Obama's gone and done it

DaveS wrote:
On Nov 18, 7:53 am, Peaceful Bill
wrote:
SNIP

Every President since Ike has been an alcoholic, wife
beating, child molesting, nun killer.
Dave

fixed it for you. lol!!

wrote in message
...
On Nov 17, 11:55 am, "Calif Bill" wrote:
SNIP
Read the article. Was not about sex. Other than screwing most of the
people in support of your friends.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I did read it and it is more of the spew from the revisionist
Trotskyite wing of the NeoCon controlled Republicrat party. Its
designed to fill the needs of folks who just cannot come to grips with
the fact that they helped elect the worst President of the USA in
modern times. Its the same kind of delusional nonsense that fuels the
Dittohead industry. I am rapidly comming to the reluctant conclusion
that this form of pseudo-political expression is actually a
personality disorder. And as i said in my other post . . .

I knew we were getting close and now you have it again ladies and
gentlemen, wait for it . . . repeat after me in unison now . . . IT
WAS BILL CLINTON"S FAULT. ALL BILL, ALL THE TIME. 24/7/365. There you
have it, well gosh almighty the prof from Orange County said so.
Isn't
Chapman U where they filmed some of those crazy college hijinks's
films, and some Bullwinkle?

Dave

They filmed a couple movies but not the college hijinks. Actually a highly
rated, very liberal school. So you can not comment on the message, only the
messenger? Seems as if the messenger did not absolve Bush either. Equal
opportunity basher. And I have said for a long time that Greenspan was the
worse Fed chairman ever!

"riverman" wrote in message
...
On Nov 18, 2:09 pm, Peaceful Bill
wrote:
wrote:

But you should really shift focus. Defending the worst Presidency
ever, versus Clinton's better than average, is such a ridiculous pose,
nor can it really be a properly plausible venue for your considerable
appetite for argument. Its the difference between being annoying and
being thought provoking.

Nah, Bush is a shining example of success compared to Carter.

Bull****.

--riverman

I voted for Carter and work with HAB, but I have to agree with the statement
that Carter was the worst ever. Gave us a lot of the Middle East problems.
Letting the Iranians run rampant for a year, made the US look impotent, and
they could do what they wanted without any payback.

On Nov 18, 5:31*pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:

I voted for Carter and work with HAB, but I have to agree with the statement
that Carter was the worst ever. *Gave us a lot of the Middle East problems.
Letting the Iranians run rampant for a year, made the US look impotent, and
they could do what they wanted without any payback.

You are aware that Reagan's people were negotiating with the
Ayatollahs behind Carter's back while Reagan was pres-elect? That was
illegal. The Iranians agreed to hold the hostages thru Reagan's
election campaign, and release them on the first days of Reagan's
presidency. And you apparently have forgotten the arms for hostages
arrangements. But if you are interested YouTube and i believe Google
videos, have film of Reagan lying on camera about related stuff we now
know was untrue. American progressives may be a bit more aware of this
stuff because a number of them were murdered in central America with
the tacit approval of the Reagan administration. Ronald Reagan's crew
of McNasties included Cheney, and others from Bush's pack of rats
including a few that spied for Israel. The same crew that gave us the
Iraq war. You also seem to have forgotten Reagan's disaster in
Lebanon, and the hundreds of dead Marines.

Carter's biggest mistake was in trying to give the Russians some
payback for Vietnam, by secretly backing the Jihadis fighting the
Ruskies in Afghanistan. It backfired.

Reagan faked his military experiences, and in my opinion should have
been investigated for treason. Toward the end of his terms he didn't
even bother to submitt complete budgets to Congress. He could make me
smile, but I knew he was a disaster for my country.

Dave

On Nov 19, 9:31*am, "Calif Bill" wrote:
"riverman" wrote in message

...
On Nov 18, 2:09 pm, Peaceful Bill
wrote:

wrote:

But you should really shift focus. Defending the worst Presidency
ever, versus Clinton's better than average, is such a ridiculous pose,
nor can it really be a properly plausible venue for your considerable
appetite for argument. Its the difference between being annoying and
being thought provoking.

Nah, Bush is a shining example of success compared to Carter.

Bull****.

--riverman

I voted for Carter and work with HAB, but I have to agree with the statement
that Carter was the worst ever. *Gave us a lot of the Middle East problems.
Letting the Iranians run rampant for a year, made the US look impotent, and
they could do what they wanted without any payback.

Carter did not lie to the country to get us involved in a war that has
cost the lives of thousands, and did not lead the country toward
financial disaster. He did not pack washington with self-serving
cronies, declare his office and anyone associated with it above the
law, bend (or break) laws to serve his political goals, and redefine
the balance of powers in DC. He did not cause a rift between liberals
and conservatives, and did not seek to destroy or invalidate his
political opponents.

He did many things wrong out of a sense of trust in the system,
expectation of goodwill among others, and being naive about how
Washington and global politics works. Those errors are nothing
compared to the deliberate misleadings and manipulations of Bush.

Carter was a disaster. Bush was a disaster, wrapped in a catastrophe,
hidden in an apocolypse. They are nowhere in the same league, and
we'll feel the effects of Bush's presidency for years and years to
come.

--riverman

"riverman" wrote in message
...
On Nov 19, 9:31 am, "Calif Bill" wrote:
"riverman" wrote in message

...
On Nov 18, 2:09 pm, Peaceful Bill
wrote:

wrote:

But you should really shift focus. Defending the worst Presidency
ever, versus Clinton's better than average, is such a ridiculous pose,
nor can it really be a properly plausible venue for your considerable
appetite for argument. Its the difference between being annoying and
being thought provoking.

Nah, Bush is a shining example of success compared to Carter.

Bull****.

--riverman

I voted for Carter and work with HAB, but I have to agree with the
statement
that Carter was the worst ever. Gave us a lot of the Middle East problems.
Letting the Iranians run rampant for a year, made the US look impotent,
and
they could do what they wanted without any payback.

Carter did not lie to the country to get us involved in a war that has
cost the lives of thousands, and did not lead the country toward
financial disaster. He did not pack washington with self-serving
cronies, declare his office and anyone associated with it above the
law, bend (or break) laws to serve his political goals, and redefine
the balance of powers in DC. He did not cause a rift between liberals
and conservatives, and did not seek to destroy or invalidate his
political opponents.

He did many things wrong out of a sense of trust in the system,
expectation of goodwill among others, and being naive about how
Washington and global politics works. Those errors are nothing
compared to the deliberate misleadings and manipulations of Bush.

Carter was a disaster. Bush was a disaster, wrapped in a catastrophe,
hidden in an apocolypse. They are nowhere in the same league, and
we'll feel the effects of Bush's presidency for years and years to
come.

--riverman

Prove Bush lied to get us into the war. Bad point to open a 2nd front so
far from home, but Clinton was saying the same thing, and was spending a ton
of money with the flyovers. And the financial meltdown is not just Bush's
fault. Is a continuation of the same crap that got us the dot.com bubble.
Neither administration was watching out for the people. I still say Carter
laid the foundation for the Muslim Extremists to really prosper. And that
got the World Trade Center attacked twice. Carter was either really stupid,
or too naive to be POTUS. Clinton's Sec Treasury, Rubin should be hung for
this meltdown. Leaves "public Service" to head Citigroup and works to get
the rules changed that helped protect us since 1933 from a lot of the
financial shenanigans. Not say Bush was a good president, just stating my
opinon that Carter was worse.

riverman wrote:
On Nov 19, 9:31 am, "Calif Bill" wrote:
"riverman" wrote in message

...
On Nov 18, 2:09 pm, Peaceful Bill
wrote:

wrote:
But you should really shift focus. Defending the worst Presidency
ever, versus Clinton's better than average, is such a ridiculous pose,
nor can it really be a properly plausible venue for your considerable
appetite for argument. Its the difference between being annoying and
being thought provoking.
Nah, Bush is a shining example of success compared to Carter.
Bull****.

--riverman

I voted for Carter and work with HAB, but I have to agree with the statement
that Carter was the worst ever. Gave us a lot of the Middle East problems.
Letting the Iranians run rampant for a year, made the US look impotent, and
they could do what they wanted without any payback.

