Worst President of US

Nixon huh? Well I have no great love for the man but while Nixon wiretapped his opponents, Monkeyboy wiretapped the entire US.

The jury is still out on whether the US will even survive Monkeyboy and mankind may not survive either.

Monkeyboy actually had reports on global warming changed so he could deny it and so he could postpone any action on it and now mankind could be on the brink of extinction, which means the deaths of 6 billion people could be laid at his feet and you quibble about Nixon's 3-4 million.

Honestly, after how many other Presidents were people realistically discussing whether the US would even survive and mankind's survival as a race as well?

We're talking about the worst not just bad.

 

I hate to burst your bubble, but i'm talking about actual factual historical events here, you're discussing Hypothetical. Bush was bad, no doubt, but to lay the blame for global warming at one mans feet, let alone his.. is absurd. We've known for decades that as a species we're destroying our eco-system, one mans decision to deny it, regardless of his position of power, will not be the ultimate cause of humanitys downfall, that's a responsibility we'll collectively share. Nixon comprimised the integrity of the US presidency more than any other person. He is the benchmark by which we measure "Monkeyboy".

 

The Viet Nam war could have been prevented if only the U.S. government near the end of WWII had sided with the Vietnamese in helping them rid their country of the French oppressors. Instead they had to seek assistance from China, as the U.S. ignored their request not wishing to cause the French to lose any more face than they had already.

 

because my life was altered the most by Nixon and his administration (and his reluctance to end the draft- until the end when the results were inevitable) mine, might have be a selfish vote.
However, now in my older years I can see than Bush2 also has effected my life (again thinking selfishly)- retirement, social soc, the economy in general , not to mention that if Obama doesn't pull the plug on these oil wars or Holy wars or whatever is the political correct way to phrase them, Ill have grand-kids that could be of draft age) Granted it would take a helluva lot of shit to start a draft again-
Not that it counts for anything but Nixon still gets my #1 vote-for my past
George 2 gets #2vote for my concerns of the future

 

--------------------------------------------------------------
Read your post - and I must agree- France, between WW2 & Vietnam has caused us much blood and money which they seem to get a pass for>

It seems that now in 2009 China ,although human rights seem non-existent and arms into the Sudan are just getting lip service from he last 2 administrations while the genocide in Darfur continues- In the long run ,they'll be a bigger player for the USA ,than France and the importing of wine will ever be
However,they are a trusted NATO ally for some reason, even as they denied us airspace when we needed it -and instead of working with the Chinese we continue to ying while they yang

best regards,
JJack :hat:

 

One thing which seems to be obvious is that political affiliation appears to be the determining factor on how each President is viewed. I think we too often ignore the fact that the Congress is a large factor in what happens in Washington. Try downloading and reading some of the bills put through congress and compare the bills title with its content. You may then get an idea of how the deficit has risen to over 10 trillion dollars. The only President who ever had any effect on my life was Lyndon Johnson, when I was in the military in Viet Nam. Other than that I have had ups and downs in my life, but none that I could or would blame or credit to any President or activities in Washington. The only effect Washington and the Federal government has on my life is related to taxes, dollar devaluation, and price inflation. The Federal government has become the worlds largest insurance company, making in necessary to continually find ways to gather money to pay for the services it provides, by increasing taxes on income, sales, investment, property, gasoline, cigarettes, alcohol, or other substances which they can bring a large enough number of the population to support. Now even sugar, fats, an co2 are being proposed as areas where taxes and/or fees can be applied to increase the money flow into the Federal coffers.
What would happen if the wealthiest 5% or even 1% were to pick up and leave for some tax haven? Or better yet, what if they were to cash in all their investments, converting all their U.S. currency into tangible assets, such as precious metals, or other forms having intrinsic value? Of course such a move would have to be very carefully orchestrated, but if achieved, where would that leave the Federal government in it's desire of becoming the worlds largest welfare state?
Too many citizens are allowing themselves to become dependents of the government, and Obama pointed out that there is too much "greed and irresponsibility on the part of some" while I think it would have been more appropriate to have replaced the word "some" with "all" as greed is applicable both when exercised through ones own labors as well as through the labors of others. Irresponsibility, in my opinion is more applicable to those who fail to take responsibility for their own lives, purchase more than they have the means to pay for, increasing their debt, and just live foolishly.

 

Let's not forget the monkey boy administration re-wrote the constitution, destroying generations of progress in the area of civil rights, which may take generations to undo.

Exactly. A president is only as good as his/her congress, and congress is only as good as the citizens it represents. We can bicker as much as we like about the state of affairs our government has created, but we put 'em there. And sure large corporations have the most clout because they have the most resources to lobby with, but they got those funds from us consumers who bought their shit. You get what you pay for.

 

I assume when you say monkey boy you are referring to Bush rather than Obama? Else you might be seen as a racist. Assuming I'm correct, just what portions of the Constitution did Bush re-write? And in what way do you see generations of progress in the area of civil rights have been destroyed?

