If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Canada Free Press)   "It is not hyperbole to say Barack Obama is the worst President in the history of the nation"   (canadafreepress.com) divider line 215
    More: Amusing, obama, presidents, culture of corruption, LCC, oil wells, source of energy, Constitutional Conventions, Nancy Pelosi  
•       •       •

2495 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 May 2013 at 9:32 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



215 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-20 09:50:44 AM

Jake Havechek: cman: Mugato: Gulper Eel: B-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-but he was different from Reagan, Nixon and Bush?

We'll have to agree to disagree if you think all of that is worse than a campaign that cost  4 trillion dollars and around a half million deaths. Plus the laundry list of other shiat Bush did that everyone already knows.

I hear a lot about how Vietnam was one of those kind of wars. JFK put the first troops there and LBJ significantly increased them to obscene levels; yet it is Nixon who always gets the shaft for it. Obama didnt end the Iraq war as soon as he entered the White House. In fact, Obama wanted to keep troops there, but the Iraqi refusal to grant soldier immunity convinced him to bring them home.

LBJ and JFK get a free pass and Nixon takes it up the ass. Isnt that kinda farked up?

All I am saying is that if you are gonna throw out the "but-but-but-BUSH!" arguments then stop treating those on your side as flawless. JFK started a war that killed over 2 million Vietnamese and yet you guys love him.

Say........where were those WMDs that 5000+ American armed forces people got killed for?

That's right, motherfarker, say what you will about Obama, but at least he didn't invade a country based on a pack of farking lies he told.


Yeah, its not like the Vietnam war started on a lie

Lying to get a war happens. Just please be more unbiased in your biatching.
 
2013-05-20 09:51:05 AM
Aggregate results, polls of historical rankings of US presidents: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the _ United_States

1. Abraham Lincoln
2. Franklin D. Roosevelt
3. George Washington
4. Thomas Jefferson
5. Theodore Roosevelt
6. Woodrow Wilson
7. Harry S. Truman
8. Dwight D. Eisenhower
9. Andrew Jackson
10. James K. Polk
11. John F. Kennedy
12. John Adams
13. James Madison
14. James Monroe
15. Lyndon B. Johnson
16. Barack Obama
17. Ronald Reagan
18. John Quincy Adams
19. Grover Cleveland
20. William McKinley
21. Bill Clinton
22. William Howard Taft
23. George H.W. Bush
24. Martin Van Buren
25. Rutherford B. Hayes
26. Gerald Ford
27. Jimmy Carter
28. Chester A. Arthur
29. Herbert Hoover
30. James A. Garfield
31. Calvin Coolidge
32. Richard Nixon
33. Benjamin Harrison
34. George W. Bush
35. Zachary Taylor
36. John Tyler
37. Ulysses S. Grant
38. Millard Fillmore
39. William Henry Harrison
40. Franklin Pierce
41. Andrew Johnson
42. James Buchanan
43. Warren G. Harding
 
2013-05-20 09:52:01 AM

Mugato: We'll have to agree to disagree if you think all of that is worse than a campaign that cost 4 trillion dollars and around a half million deaths.


Whatever W's many failings are, televangelizing his way around the world as a self-styled diplomacymonger is not one of them.

How badly did we fark the people of Zimbabwe, East Timor and Cambodia, to name just three? There were 200,000 murdered in East Timor in the late 70's with weapons we sold to Suharto in '77, hundreds of thousands more wiped out in Cambodia...and Zimbabwe? Life expectancy crashed to somewhere in the 30's.

Half of Iraq's, in other words.

That's what Carter (and that twit Callaghan in England) did to Zimbabwe. They took the toys away from the mean redneck and gave them to a serial killer.

There's always going to be inhumanity in the world, and the US has jumped in on the side of the killers more often than we'd like to admit...but isn't the line on Carter that he was supposed to have been different from all the others?
 
2013-05-20 09:52:09 AM
This incompetent empty-suit is unstoppable with his diabolical games and schemes.
 
2013-05-20 09:53:06 AM
Dear Lord so much bs in that article...
 
2013-05-20 09:53:28 AM
Arugula + no flag pins + using a proxy for umbrella holding + universal healthcare based on GOP plan + edamame on 12/7 + yuengling + only person in universe to ever use teleprompter + rolling a 37 in bowling + no sportjacket in oval office + binder clips + war on xmas + doggy dining + liking basketball + elitist education + using marijuana + being able to sing + soshulizms + Saul Alinsky + you didn't build that taken out of context + community organizing + acts of terror instead of terrorist acts + 20 billion dollar fine for BP + only raising gasoline prices when they go up but never decreasing gasoline prices when they go down in price + forging the unemployment numbers + advocating for renewable energy = worst president in the history of the known multiverse past present and future and sideways.
 
