Park Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 They are held in such low regard in this country that Romney had to sneak into see Cheney and made sure no one could so much as take a picture of them while Bush hasn't even been invited to the Convention. Why? Because the policies they followed, the same ones Romney will follow again, failed America. Sure, new face but same crap. There is a reason Bush and Cheney are so hated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinga Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 wow.... boooooosh did it again.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Posted July 23, 2012 Author Share Posted July 23, 2012 wow.... boooooosh did it again.... Seems like Republicans think that and it explains the disappearing act Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Actually, President George W. Bush was probably the second worst President in the history of the United States, with President Barack Obama being the worst ever, and it was a very close race. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Actually, President George W. Bush was probably the second worst President in the history of the United States, with President Barack Obama being the worst ever, and it was a very close race. Yep. And you won't see any Dem presidential nominees meeting with Barry in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Posted July 23, 2012 Author Share Posted July 23, 2012 Actually, President George W. Bush was probably the second worst President in the history of the United States, with President Barack Obama being the worst ever, and it was a very close race. That's an interesting take. I respect your honesty. Can you explain why these two are rated so low by yourself? How do they compare to other Presidents, in your opinion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 That's an interesting take. I respect your honesty. Can you explain why these two are rated so low by yourself? How do they compare to other Presidents, in your opinion? There was once a guy on here that rated Pat Buchanan as the worst president ever so don't take these people's opinions too seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 That's an interesting take. I respect your honesty. Can you explain why these two are rated so low by yourself? How do they compare to other Presidents, in your opinion? For starters, despite theatrical sabre rattling by the fringes of both parties, the meat of what matters in both foreign and domestic policy has been nearly identical for the last 12 years. Subsidies for massive corporate interests have grown unchecked, war has been entered into an fought perpetually ;new wars being replaced by old; in response to the larger War on Terror (which only works to subsidise another Big industry), the over-arching institutionalization of public-risk for private-profit, the faux guarantee of the right to earn a profit on investments, the massive strides taken to strip the individual citizen of his rights in the form of the PATRIOT Act, DOMA and SOPA, the PPACA, the FISA Amendment Act, and a seemingly endless list of executive policy directives circumventing the need for actual law, almost all of which damage our individual liberties. As it stands, every American child is born into this world owing the Federal government around $40,000 before taking it's first breath. The individual is no longer autonomous, but instead has been reduced to a fungible cog in the US economy, the promise of your future labor which is owned by the government, already commoditized and collateralized by the US Treasury and Federal Reserve. There have been no great warnings against this pervasive creep, as there were in the day's of Eisenhower. Instead our Presidents, already bought and paid for, intentionally divide us along colored lines, Red and Blue, and massage the pill of corporate servitude down our throats while whispering sweet nothings in our ears. For those of you caught up in the faux divide of false-choice political theater, supporting either the Red People or the Blue People, fear not: unless the neo-mercantilist corporate wheel makes a gross miscalculation, the president serving after President Obama will certainly be worse than himself, and the president serving after that one worse than him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1billsfan Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 (edited) They are held in such low regard in this country that Romney had to sneak into see Cheney and made sure no one could so much as take a picture of them while Bush hasn't even been invited to the Convention. Why? Because the policies they followed, the same ones Romney will follow again, failed America. Sure, new face but same crap. There is a reason Bush and Cheney are so hated. Really? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007–2012_global_financial_crisis "On September 30, 1999, The New York Times reported that the Clinton Administration pushed for more lending to low and moderate income borrowers, while the mortgage industry sought guarantees for sub-prime loans: Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits. In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers... In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980s.[45] In the early and mid-2000s (decade), the Bush administration called numerous times[46] for investigation into the safety and soundness of the GSEs and their swelling portfolio of subprime mortgages. On September 10, 2003 the House Financial Services Committee held a hearing at the urging of the administration to assess safety and soundness issues and to review a recent report by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) that had uncovered accounting discrepancies within the two entities.