If you could LOSE any previous president...

[Alistar7]

"There's also the issue of him giving China, a communist country, top secret information. "

Satelite info? Continuiation of a program started undeer Bushie1, turned over to ClitOn.


I would have to say Bush, but not due to the shoddy way he has done his job but for them manner in which he obtained power. The entire last election process, on both side up to the supremely corrupted court, was a farce.


Reagan and a willing DEM congress created the largest problem we face today and it's all financial.

 

[Mayax]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
"There's also the issue of him giving China, a communist country, top secret information. "

Satelite info? Continuiation of a program started undeer Bushie1, turned over to ClitOn.


I would have to say Bush, but not due to the shoddy way he has done his job but for them manner in which he obtained power. The entire last election process, on both side up to the supremely corrupted court, was a farce.

That was a little more than just satellite info. The specific technology that was given was how to put multiple payloads into orbit on one rocket. This is the same technology that allows for MIRV's. That's the particular technology that allows us to load multiple nuclear warheads on a single nuclear intercontinental ballistic missile.

Clinton should have scrapped the deal regardless.

 

[Todd33]

Bush. If we had Gore this country would be 100x better off.

 

[Zebo]

"There's also the issue of him giving China, a communist country, top secret information. "

W gave them a whole plane full of the best electronics and and spy equipment we have. Don't get much worse than that. Then he backed down while they gutted it instead of sending a cruise missle to take it out. Then he gives Red China thieves/kidnappers favored nation trading status afterwards.

 

[Mayax]

Originally posted by: Zebo
"There's also the issue of him giving China, a communist country, top secret information. "

W gave them a whole plane full of the best electronics and and spy equipment we have. Don't get much worse than that. Then he backed down while they gutted it instead of sending a cruise missle to take it out. Then he gives Red China thieves/kidnappers favored nation trading status afterwards.

That plane has a self destruct procedure. A few keystrokes and the electronics are fried and wiped clean of information. China ended up sending back the entire plane in crates.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Actually, according to the Electoral College, yes, Bush IS the elected president.

Apparently you and many others have no idea why we have an Electoral College, what it does or why we need it.

The function of the Electoral College is to prevent large population areas from ALWAYS deciding the outcomes of national elections. If we went solely by popular vote only a handful of states (California, New York, Washington, probably Florida, Georgia, Michigan, and I may have omitted one or two more, but not many) would ALWAYS control the election and there would be no reason for politicians to even *visit* smaller population states, much less actually *represent* them in government.

Jason

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: jtusa4


Yeah, it's hatred since you're the one that brought up Bush when this wasn't really a Bush thread.

It's my thread. Bush is my choice of which president I'd LOSE.

But yeah, I can see your point. Bush isn't really an elected president. I guess I can see how you'd think he shouldn't be included in a thread about U.S. presidents.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Mayax

Originally posted by: Zebo
"There's also the issue of him giving China, a communist country, top secret information. "

W gave them a whole plane full of the best electronics and and spy equipment we have. Don't get much worse than that. Then he backed down while they gutted it instead of sending a cruise missle to take it out. Then he gives Red China thieves/kidnappers favored nation trading status afterwards.

That plane has a self destruct procedure. A few keystrokes and the electronics are fried and wiped clean of information. China ended up sending back the entire plane in crates.

You got proof of that? And proof it was enabled? How whiped are these electronics w/o destroying the plane? Think about it. My former boss was a b-52 pilot (not that this is B-52 but still) and said there are no such devices. He was instructed when flying over or near Russia to either crash plane or dump it in the drink.. I remember at the time, he said if they had turned over thier plane to the russkies like those navy pilots did they would have been tried for treason. Anyway, the only way to destory the electronics it to annihilate the plane. which did'nt happen.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Oh come on, you guys sound like CHILDREN arguing about this! It was more than thirty frickin' years ago, and unless I'm entirely mistaken, not ONE of us was there when Bush signed up/joined up/whatever. We have NO FRICKING CLUE.

Jeez, and *I* take hell for getting off topic?

Jason

Originally posted by: chess9
Genesys:

Please tell me you don't actually believe that Bush got into the Air National Guard on merit. Why even make that argument? All available slots that year went to the sons of powerful politicians. This is the way it still is. Try getting into West Point or the Naval Academy if you are the son of the Vice-President versus being some smart kid from Podunk, Utah.

My SAT scores were quite a bit higher than Bush's and I was wait listed for acceptance to Duke. Yet, he got into Yale. I could say I didn't understand....

Pull the blinders off. Both Republicans and Democrats pull this stuff. It doesn't matter if you are the son of the most liberal Dem or the most conservative Republican, power is the name of the game.

-Robert

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Ah, a solid statement from a man who has clearly not read one WORD on the subject of Political Philosophy. The South had NO RIGHT to secede on the grounds they chose.

Jason

Originally posted by: Mayax
Lincoln.


Should have let the states leave before plunging the American people into a civil war.

 

[Spamela]

GWB - worse than any administration i've lived through, including Nixon's.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Lincoln had no intention of letting them leave because they had no RIGHT to leave. The only justification for the overthrow of your government, even by Lockean standards, is if the government has a history of repeated abuses and usurpations of power. All Lincoln did was declare in LAW what Jefferson declared in the Declaration: That all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Lincoln was RIGHT.

Jason

Originally posted by: Mayax
[No, read Lincoln's own writings. He had no intention of letting the states leave. He was going to try to keep it together at all costs even it came to war.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Hahahahahahahaha!!!

Sorry, that was just TOO funny! I didn't know we had professional comedians on the board! Awesome!

Jason

Originally posted by: fjord
Reagan. More than anyone else--Reagan (and his minions--many of them still active in this current administration), has been core-responsible for the problems we face today.