2013-05-20 09:54:15 AM
Dafuq did I just read?

I was looking for a disclaimer somewhere to tell me that is an Onion type site.  I didn't find one.

That dude needs some serious medication.  Serious.Medication.
 
2013-05-20 09:55:17 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: So you are saying that Bush, Nixon and Reagan were terrible Presidents too?


Yes.

The best president of my lifetime is Clinton - at least when he dithered over Rwanda and the inaction got 800,000 people killed, he at least had the decency to admit how badly he farked up.
 
2013-05-20 09:55:24 AM

cman: Serious Black: Let's see here. Bush almost single-handedly destroyed the world economy, wasted trillions of dollars and killed thousands of people in Iraq, and tacitly gave his approval for war crimes like torture. But because we have Benghazi instead of Ghraibgate, Bush is better. Got it.

And many of the prominent Liberal presidents of the 20th century supported dictators and even overthrew democratic governments because they *could* have liked Moscow. These dictators had wars, supported torture, committed genocide. Liberals are not as holy as they think they are.


Yes, I'm very aware of what America's foreign policy is like today. I have recommended people read Washington Rules by Andrew Bacevich as I think it neatly lays out the idea that we have become a warmongering society over time with increasingly fewer rules on what is out of bounds, including the preemptive war doctrine that led us into Iraq.
 
2013-05-20 09:55:32 AM

cman: LBJ and JFK get a free pass and Nixon takes it up the ass. Isnt that kinda farked up?


This could be one reason:

http://www.ibtimes.com/lbj-tapes-show-richard-nixon-may-have-committ ed -treason-sabotaging-vietnam-peace-talks-1131819
 
2013-05-20 09:55:51 AM

crazydave023: Please ignore this guy Alan Caruba. I have gotten into lengthy arguments with him on Tea Party Nation. (I troll for fun. The paranoia and hatred is epic. You guys should come join) He rants with no coherent points and just generally turns the DERP all the way up to potato. Also, he should read about Franklin Pierce, Millard Fillmore, Andrew Johnson, Warren G Harding, Herbert Hoover, John Tyler, and  Zachary Taylor.


Check out his list of articles and how quickly he churns them out.  This guy is a fine-tuned, super-prolific derp machine!
 
2013-05-20 09:56:17 AM
 Correct, it is not hyperbole, it's a flat out bald face lie. But that has yet to even slow down the haters. But carry on because so far the howling insanity on the right has done a lot to scare people out of voting republican. Still don't much fancy the idea of one party rule even if  that party happens to be the least corrupt and insane at the time.
 
2013-05-20 09:56:20 AM
To save anyone from having to click on that POS article.

The first paragraph FTFA-

"All through George W. Bush's two terms, the Democrats led by Nancy Pelosi and others claimed that they represented "a culture of corruption" and yet I cannot recall any significant examples, nor does a look back at those years reveal any scandals resulting from his administration's governance. It was not perfect, but it was not corrupt."

It gets worse from there...
 
2013-05-20 09:56:23 AM

Gulper Eel: Mugato: We'll have to agree to disagree if you think all of that is worse than a campaign that cost 4 trillion dollars and around a half million deaths.

Whatever W's many failings are, televangelizing his way around the world as a self-styled diplomacymonger is not one of them.

How badly did we fark the people of Zimbabwe, East Timor and Cambodia, to name just three? There were 200,000 murdered in East Timor in the late 70's with weapons we sold to Suharto in '77, hundreds of thousands more wiped out in Cambodia...and Zimbabwe? Life expectancy crashed to somewhere in the 30's.

Half of Iraq's, in other words.

That's what Carter (and that twit Callaghan in England) did to Zimbabwe. They took the toys away from the mean redneck and gave them to a serial killer.

There's always going to be inhumanity in the world, and the US has jumped in on the side of the killers more often than we'd like to admit...but isn't the line on Carter that he was supposed to have been different from all the others?


Yes, he was better than at least 16 of them since he's ranked 27th by presidential historians.