[47] The hearings never resulted in new legislation or formal investigation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as many of the committee members refused to accept the report and instead rebuked OFHEO for their attempt at regulation.[48] Some believe this was an early warning to the systemic risk that the growing market in subprime mortgages posed to the U.S. financial system that went unheeded.[49]" Edited July 23, 2012 by 1billsfan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 (edited) Really? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007–2012_global_financial_crisis "On September 30, 1999, The New York Times reported that the Clinton Administration pushed for more lending to low and moderate income borrowers, while the mortgage industry sought guarantees for sub-prime loans: Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits. In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers... In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980s.[45] In the early and mid-2000s (decade), the Bush administration called numerous times[46] for investigation into the safety and soundness of the GSEs and their swelling portfolio of subprime mortgages. On September 10, 2003 the House Financial Services Committee held a hearing at the urging of the administration to assess safety and soundness issues and to review a recent report by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) that had uncovered accounting discrepancies within the two entities.[47] The hearings never resulted in new legislation or formal investigation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as many of the committee members refused to accept the report and instead rebuked OFHEO for their attempt at regulation.[48] Some believe this was an early warning to the systemic risk that the growing market in subprime mortgages posed to the U.S. financial system that went unheeded.[49]" hey, no facts allowed in this argument Edited July 23, 2012 by Gary M Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Clinton, Frank, and Dodd really !@#$ed-over this country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 (edited) I'd say both done in by foreign policy and concessions made therein to support their ideology and pet programs: bush (Obama) lower (higher) taxes, social security (healthcare) reform, de (re) regulation of banking, legal changes for more conservative (liberal) social policy. Because I think foreign policy is our most flawed and pervasive problem, I supported an isolationist like Paul who'd give us our best chance at clearing the deck and starting over. His lack of political acumen I also thought was just what the doctor ordered, with someone speaking directly to the American people, unedited by special interest group political considerations. Edited July 23, 2012 by Joe_the_6_pack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 isolationist "Hefe, I do not think that word means what you think it means." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Actually, President George W. Bush was probably the second worst President in the history of the United States, with President Barack Obama being the worst ever, and it was a very close race. And if George Washington had been president when 9/11 happened and was forced to take actions afterwards, or if he were forced to deal with the economic calamity that ensued, due to the slowdown of the world economy, he wouldn't be viewed highly either. The shrinking of the world in relation to events has changed our viewpoint of our leaders dramatically- it is a far more complicated job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 And if George Washington had been president when 9/11 happened and was forced to take actions afterwards, or if he were forced to deal with the economic calamity that ensued, due to the slowdown of the world economy, he wouldn't be viewed highly either. The shrinking of the world in relation to events has changed our viewpoint of our leaders dramatically- it is a far more complicated job. Nicely put. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 "Hefe, I do not think that word means what you think it means." Got me on "hefe". Googled it and only came up with German shorthand for wheat beer. Thanks (I guess) for clearing that up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Got me on "hefe". Googled it and only came up with German shorthand for wheat beer. Thanks (I guess) for clearing that up. That's because he spelled it fonetically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Got me on "hefe". Googled it and only came up with German shorthand for wheat beer. Thanks (I guess) for clearing that up. It should be "Jefe," who is a character from "Three Amigos," while the rest of the line is from "The Princess Bride." But an "isolationist" doesn't want anything to do with other countries, whereas you're (I believe) advocating not involving the US with the domestic problems of other countries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 (edited) Got me on "hefe". Googled it and only came up with German shorthand for wheat beer. Thanks (I guess) for clearing that up. I figured that everyone enjoys a little Three Amigos and Princess Bride before lunch. The term you're looking for is non-interventionist. Isolationist applies to economic policy as well as military policy. Edited July 23, 2012 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 It should be "Jefe," who is a character from "Three Amigos," while the rest of the line is from "The Princess Bride." But an "isolationist" doesn't want anything to do with other countries, whereas you're (I believe) advocating not involving the US with the domestic problems of other countries. "Jefe" is Spanish for "boss." It might very well be part of the Princess Bride quote, since Inigo Montoya was Spanish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts