cordova, Alaska, which has cooled, Eastman, Georgia (Close by my hometown), which shows a slight cooling trend, likewise Santa Cruz, Californee--I could spend all night throwing links up) show either no change or a history of climate cooling. In fact, in the 1970's, Global Cooling was the big scare-tactic, although its proponents have switched without slowing down to the opposite end of the spectrum.

As for opponents of Global Warming, here's a more detailed explanation of the myths regarding global warming, as well as a list of professors and scientists who discount the theory. It also might be of interest to check the Hiedelburg Appeal, the OISM Petition, and the Leipzig Declaration.

it will not cripple your economy. it will in fact bolster it.

Shutting down a sizable percentage of our businesses will bolster our economy? Oooookayyy.......

tut tut redneck you made a mistake. the human rights charter actually applies to all humans hence it's name. the us signed it and so is obliged to keep it.

Granted. War sucks, don't it?

lets say a man who's door you kick in in islamabad

The guy who trained with Al-Qaeda? My sympathy simply does not overflow.

breach of it is breach of human rights we hung people at nuremburg for the same thing.

All I can say is that I'm disgusted. Do you really hate America that much?

section 805 declares that expert advice or assistance can be declared as material support to terrorism. that breaches the 1st and 5th ammendemnts

False. Advising and assisting in a crime are considered conspiracy. What's good enough for murder is good enough for terrorism.

505 allows the government to obtain customer records and this breaches the 1st and fourth ammendments

Except these records still require a warrant--which the Constitution allows government to do if they have a warrant. Again, false.

also the gag orders in the act are also illegal under us law.

I'm probably going to wish I didn't, but let's hear about these gag orders.

imilarities between nazi germany and the us in easy steps.

the reichstag and 9-11. both countries passed act following to restrict liberties. both broke their own constitution. both were passed to protect against a threat that was pushed hard in propaganda.

First, as already noted, the US did not "break" its own constitution, nor was Al-Qaeda "pushed hard" in propoganda--after murdering 3000 people, there wasn't much need for it. Seems like you stepped in something you shouldn't have.

camps have been set up in both countries to contain suspects without trial indefinetly. (i don't refer to death camps but concentration camps for communist before the wannasse conference)

We're not containing "suspects" we're containing prisoners caught with a terrorist organization. Again, false. but third time's the charm, right?

both ignored an internation governing body.

Except that we followed 17 UN resolutions regarding Iraq. But maybe the fourth time?

both had international support for military actions until an unlawful invasion.

First, no unlawful invasion was involved. Second, we still have international support. I'm not hoping much for #5, here....

both allowed people to hand over communists/terrorists and place them in camps. (can someone help me with the word for this? i've been struggling with it for a week)

I was right. You do see the difference, I hope, between terrorists that we caught with the help of informants and people Hitler jailed for their political views? Well, apparently, not when it comes to America you don't.

moazzam begg actually never trained in afghanistan.

The source I named already disputed this.

you obviously didn't read those programs otherwise the reasons for the jihad as stated at the time and not warped afterwards would be clear for you. when i post links for you which you ask for please show me the courtesy of at least flicking through it.

I would say the same about the wikipedia link regarding begg... except that you posted that, but it still would have been nice if you'd looked at it.

And I obviously did read the programs--did you notice the parts of my post that were in quotation marks? The reasons for the Jihad, as stated at the time, (as in in OBL's own declaration) is that America is not muslim and won't let them kill Jews. When you make some wild accusation please at least show me the courtesy of looking at what I posted before drawing inferences from it.

the same for the evidence against a true structure for al qaeda.

That some work of propoganda claims so?

ecause that documentatu doesn't say what you like it's anti-(german) american propaganda probably spread around by those nazi (communist jews) terrorists and liberals.

You know what? I'm tired, I'm getting bored with having to repeat common sense over and over again, and by trying to compare me to Hitler you have admitted that you don't have a leg to stand on--so I'm done until I feel a bit less disgusted.

[TifaLockhart7]

Bill Clinton

[Cloud No.9]

how would kyoto force you to shut down industires? it forces you to clean them up. that doesn't mean shtting them down. creating a renewable energy industry as well will bolster the economy because those kind of things need built and maintained. at what point do you lose here?

moazaam begg was alleaged by us officials (who needed areason to have him held illegally for 3 years) to have trained with al qaeda. it's hardly the least biased way to gain information. if the us truly beluved he was an al-qaeda operative why release him?

i don't hate america that much i hate war criminals that much.

actually to be convicted of conspracy requires two things. we'll brak it down to the stone story.

two kids talk about breaking windows with rocks and write out a plan. they ar enot yet guilt of anything. the kids start to collect rocks in a big back. they are no guilty of conspiracy. the kids could have collected rocks in the first place if they had never talked about or written down a plan and would not be guilty. but because they had the plan and the rocks are guilty. planning a terrorist act is therefore not conspiracy until you start buying lots of fertilizer.

actually section 805 does not need a warrant.

the patriot act does break the american consitution and there is plenty of deabte on the matter from various groups and a few attempts to get it changed. and if you really want to be picky the enbaling act and reichstag degree didn't truly break german law.

actually they are suspects. it's what you americans call innocent until proven guilty. they are suspectts because you refuse to try them and instead hold them indefiently much like ther germans did to all those communists. they weren't caught with a terrorist organisation because they weren't all caught on a battlefield or with abig badge saying "al-qaeda rocks" they were picked off the street on the word of the NA.