And we keep them there, sometimes because the more seniority they accumulate the more pork they are capable of bringing home. Not only do large corporations have clout, but so do labor unions, lawyers, doctors, and any other group that can be amassed in a way that their wealth, or lack of, can be used as a tool at election time. Why else would massive welfare programs receive so much attention? The primary function of politicians is to maintain or increase their voter base. As for corporate lobbyists, the answer is simple, just don't buy their products. One way I look at the class system in the U.S. is that of a "provider class", those who earn money and produce the wealth spent by the government, the "dependent class", those who look to the government to provide as many of their needs as they can get, and the "controller class", those who perpetually look for ways to keep the other two classes at odds with one another in a way that they can use to ensure their class position.

Actually when speaking of government, someone else gets what you pay for. The only ones on the receiving end are those who pay nothing.

 

I'll give you a hint, I was not referring to Obama. Obama's just enjoying the executive priviledges of excessive power the bush administration bestowed upon him, and whether or not they involve civil rights violations, don't expect him to relinquish them so easily.

Besides, bush himself didn't re-write anything, how could he when he can't even construct a sentence?

True, but you're taking me out of context.

That's what I was getting at.

 

Then I fail to see the significance of Bush in relation to civil rights.

Then are you claiming we aren't paying our politicians enough?

I'm doing my part then, as I've not bought anything American made for the past 11 years. I've even moved all my computers to Linux. Forgot to mention, but I also left the U.S.

 

My original post referred to the bush administration, not bush himself, who, like most presidents, was merely a puppet for the establishment he represented. If you fail to follow what I'm referring to civil rights abuses, I'm not going to waste my time elaborating, but guantanamo, warrantless wire tapping, and indefinite detention without due process are a few examples.

LOL, again taken out of context, but maybe you're on to something, maybe our politicians suck because we don't pay them enough. Instead their compensation comes from the corporate lobbyists whos interests are destroying the planet and the fabric of society. Provide them with more compensation, eliminate the lobbyists, and maybe we'll end up with competent leaders who draft legislation that benefits the majority instead of the elite.

Indeed you are. At least we've got something in common, namely Linux. Furthermore, I was thinking of leaving the country myself were it not for a sense of obligation to stick around and use my voting rights as a citizen to do what I can to steer U.S. policy, which in turn affects global policy.

Is anything American made anymore?

 

My fault, I was thinking in terms of racial, as I haven't kept up with what's been going on the last 11 years in the U.S.

I guess the context you intend is to say the lobbyists are getting what they are paying for, while the taxpayers who are the ones who assume the debt are not getting what they ultimately have to pay for.

You can live outside the states and still vote based on your last residence state. Linux was a natural move for me, as I worked 30 years for AT&T and am very much at home with unix. The kids keep me busy trying to get their Windows games to run but there's only been a few I've had no luck with.

 

Just for information sake, here are some pictures of Monkeyboy from an earlier post in this thread.

 

The comparisons are between Bush and a Chimpanzee, NOT monkeys, although each are members of the order Primates. I take care of 3 monkeys, specifically Macaca nemestrina, or pig tailed macaques and they can often exhibit many similarities to humans.
Do you dislike monkeys? We humans, including both Bush and Obama, are very closely related to them.

This is an interesting signature, and would be even more interesting to see how you might expand and clarify it.

This would seem to indicate that a growing majority are not satisfied "with who they are" and instead prefer to dwell on what others have. When such is presented as a problem, it presents but two possible solutions, one being to elevate ones self through personal effort, and the other is to bring all others down to the same level, as is being promoted by the current government administration. The latter solution would appear to be the most desirable today as it requires the least effort by individuals, although rather than bringing about equal suffering by all it can produce much greater suffering by those who remain, by greatly reducing the number of providers caring for a greatly increased number of dependents. The solution to that problem lies in the creation of a One World Government, which would be able to assure that suffering is equalized throughout the world, with the exception of the ruling class, of course.

 

Thank you OlderWaterBrother for the reminder of that humorous collage I found somewhere on the internet. However, Individual's got a point, comparing Dubya to primates is insulting, my apologies to any primates who have been offended.

Excellent insight, although I'd like to see the suffering spread throughout the ruling class as well. We can start by mandating that politicians receive equal health care as the poorest insured of our population, maybe then universal health care will suddenly become politically feasible.

 

...allow me to clarify lest someone bring up the s-word. I'm not advocating socialism (there, I said it). Some disparity is healthy to promote efficiency and competition in a capitalist economy, which in turn motivates folks to better themselves, assuming everyone has an equal shot at the goodies. People need an incentive to succeed. Otherwise they might just sit around and smoke dope all day and get nothing done...

...wait a minute, what was I saying again?...oh yeah...

It's this business of subsidizing failure and self destruction I can do without. Ours is no longer capitalism, what we have now is socialism for the rich.

 

Fillmore, Buchanon,and Dubya were all real bad. I don't think Clinton should even be on the list, considering what he did for the economy in the 90's.

 

I'm in agreement with your first sentence, but fail to see your rationality for the next. Go ahead and make your case for that.

 

Comparisons? You asked who Monkeyboy was and I just provided pictures of him along with some cute pictures of chimpanzees, that way next time someone says Monkeyboy when referring to a president you‘ll know who they‘re talking about.

This isn’t the place for this but if you are interested you could check out this thread.
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=340652&f=509

Whew, you weren’t even ballpark on this one.

All that the phrase “True riches are who you are not what you have!” means is that, perhaps it would it would be a good idea to stop thinking having a lot of things makes us better people and start actually being better people.

 

:smilielol5: My pleasure.