//Bush is better than a measley 9
 
2013-05-20 09:56:39 AM
I read this first paragraph:

All through George W. Bush's two terms, the Democrats led by Nancy Pelosi and others claimed that they represented "a culture of corruption" and yet I cannot recall any significant examples, nor does a look back at those years reveal any scandals resulting from his administration's governance. It was not perfect, but it was not corrupt.

and realized that reading any further would just make my brain hurt.   The stuff going on in the Obama administration that the GOP is biatching about right now is 100% small potatoes compared to the shiat the Bushies were pulling.  Hell, if the Obama administration did anything close to what Rove, Cheney and company were orchestrating from the white house, congressional republicans would have already attempted to bring impeachment proceedings.

I mean, there are scandals going on, but the shiat that is making the news right now is nothing compared to the fundamental, systemic problems that neither party wants to talk about.
 
2013-05-20 09:57:26 AM
All through George W. Bush's two terms, the Democrats led by Nancy Pelosi and others claimed that they represented "a culture of corruption" and yet I cannot recall any significant examples, nor does a look back at those years reveal any scandals resulting from his administration's governance. It was not perfect, but it was not corrupt.

LOL, wut?

We haven't had so much cronyism in the White House since Warren Harding's administration -- and Bush only dodged his own scandals because he was able to use the aftershock of 9/11 to send his cronies elsewhere. Bush even used our military to settle a family grudge in Iraq and then allowed his well-connected friends to become war profiteers who bilked the US and Iranian governments out of hundreds of millions, if not billions, of reconstruction funds. In the meantime, over a thousand US troops died and thousands more were wounded in the line of duty, all for two wars that didn't need to happen and which enriched Bush's inner circle. If that's not corruption, what is?

What's sad about all of Obama's "scandals" is that they've been due to government incompetence rather than Obama himself being some Nixonian mastermind. Obama is not a great president. He is continuing bad policies put into place during the Bush era and has shown that he is not nearly as strong a leader as he is an orator. But compared to the previous president, there's no way in hell you could ever call him the worst in history.

/Didn't vote for Obama OR Romney in the last election.
 
2013-05-20 09:57:56 AM

Gulper Eel: Philip Francis Queeg: So you are saying that Bush, Nixon and Reagan were terrible Presidents too?

Yes.

The best president of my lifetime is Clinton - at least when he dithered over Rwanda and the inaction got 800,000 people killed, he at least had the decency to admit how badly he farked up.


So what makes Carter the worst? Just your opinion that he was somehow supposed to be "different"?  That he didn't support repressive regimes that you preferred?
 
2013-05-20 09:59:39 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: Gulper Eel: Philip Francis Queeg: So you are saying that Bush, Nixon and Reagan were terrible Presidents too?

Yes.

The best president of my lifetime is Clinton - at least when he dithered over Rwanda and the inaction got 800,000 people killed, he at least had the decency to admit how badly he farked up.

So what makes Carter the worst? Just your opinion that he was somehow supposed to be "different"?  That he didn't support repressive regimes that you preferred?


The wonderfully, meticulously formed echo chamber from FoxNews that the 1-2 punch of terribleness in our lifetime is Carter and Obama.
 
2013-05-20 10:00:21 AM

coeyagi: Mugato: Serious Black: Let's see here. Bush almost single-handedly destroyed the world economy, wasted trillions of dollars and killed thousands of people in Iraq, and tacitly gave his approval for war crimes like torture. But because we have Benghazi instead of Ghraibgate, Bush is better. Got it.

You forgot the umbrella!

[politix.topix.com image 514x385]

But that Obamanable asshole used the God-loving God-fearing salt-of-the-earth Marines instead of those Army pukes!

What a Fartbeefer.


But, you see how Obama made his Marine extend his arm a little farther over his black head? I think it was done intentionally and its an impeachable offense.
 
2013-05-20 10:01:54 AM

GiantRex: Aggregate results, polls of historical rankings of US presidents: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the _ United_States

1. Abraham Lincoln
2. Franklin D. Roosevelt
3. George Washington
4. Thomas Jefferson
5. Theodore Roosevelt
6. Woodrow Wilson
7. Harry S. Truman
8. Dwight D. Eisenhower
9. Andrew Jackson
10. James K. Polk
11. John F. Kennedy
12. John Adams
13. James Madison
14. James Monroe
15. Lyndon B. Johnson
16. Barack Obama
17. Ronald Reagan
18. John Quincy Adams
19. Grover Cleveland
20. William McKinley
21. Bill Clinton
22. William Howard Taft
23. George H.W. Bush
24. Martin Van Buren
25. Rutherford B. Hayes
26. Gerald Ford
27. Jimmy Carter
28. Chester A. Arthur
29. Herbert Hoover
30. James A. Garfield
31. Calvin Coolidge
32. Richard Nixon
33. Benjamin Harrison
34. George W. Bush
35. Zachary Taylor
36. John Tyler
37. Ulysses S. Grant
38. Millard Fillmore
39. William Henry Harrison
40. Franklin Pierce
41. Andrew Johnson
42. James Buchanan
43. Warren G. Harding