germany followd the league of nations until the sudentland like america did until it decided to fight an illegal war and make war criminals out of it's soldiers.

as pointed out earlier the invasion was illegal because it was a. not passed by the un, b. not a response to genocide, c. not in retilation. that makes it illegal. and the international support consists of new europe? ex-soviet and balkan states? grmany at least managed italy, spain and japan.

they are suspected terrorists which s illegal and suspected communists which were illegal in 1933. the difference is very slim. communists were blamed in germany for attacks and the reichstag fire in the same way these suspects are blamed for 9-11 and other attacks.

again with begg. american officials who ordered his illegal imprisonment and torture and then released him without charge are not the best people to ask to tell you if he's guilty of a crime or not.

okay we'll start witht he jihad in condensed form. iran had a revolution which turned into an islamic state which had both the technology and benfits of western society while keeping the values of a muslim country. people wanted to see this aagin in other countries and so tried it out. it failed miserably because lots of popl didn't want it (egypt, suadi, iraq etc.) and lots of people died and were put into exile. this didn't stop a few people. so up pop obl and his little friends who decided that maybe the best way is to impress the muslim world by hitting "the great satan" that way folk will be impressed and might be won over. they decide to attack two embassies in africa. not much happens to public opinion so they try again with a bigger attack. which gets them thoroughly bombed.

the program was researched, checked, and shown by the bbc. an organisation which is wholy unbiased and even more so now after the david kelly problem. this kind of means that it's probably unbiased otherwise it wouldn't have been shown. on the bc. in what way is an unbiased documentary, propaganda? it may disagree with many of our views but having been declared biased means it can not be propaganda.

[The Unknown Guru]

I have to say George W. Bush. He proposed KILLING all of the grizzly bears—an ENDANGERED SPECIES— in a WILDERNESS AREA just so a freaking silver mine could be built there!!!!!!! Sorry about the caps, they help to emphasize my point. Also, he invaded a pretty much innocent country just because they MAY be able to build WMDs, according to intelligence! Of course Bush said in various speeches (actual quotes) "they have nuc-yuh-lur weapons", "they have chemical weapons", "they have rape rooms"! Also, even though it doesnt really matter, it just bugs me when people say "nuc-yuh-lur". Phew. Sorry about that if it was kinda ranting too much, but i just need to get it out. for listening (even if you didnt)!

[Cruise Control]

Reagan and Clinton tie!

[Sasquatch]

Also, he invaded a pretty much innocent country just because they MAY be able to build WMDs, according to intelligence! Of course Bush said in various speeches (actual quotes) "they have nuc-yuh-lur weapons", "they have chemical weapons", "they have rape rooms"!

He "invaded" (in reality, liberated) a country that was ruled by a man with a history of torturing and slaughtering mass numbers of his own people, a man who was pursuing nuclear technology and had the means and motive to develop and deliver chemical and biological weapons. Plus, he really did have rape rooms, torture chambers, etc. Think what you want about the Grizzlies, but at least gain a bit of knowledge on other subjects before you form opinions about them.

[DMKA]

I'm baffeled at the idea of people saying Clinton...that just blows my mind that someone could say he's the worst president we've had (especially considering the president we have currently).

Nixon and Bush Jr. tie for me.

[nik0tine]

He "invaded" (in reality, liberated lol) a country that was ruled by a man with a history of torturing and slaughtering mass numbers of his own people, a man who was pursuing nuclear technology and had the means and motive to develop and deliver chemical and biological weapons. Plus, he really did have rape rooms, torture chambers, etc. Think what you want about the Grizzlies, but at least gain a bit of knowledge on other subjects before you form opinions about them.

That doesn't change the fact that he invaded that country for one reason, and that reason is power. Bush has no humanitarian agenda, and his war is anything but moral.

[SomethingBig]

I'm baffeled at the idea of people saying Clinton...that just blows my mind that someone could say he's the worst president we've had (especially considering the president we have currently).

Nixon and Bush Jr. tie for me.

Agreed, only Nixon wasn't as bad or as stupid as Bush Jr.

[Cloud No.9]

if bush was some kind of savious who goes around liberating countries because they have nasty leaders then he would have invaded zimbabwe, korea, burma, sudan.

but he hasn't.........

he singled out one country which compared to the rest wasn't the worst in any way.

the genocide in sudan is far worse than anything to have happened in iraq. burma has used chemical weapons on civillians and continues to do so. korea has nuclear weapons and a poor human rights record. zimbabwe just bulldozed 100,000 homes this week, rigged an election and has a habit of killing people.

why not them?

[Teek]

I'm not aiming to flame, but the grand majority of the posters here are screaming empty chants against "human rights" and then say, as a vice, that Bush won't tax the rich more.

They claim that the Iraqi War was pointless (rightly so), but then say we should focus on global warming, a liberal scare tactic? (!!)

It's said that we didn't really mean to grant peace to Iraq, but who cares? This is almost as bad as saying any action a man takes is "immoral" if he derives pleasure out of it (it has no "moral import", I'm sure).

why not them?

They haven't been insistent that they wanted America destroyed.

I don't really agree with the War on Iraq, but not for the reasons that most people (Leftists) claim. I think it was irrational and foolish, but trying to undermine it by saying that Iraq wasn't THAT bad, and that we should focus on all of the other evils in the world is claiming that we're impotent against evil.

And, really, everyone knows FDR is one of the worst presidents ever. lol @ socialism