hokie4redskins Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 Maybe i'm an alcoholic ****up, but i don't remember Teddy being president. Only because he drove a car off a bridge, and left the poor Mary Jo Kopechne behind to drown. Details. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 Great thread! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 Maybe i'm an alcoholic ****up, but i don't remember Teddy being president. Only because he drove a car off a bridge, and left the poor Mary Jo Kopechne behind to drown. Details. So you believe he would have been pres. if he didn't, you know, drive off of a bridge? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Jones Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 Yeah, but Bush didn't give Iran the nuclear reactor, now did he? Whether Iran is successful in their pursuit is another question you're not considering. Fortunately, there is still enough to time to put a stop to it, but not much. If the UN doesn't take the appropriate action, you can bet Bush will. A nuclear Iran is unacceptable. I don't see the difference. If Iran develops nuclear weapons under the watchful eye of Bush and the Republicans the end result is the same. It doesn't matter if anyone helped them get them the point is no one did anything about it. But, the right sure has pointed out the failures of Clinton. I am not saying that Clinton was right or wrong, just stop the hypocrisy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaceman Spiff Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 Great thread! I agree. Although I've been part of the mudflinging in this, it's time to stop. It's getting repetitive and old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Jones Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 Great thread! I am sorry, back to the topic of the thread. The answer, as people have pointed out, is to wait 20 years to determine the answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hokie4redskins Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 I'd imagine there's a SLIGHT difference between willingly providing your enemies the nuclear capabilities and potentially striking these same capabilities preemptively. But I digress............... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeanCollins Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 Bought it, huh? What evidence do you have to make a statement like that? Leave your conspiracy theories at home, please.Lets not ignore the Royal Kennedys, either. While we're making sweeping claims, I'll call Tedward an alcoholic ****up. I'll also bring nepotism into the debate as well. What a glowing family tree they have. Spiff, you errantly (like many of your contemporaries here) assume that anyone who doesn't like this president is a liberal or democrat, I am niether. Just someone who can think for himself, not a mocking bird chirping the party line. You're a smart guy, either get honest, or think for yourself. With that said, I don't give a damn about the Kennnedys or Clinton, so spew away if it makes you feel important :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 I'd imagine there's a SLIGHT difference between willingly providing your enemies the nuclear capabilities and potentially striking these same capabilities preemptively. So, its only bad if they're nuculear? Arms don't count? Cause if they do - Reagan shouldn't be in the top 5, neither should Bush 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaceman Spiff Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 ... a liberal or democrat, I am niether. Fooled me. Oh well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeanCollins Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 Fooled me. Oh well. no problem, I see how most take sides in the threads, but you'll notice I'm split on issues, and in the middle often that's why I stay out of most of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smashmowf Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 Andrew Johnson, Jimmy Carter, Herbert Hoover, Franklin Pierce, Bill Clinton are at the bottom.Bush has been ranked by historians as mid-range, around the 20s... Liberated 27 million human beings, economy better now than in the 1990's, home ownership at highest level in history, unemployment rate 4.8%.. Just wondering.... "Economy better than the 1990s"....whats that based on? "Home ownership at the highest level"....is this caused by Bush or a dropping interest rate? "Unemployment rate at 4.8" - how much is this rate affected by jobs created via war and natural disaster? Again just wondering not looking for a pi$$ing contest just want to see where your thoughts are..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Jones Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 Fooled me. Oh well. Ahhhh, the "if you are not with us you are against us" mentality that the right loves so very much. If you are not one with the republican right than automatically you must be a liberal democrat. Absolutely no exceptions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 Ahhhh, the "if you are not with us you are against us" mentality that the right loves so very much. If you are not one with the republican right than automatically you must be a liberal democrat. Absolutely no exceptions. Actually, "liberal" only accounts for 15% of the poulation according to the far right, therefor they are all to be treated like fringe whacko's. At the same time, the word "Democrat" is interchangable with the term, "liberal." Also, each individual liberal can be held accountable for the actions of every other liberal, therefor, they are all hypocrites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 Actually, "liberal" only accounts for 15% of the poulation according to the far right, therefor they are all to be treated like fringe whacko's. At the same time, the word "Democrat" is interchangable with the term, "liberal." Also, each and every liberal can be held accountable for every other liberal's philosophy, therefor, they are all hypocrites. Let's not forget godless-commie, supporters of America's enemies and traitors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbop1950 Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 Clinton and Carter get my vote. Bush is in the top 10.:2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelms Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 Jimmy Carter was the worst by far. He was probably the weakest president this country has ever seen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winslowalrob Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 Reagan and Bush are tied for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hokie4redskins Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Reagan? For what? Winning the Cold War? Putting the Soviet Union in an economic stranglehold and ideological collapse? Rendering communism a complete failure? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 What a crappy thread! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Reagan? For what? Winning the Cold War? Putting the Soviet Union in an economic stranglehold and ideological collapse? Rendering communism a complete failure? Acctually i believe it would be for Reaganomics and the crack epidemic. Not saying he's the worst but those are the big arguements against him. Oh yeah, and Iron Contra. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbleDanger Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 You put Clinton at the bottom?? :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: Clinton is one of the better presidents we've had, like it or not. That's absolutely false. He will go down in history as mediocre (if he's lucky). Name one thing that Clinton did that was so significant. What will be his legacy? History certainly will not remember him for gas prices going down to 88 cents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbleDanger Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Best five:Washington, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Reagan, FDR Clinton is not the very worst, but because he committed legal perjury, and had scandal after scandal, let the North Koreans get the bomb, did not act on Al-Queda, he will go down in history as among the worst rank.. Those are good picks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 That's absolutely false. He will go down in history as mediocre (if he's lucky). Name one thing that Clinton did that was so significant. What will be his legacy? History certainly will not remember him for gas prices going down to 88 cents. He turned a $300 Billion dollar deficit into a $200+ Billion dollar surplus and was the first president in the modern era to do so. He oversaw the longest stretch of growth in the history of the country. And. . . he put me through school Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbleDanger Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 This is an interesting link. The discovery channel did a nationwide vote of the top 100 greatest Americans... http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/greatestamerican/greatestamerican.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.