Pfft.  Who cares what "experts" think.  All the critics said that Transformers II was no good, but I just want to see hot chicks and explosions in my movies and Presidents so I think it's pretty obvious that George W. Bush was the best president.  Did you see Gulf War II?  The critics said it was lame too, but that's only because the first Gulf War was so awesome.  It was way better than Clinton's lame-o Kosovo War which had NO hot chicks.

If I was President then my presidency would look like this:
fbtrouble.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com
 
2013-05-20 10:02:41 AM
The "Canada Free Press," despite its friendly, Detroit-Freep-not-Free-Republic-Freep-sounding name, is a Toronto-based WND ripoff. Two of its editors:

Arthur Weinreb - Associate Editor Arthur Weinreb is an author, columnist and Associate Editor of Canada Free Press. His work has appeared on Newsmax.com, Drudge Report, Foxnews.com, Glenn Beck.

Klaus Rohrich - Senior Writer Klaus Rohrich has a regular column on retirementhomes.com and is currently working on his first book dealing with the toxicity of liberalism. His work has been featured on the Drudge Report, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News and Lucianne, among others.


And the Editor-in-Chief, Judi McLeod? I'll quote Wikipedia:

In 2005, McLeod and David Hawkins wrote a series of articles on what they described as the' "radical agenda executed across and, operated by the self-styled 'Global Custodians'." They alleged links between "$40 trillion, via an online portal on the seventy-ninth floor of, to '' developed by Canada for alleged use in the UN scam, and fraud.

Conservative writer has described McLeod's writing as that of an "emotionally incontinent ninth grader," while columnist describes her as "eccentric" and the  Canada Free Press as a "whacko news site."
 
2013-05-20 10:02:57 AM

cman: Mugato: Gulper Eel: B-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-but he was different from Reagan, Nixon and Bush?

We'll have to agree to disagree if you think all of that is worse than a campaign that cost  4 trillion dollars and around a half million deaths. Plus the laundry list of other shiat Bush did that everyone already knows.

I hear a lot about how Vietnam was one of those kind of wars. JFK put the first troops there and LBJ significantly increased them to obscene levels; yet it is Nixon who always gets the shaft for it. Obama didnt end the Iraq war as soon as he entered the White House. In fact, Obama wanted to keep troops there, but the Iraqi refusal to grant soldier immunity convinced him to bring them home.

LBJ and JFK get a free pass and Nixon takes it up the ass. Isnt that kinda farked up?

All I am saying is that if you are gonna throw out the "but-but-but-BUSH!" arguments then stop treating those on your side as flawless. JFK started a war that killed over 2 million Vietnamese and yet you guys love him.


There was going to be a peace accord in Paris between the N Vietnamese and the US in 1968 just before the elections. Nixon got someone to tell the S Vietnamese not to accept the terms and the NVs pulled out and thus the Vietnam war continued for another 4+ years. LBJ having heard what Nixon did, considered busting Nixon for treason. So if there is anyone worth pinning the war on, it would have to be Tricky Dick.

Between that, the Southern Strategy and Watergate, we see the dark side of the GOP: they're willing to do anything to win an election; except propose sane and popular policies.
 
2013-05-20 10:03:09 AM

cman: Yeah, its not like the Vietnam war started on a lie

Lying to get a war happens. Just please be more unbiased in your biatching.


The Vietnam war started more than a decade before the US got involved in it.
 
2013-05-20 10:04:47 AM
Obama is the worst president.

Until we elect the next one.
Then I vote for that guy!
 
2013-05-20 10:05:35 AM
Put it this way. What if Obama was elected in 2000. What if 9/11 happened under Obama and two bullshiat wars as a result. Would he have a 90+% approval rating like Bush (briefly) did? What if Bush was elected in 2008 and four people were killed in an embassy half a world away and he didn't hold his own umbrella. Would the Democrats be calling for his impeachment? That's the difference between the two "teams".
 
2013-05-20 10:09:40 AM

GiantRex: Aggregate results, polls of historical rankings of US presidents: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the _ United_States

16. Barack Obama
17. Ronald Reagan


25.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-05-20 10:12:36 AM
25.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-05-20 10:14:00 AM
I am always shocked by people's lack of memory.
 