Carter did not lie to the country to get us involved in a war that has
cost the lives of thousands, and did not lead the country toward
financial disaster. He did not pack washington with self-serving
cronies, declare his office and anyone associated with it above the
law, bend (or break) laws to serve his political goals, and redefine
the balance of powers in DC. He did not cause a rift between liberals
and conservatives, and did not seek to destroy or invalidate his
political opponents.

Regardless of how you paint Carter, he was quite a bit worse than Bush.
He supported a violent takeover of Iran by radicals. The Middle East
has not been the same since. He was worse than ineffective in dealing
with the hyper-radical Iranian gov't. The world has NEVER recovered
from that. That was almost thirty years ago. Our lives are still
dominated by his failure.

Carter didn't need to attack his opponents, he was the Democrat that
came after Nixon/Ford. The Dems could have run anyone against Ford and
won. Carter had his political advantage. His party held the majority.
By the time he was up for election, his record was so bad that it
would not have done any good to go after Reagan. Carter knew it was no
good to try an attack, his own personal record of corruption would have
been exposed and he would probably have ended up resigning before his
term was up. Besides, he lost the 1980 election a year before the ballot.

He most certainly DID pack Washington with self-serving cronies. And he
let his family (even supported his family) break more laws then Bush and
Caney could. The FBI was getting close to unraveling all the **** Billy
was pulling. It was even an embarrassment to the administration in the
press. Carter reorganized the operation which had been focusing on
investigating international corruption which kept pointing to the White
House. Then he fired the investigators that got close to exposing his
family's crimes. Had the Republicans been in power, Carter probably
would have seen the same fate as Nixon.

Carter did lead the country into a financial crisis. Inflation rates
and interest rates were out of control. It took five years after he was
booted out of office to recover from that nightmare.


He did many things wrong out of a sense of trust in the system,
expectation of goodwill among others, and being naive about how
Washington and global politics works. Those errors are nothing
compared to the deliberate misleadings and manipulations of Bush.

Carter did mislead the country. But it was for personal gain and to
cover-up his own personal corruption and that of his family. Carter's
failings were not a matter of trust in the system, it was intentional.
Pure corruption. He was the naive bumbling idiot that many paint him,
but he used it effectively to cover his corruption.

Its good to see that you admit to Carter's obviously dangerous
deficiency in global politics. World has never recovered from that.


Carter was a disaster. Bush was a disaster, wrapped in a catastrophe,
hidden in an apocolypse. They are nowhere in the same league, and
we'll feel the effects of Bush's presidency for years and years to
come.

--riverman


Bush did botch the war in Iraq, that's indefensible. But he wasn't the
root cause of the Middle East problems that lead to the war. He was not
the root cause of the problems that lead to the 9-11 attack. He did not
marginalize or ignore the previous attacks on the U.S. by radical
Muslims prior to 9-11.

(BTW, its spelled "apocalypse")

We can only hope that Obama doesn't screw up too badly.

"Calif Bill" wrote in
m:

Prove Bush lied to get us into the war. Bad point to open a 2nd front
so far from home, but Clinton was saying the same thing, and was
spending a ton of money with the flyovers. And the financial meltdown
is not just Bush's fault. Is a continuation of the same crap that got
us the dot.com bubble.


For Christs' sake-- the man lost an American city, and produced an
incompetent response because of a crony in a key slot.


--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

Scott Seidman wrote:
"Calif Bill" wrote in
m:

Prove Bush lied to get us into the war. Bad point to open a 2nd front
so far from home, but Clinton was saying the same thing, and was
spending a ton of money with the flyovers. And the financial meltdown
is not just Bush's fault. Is a continuation of the same crap that got
us the dot.com bubble.


For Christs' sake-- the man lost an American city, and produced an
incompetent response because of a crony in a key slot.



That doesn't answer the question.

What American city? I just looked at a map and it looks like they're
all still there. Which one is lost?

Peaceful Bill wrote in news:jahVk.6049
:

What American city? I just looked at a map and it looks like they're
all still there. Which one is lost?


Tell me you're going to defend the Bushies for the Katrina response, so I
can plonk you, as you have squat that's realistic to say.


--
Scott
Reverse name to reply