On Jan 6, 1:03*am, Neolibertarian wrote:
In article ,





*DeserTBoB wrote:
On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 23:55:52 GMT, Neolibertarian
wrote:

In article ,
DeserTBoB wrote:

Here we go, bracing for yet another in a series of "Dubya Recessions,"
but this time at the end of his, the worst of just about any of the US
presidencies.

How do you define "worst?"

Just curious.snip

Oh, there are a myriad of ways to describe a "worst presidency"...the
idiocy and disinterest of the public purse of Warren Harding, the
callous disregard of Calvin Coolidge, the ineptitude of U.S. Grant,
the complete lack of ability or tilted morality of Millard Fillmore,
the self interest of William McKinley or Lyndon Johnson, the lack of
cognizance of reality of Herbert Hoover...or the calculated
destruction of the very document they were sworn to "uphold and
protect," in the cases of Richard Nixon and George W. Bush.

Your "myriad of ways" begs more questions than it answers; and shows you
may have little understanding of the office or its history.

Besides, you'd need to define "best president" in order for any of your
"gages" to have meaning. A worst logically implies a best, if you see
what I mean.

Who was "best" by your criteria?

Help me out here.

The
latter's actions which will probably prove, when viewed through the
equalizer of time, to be the far more onerous.

Such likelihood is not as evident as you seem to believe. What has
transpired over the last seven years won't be seen as disasters by
anyone. How could it?

A strong economy, despite too much government spending and borrowing. A
largely successful War on Terror which has brought democracy to the
Middle East--despite much wailing and gnashing of teeth from all sides.

Iran has been forced to stop her nuclear weapons project. Egypt has
agreed to hold free elections. Libya has given up her own weapons
project. A democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan where stood ages and ages
of tyranny before them. And Islamic terrorists have been killed at a
seven to one ratio to American troops. No attacks on American soil since
9/11/01, despite repeated threats by those who'd carried out the first
attacks.

Your myopia is glaringly apparent here. You can't even define what
SHOULD have transpired over the last seven years--and if you don't have
a clear idea of should have happened, you've nothing from which to judge
what actually what did.

One thing is nearly certain he George W. Bush's Presidency won't be
judged through the prism of the opposition party.



Take your pick á la carte, but be mindful that, of all of the above,
many got to the bottom simply by being ignorant, unintelligent or by
having limited powers of perception or a miscalibrated moral compass.

"When ignorance does not know something, it says that what it does not
know is stupid."
* * * * * *---Leo Tolstoy

None of the Presidents you listed above were/are ignorant men. None
were/are unintelligent men. Until you understand that, I assure you, you
understand nothing.

Of the above, Harding and Johnson seem to have the worst records--so bad
that their own political parties rebelled against them at the time.
Neither have the accomplishments under their belts that Nixon, for
instance, was able to achieve (for good or ill). And the corruption and
lies of Nixon pale in comparison to those of Harding and Johnson. Which
you should well know by now.

Even so, history does not judge Harding or Johnson or Nixon as
"ignorant" or "unintelligent." Perhaps they did, in fact, have
"mis-calibrated moral compasses," but that is something so common to
history as to be unremarkable. The constraints of the office keep this
failing from devolving into disaster.

While many righttards will point to Clinton's lying about a blow job
from a fat chick,

Poor example.

He was lying, yes, but he was also lying under oath to a federal grand
jury. According to my Constitution, that patently qualifies as a "High
Crime and Misdemeanor." A little lie for you and me, sure. But we aren't
in a high position. The President is, in fact, in a high position.

Which is why the "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" clause is there in the
first place.

Even so, were you or I before a federal grand jury, and it's proved we
were lying in our testimony, the most likely outcome is that we'd serve
time in a federal penitentiary. Right next door to Scooter Libby, for
example.

Now, as to whether he /should/ have been testifying under oath to a
federal grand jury about an extramarital sexual tryst, he /obviously
shouldn't have been/.

