i don't wanna get too "conspiracy theorish," but come on, are these killers really going to let bush lose this election?

i have a bad feeling they won't

Probably not.

if oil/gas starts to drop around October, I'd be suspicious.

however...the trend is that there's simply too much demand and not enough resouces to meet energy needs.

but mpp, you're view is highly cynical. Bush just might win because Kerry simply doesnt close the deal if he's ever actually had it.

Uh, the "oil companies" and the "elite" let Bush lose in '92.

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
Uh, the "oil companies" and the "elite" let Bush lose in '92.

Bush turned their back on them, though, when he left Iraq like he did. That's no conspiracy or anything I'm takling about, just awful politics but the elder Bush.

I think he'll end up going down as one of the worst presidents in the history of the U.S. Probably right below Carter.

Originally posted by sppunk


Bush turned their back on them, though, when he left Iraq like he did. That's no conspiracy or anything I'm takling about, just awful politics but the elder Bush.

I think he'll end up going down as one of the worst presidents in the history of the U.S. Probably right below Carter. LBJ already has the crown.

I'll just leave FDR out of it.

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
LBJ already has the crown.

I'll just leave FDR out of it.

True, LBJ was the worst. I personally hate Eisenhower.

See, FDR is my ideal president. But, I understand how many despise his platform.

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
I'll just leave FDR out of it.

This is just retarded. Regardless of what you think about FDR's policies, he was a wildly successful president based on any objective measure. Same thing with Reagan on the right. I abhor Reagan's policies, but I can't deny that his grip on the country was strong. It's the same thing with FDR. And given some of the god-awful presidents we've had just in the 20th century, the ones with corrupt administrations (Harding) or the ones who were just flat-out ineffective (Carter, Coolidge), you can't possibly call anyone who had any success a bad president.

And that doesn't even get into some of the antebellum wimps or Gilded Age lame ducks.

I'm partial to William Henry Harrison myself.

But seriously. To call FDR a bad president is absurd. Especially considering the others we've had.

Originally posted by sawdust restaurants


This is just retarded. Regardless of what you think about FDR's policies, he was a wildly successful president based on any objective measure. Same thing with Reagan on the right. I abhor Reagan's policies, but I can't deny that his grip on the country was strong. It's the same thing with FDR. And given some of the god-awful presidents we've had just in the 20th century, the ones with corrupt administrations (Harding) or the ones who were just flat-out ineffective (Carter, Coolidge), you can't possibly call anyone who had any success a bad president.

And that doesn't even get into some of the antebellum wimps or Gilded Age lame ducks. I said I was leaving FDR <i>out of it.</i>

But since you mentioned it, most of the problems, IMO in American society today can be directly tied back to FDR's "big government, spending morass" ideologies that have carried on since then.

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
I said I was leaving FDR <i>out of it.</i>

But since you mentioned it, most of the problems, IMO in American society today can be directly tied back to FDR's "big government, spending morass" ideologies that have carried on since then.

You know we, thanks to Bush's government, have a $455 billion deficit, the biggest of any nation, ever?

Originally posted by sppunk


You know we, thanks to Bush's government, have a $455 billion deficit, the biggest of any nation, ever? No matter who had been President over the past 4 years, there would certainly be a budget defecit. Clinton got things balanced (thanks in part to a GOP congress) because basically the US didn't have any millitary expenditures and there were no major disasters.

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
Clinton got things balanced because basically the US didn't have any millitary expenditures

Then maybe the GOP should stop spending money on military endeavors, hmmm?

Originally posted by Mayfuck


Then maybe the GOP should stop spending money on military endeavors, hmmm? I seem to remember bipartisan support for the millitary budget. Also, if you're going to quote me, don't change the quote to change the meaning.

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
No matter who had been President over the past 4 years, there would certainly be a budget defecit. Clinton got things balanced (thanks in part to a GOP congress) because basically the US didn't have any millitary expenditures and there were no major disasters.

I forgot about the Serbian war we helped to win, the daily Iraqi no-fly zones missions we conducted, etc. :rolleyes:

clinton wanted to balance the budget. newt hated him and fought him tooth and nail to block clinton getting linked with deficit reducing measures.

and military spending support was based on faulty intelligence, so that doesn't count. he's throwing money down the sewer that is now, and as history proves, will always be iraq. let the middle east go medieval on each other. i'm willing to risk that they'll just blow each other up and it won't cost me any more taxpayer dollars. i'm sick of paying for that war. bring these guys home and let my money pay for their medical bills instead of the bs they're putting up with right now in va hospitals. if i lived in a democracy, that's where my money would go.

LBJ was worse than dear old crooked Nixon? Nixon I think is the most hated at least.

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
Also, if you're going to quote me, don't change the quote to change the meaning.

But I'm Michael Moore.

Originally posted by sppunk


I forgot about the Serbian war we helped to win, the daily Iraqi no-fly zones missions we conducted, etc. :rolleyes: Oh, please. The millitary is always in action <i>somewhere..</i> Don't try and throw Serbia/Herzegovenia as some sort of huge conflict. That was Grenada II.

Originally posted by homechicago
clinton wanted to balance the budget. newt hated him and fought him tooth and nail to block clinton getting linked with deficit reducing measures.
Whoa, whoa, the #1 point on the "Contract with America" that the GOP ran on in '94 was a balanced budget.

Originally posted by redbreegull
LBJ was worse than dear old crooked Nixon? Nixon I think is the most hated at least. Nixon is certainly quite unpopular, but I believe a lot of that has to do with public perception and not actually what Nixon did in office.

Nixon got us out of Vietnam. Nixon's foreign policy was outstanding and he was respected worldwide. However, because some of his men decided to tape some conversations in a hotel, all of that just gets ignored.

And then there was that thing that he did...um...oh yeah, WATERGATE. He opened relations with China, pulled us out of Vietnam, sure, but he was a very crooked president. This has to do a lot with his personality though and I don't hold someone's personal life against their presidency, which is why Clinton can fuck whoever he wants and it shouldn't have anything to do with his political career.

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
Nixon is certainly quite unpopular, but I believe a lot of that has to do with public perception and not actually what Nixon did in office.

Nixon got us out of Vietnam. Nixon's foreign policy was outstanding and he was respected worldwide. However, because some of his men decided to tape some conversations in a hotel, all of that just gets ignored.

I never want to hear you say anything about Clinton and oral sex ever again.

Originally posted by sppunk


I never want to hear you say anything about Clinton and oral sex ever again. Gee, Nixon wasn't impeached....