 

[fjord]

Originally posted by: Mayax

Originally posted by: fjord

Originally posted by: Mayax

Originally posted by: fjord
Reagan. More than anyone else--Reagan (and his minions--many of them still active in this current administration), has been core-responsible for the problems we face today.

Most of Reagan's crap was follow up to shiat Carter started. Carter was a bad bad man for the Middle East.

Carter's administration was ignorant about quite a few things--but it was ernest.

Flawed, and perhaps criminaly so--but ernest.

The fact is Carter has--to this day--done the most to secure peace in the middle-east than any other administration.

Reagan wasted everything gained towards peace--simply walked away.

Carter was ignorant? Carter was hip deep in it.

What history have you been reading? Who do you think pissed off the Iranians by supporting the Shah and giving him sanctuary, after he was dethroned, prompting the hostage crisis? Who do you think laid the ground work to supply Saddam with the means to start a war with Iran?

It wasn't Reagan. Carter laid all that groundwork. All Reagan had to do was walk into office and sign the papers to go through with it.

Carter should be enemy #1 as far as the Middle East is concerned.

That's one hell of a history revision you have going there.

Carter's admin was guilty of ignorance vis-a-vis Iran.
US policy with regard to the Shah of Iran was set primarily by Nixon.
Carter did advance peace in the Middle East, moreso than anyone else.
Reagan has Iraq as one of his many dark legacies. That and Osama.

No revision of history. Just the facts.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

I'll agree that both in the Gore/Bush race and the Kerry/Bush race (though moreso in the Kerry/Bush race) that BOTH candidates have behaved UNPROFESSIONALLY and waged campaigns that are pathetic and utterly devoid of any kind of integrity. BOTH candidates prove that they will go to ANY level to get the power they seek.

However, the election process, whereby the Electorate chose the outcome of the race, is ENTIRELY valid and is an intelligent and well thought-out system.

Jason

Originally posted by: Alistar7
I would have to say Bush, but not due to the shoddy way he has done his job but for them manner in which he obtained power. The entire last election process, on both side up to the supremely corrupted court, was a farce.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Mayax

Originally posted by: Zebo
"There's also the issue of him giving China, a communist country, top secret information. "

W gave them a whole plane full of the best electronics and and spy equipment we have. Don't get much worse than that. Then he backed down while they gutted it instead of sending a cruise missle to take it out. Then he gives Red China thieves/kidnappers favored nation trading status afterwards.

That plane has a self destruct procedure. A few keystrokes and the electronics are fried and wiped clean of information. China ended up sending back the entire plane in crates.

I'm still waiting for proof. NO EW equipment that I know of has self-destruct mechanisms. I know a little about this stuff as I was an electronic warfare tech in USN about 12 years ago... but things could have changed. Ask yourself this, why did they feel need to hold, and dissaemble our plane for four weeks. he thing was perfectly flyable

 

[Mayax]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Mayax

Originally posted by: Zebo
"There's also the issue of him giving China, a communist country, top secret information. "

W gave them a whole plane full of the best electronics and and spy equipment we have. Don't get much worse than that. Then he backed down while they gutted it instead of sending a cruise missle to take it out. Then he gives Red China thieves/kidnappers favored nation trading status afterwards.

That plane has a self destruct procedure. A few keystrokes and the electronics are fried and wiped clean of information. China ended up sending back the entire plane in crates.

You got proof of that? And proof it was enabled? How whiped are these electronics w/o destroying the plane? Think about it. My former boss was a b-52 pilot (not that this is B-52 but still) and said there are no such devices. He was instructed when flying over or near Russia to either crash plane or dump it in the drink.. I remember at the time, he said if they had turned over thier plane to the russkies like those navy pilots did they would have been tried for treason. Anyway, the only way to destory the electronics it to annihilate the plane. which did'nt happen.

You're not going to find that information on the internet concerning the self-destruct and if it was activated, the EP-3A (the plane captured) is a state of the art intelligence reconnaisance plane with a live linkup to NATO. The B-52 is an outdated junker bomber.

 

[Mayax]

Originally posted by: fjord

Originally posted by: Mayax

Originally posted by: fjord

Originally posted by: Mayax

Originally posted by: fjord
Reagan. More than anyone else--Reagan (and his minions--many of them still active in this current administration), has been core-responsible for the problems we face today.

Most of Reagan's crap was follow up to shiat Carter started. Carter was a bad bad man for the Middle East.

Carter's administration was ignorant about quite a few things--but it was ernest.

Flawed, and perhaps criminaly so--but ernest.

The fact is Carter has--to this day--done the most to secure peace in the middle-east than any other administration.

Reagan wasted everything gained towards peace--simply walked away.

Carter was ignorant? Carter was hip deep in it.

What history have you been reading? Who do you think pissed off the Iranians by supporting the Shah and giving him sanctuary, after he was dethroned, prompting the hostage crisis? Who do you think laid the ground work to supply Saddam with the means to start a war with Iran?

It wasn't Reagan. Carter laid all that groundwork. All Reagan had to do was walk into office and sign the papers to go through with it.

Carter should be enemy #1 as far as the Middle East is concerned.

That's one hell of a history revision you have going there.

Carter's admin was guilty of ignorance vis-a-vis Iran.
US policy with regard to the Shah of Iran was set primarily by Nixon.
Carter did advance peace in the Middle East, moreso than anyone else.
Reagan has Iraq as one of his many dark legacies. That and Osama.

No revision of history. Just the facts.

You're confusing facts with myth. We didn't even have diplomatic relations with Iraq until Carter opened up the channels to spite Iran. Carter was not guilty of ignorance, you may as well be trying to tell me that Einstein was ignorant of physics.

Frankly, you're shoveling a massive revisionist pile of horse crap.