But since he /was/ testifying, he should have been summarily removed
from office for perjuring himself--and those GOP idiots who'd come up
with the ludicrous idea of impeaching him should have been removed in
the 2000 elections. Period.

Neither happened--and because neither happened, my country and my
Constitution were, in fact, damaged and diminished as a result.

I think lying about yellow cake in Africa just to
get Halliburton staged in Iraq to start pumping their oil fields is a
far, far more grievous matter...

No one was lying about al-Zawahie's attempt to procure uranium in Niger.
That's just you repeating something you /thought/ you heard. Maybe you
should look into it yourself. If you actually should look into it some
day, I assure you, you won't find any "lies" as you intend the word here.

No one started a war to enrich KB&R.

America doesn't get much oil from Iraq. America gets most of her
imported oil from Canada and Saudi Arabia--as she did before Op:IF, of
course.

Your points are not well taken. Perhaps you should just stick to the
facts.

not to mention stating, while serving
under oath, that the Constitution is just "a goddamned piece of
paper." *Nice talk from such a self-proclaimed Jesus freak, don't you
think?

Lots of Presidents have been Jesus freaks, silly. Lots of Presidents
have skirted my Constitution too. I would lay even money on the
probability that some on your "Best List" skirted my Constitution far
more flagrantly than the present administration.

Besides, what real certainty do we have that he said any such thing?
Writers who're frankly opposed to his Presidency and his political party
have been caught in many false claims about what he's supposedly said in
the Oval Office. These writers force me to discount what they say out of
hand.

Hell, Woodward may have even got the "Slam Dunk" conversation all wrong.
But then, we've *known for some time Woodward writes fiction. As do many
of his peers.

Had Bush, in fact, said the Constitution is "just a goddamned piece of
paper," this hardly qualifies as an indictment of his Presidency. As any
one statement or expletive would not indict /any/ Presidency in and of
itself.

That's logical fallacy.

Lying about a blow job gets you an impeachment from the House, but
lying about going to a war to benefit oil congloms doesn't?

No one lied "about going to war to benefit oil congloms." I don't
believe you have any real evidence to back up such a ludicrous
case--really and truly you should just stick to the facts.

If Operation: Iraqi Freedom and Operation: Enduring Freedom were enacted
to enforce the Carter Doctrine, then the burden is on you to show us the
negative consequences. Frankly, I fail to see ANY bad consequences
except to the dictatorships and terrorists in the region.

The facts are what history will be most concerned with. What are the
facts?

What's
wrong with this country?

This country is doing fine--so I'd have to answer: not much.

We're in the midst of the world's greatest economy and we live in the
strongest, freest nation in the history of mankind.

Opulence and wealth abound. Even the poorest among us have cable TV, DVD
players, air conditioned dwellings that are larger than middle class
apartments in Europe. Obesity is a primary plague of the poor in the
United States.

Morally, we have what seem serious problems--that are only getting worse
as time goes on--but these have challenged Americans since long before
1787. There is no real reason to think that we are any less likely to
prevail over these problems than any previous generation.

The government of the United States is flirting with bankruptcy, which
IS a serious problem. A VERY serious problem, especially since none of
the leading candidates for this year's general election have shown a
willingness to even name this problem--let alone address it.

Of the three leading Dem candidates, they've told us they all plan to
add to this liquidity problem exponentially. The only differences
between them is by how many factors they intend to add to it.

The GOP's are hardly offering anything better. The man who came in third
place in the Iowa Caucuses two nights ago is the only one to have even
identified this liquidity problem, or to have offered reasonable
solutions for solving it.

This may be why he's in third place.

--
NeoLibertarian

http://www.elihu.envy.nu/NeoPics/UncleHood.jpg- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


well said N-L

in reference to "DeserTBob" and his political persuasions- keep in
mind, when the liberal left-wing Democrats rob Peter to pay Paul, they
can always count on the support of Paul

Paul in this case, being "DeserTBob"- he's unemployed and on SSI, for
the past 10 years- even though he's only 50 years old ? It's a faked
injury and fraudulent SSI disability claim- he can work, if he wanted
to.