2013-05-20 10:14:29 AM

cman: Mugato: Mugato: cman: Sorry, subs, but I seriously doubt anyone could take that title from Carter.

How many countries did Carter invade under false pretenses? I missed have cut my history class that day.

must have, that is

Since when does lying make one a terrible President?


When it results in the deaths of thousands of US troops?
 
2013-05-20 10:14:51 AM

Parthenogenetic: GiantRex: Aggregate results, polls of historical rankings of US presidents: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the _ United_States

16. Barack Obama
17. Ronald Reagan

[25.media.tumblr.com image 467x337]


The Historians Never Got the GOP memo entitled "We Can Haz Mulligan?".

images.dangerousminds.net
 
2013-05-20 10:17:14 AM

Herr Docktor Heinrich Wisenheimer: cman: Sorry, subs, but I seriously doubt anyone could take that title from Carter. Nixon.


W. has my vote for worst. Coolidge second. Polk third. Carter fourth. Watergate was horrible but I give Nixon credit for opening relations with China and the clean air and clean water acts.
 
2013-05-20 10:18:11 AM
Yes, yes it is. He's only even competitive with hos immediate predecessor on a political tactical basis. American presidents have signed off on slavery and genocide in the past. Farking horrible=\=worst ever, as horrible as that is.
 
2013-05-20 10:18:46 AM

GiantRex: Aggregate results, polls of historical rankings of US presidents: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the _ United_States


Note, some of those (EG, Jackson and Eisenhower; Monroe, Johnson, and Obama) are actually multi-way ties.

Still, "worse than James Madison" seems a fair damnation for Obama.

/Woodrow Wilson is way overrated
 
2013-05-20 10:19:13 AM

Parthenogenetic: GiantRex: Aggregate results, polls of historical rankings of US presidents: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the _ United_States

16. Barack Obama
17. Ronald Reagan


IKR? Ronald Reagan should be much lower on that list.
 
2013-05-20 10:19:37 AM
Anyone who uses hyperbole is worse than Hitler.
 
2013-05-20 10:22:12 AM
/conservative christian repblican

history may show that he was the BEST president ever.

we're dealing with nonlinear systems, here, people. just 'cause things suck balls right now because of obama doesn't mean he isn't laying the groundwork for a better future. i know i know it's a standard socialist liberal line.

just remember to elect a republican next time and we'll be balanced out after 8-10 more years.

patience.
 
2013-05-20 10:25:01 AM

utah dude: /conservative christian repblican

history may show that he was the BEST president ever.

we're dealing with nonlinear systems, here, people. just 'cause things suck balls right now because of Bush doesn't mean Obama isn't laying the groundwork for a better future. i know i know it's a standard troll line.

just remember to elect a non-republican next time

patience.


That took a lot of editing.  You must have failed Freshman English / History.
 
2013-05-20 10:26:03 AM
He'd have a lot of catching up to do just to surpass the guy before him on the "worst" list.  People who are trying to call him "the worst" or these recent problems "the biggest scandal" are just revealing to everyone what idiots they are.
 
2013-05-20 10:27:33 AM

Mugato: Put it this way. What if Obama was elected in 2000. What if 9/11 happened under Obama and two bullshiat wars as a result. Would he have a 90+% approval rating like Bush (briefly) did? What if Bush was elected in 2008 and four people were killed in an embassy half a world away and he didn't hold his own umbrella. Would the Democrats be calling for his impeachment? That's the difference between the two "teams".


1. One cannot compare 9/11 and 9/11/11. The 9/11 attacks happened on our own soil while 9/11/11 attacks happened in a bumfark country that half the Americans cant find on a map. 9/11 was highly traumatic for us as a nation. 9/11/11 was not traumatic at all. One was politically stable and the other was going through a revolution. One involved the death of women and children and the other did not. These two attacks are not comparable at all.

 2. My statement does not destroy your point. Hyperpartisan bullshiat is why 9/11/11 is still brought up. You have a very valid concern. Most people who talk about Benghazi are just repeating what they have heard from others without any independent though process from their friends to them. Smart people believe dumb shiat because they trust people they shouldnt.
 
2013-05-20 10:28:26 AM
Sorry, the title of worst President in the history of the nation still belongs to Dick Cheney.
 
2013-05-20 10:29:19 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: So what makes Carter the worst? Just your opinion that he was somehow supposed to be "different"? That he didn't support repressive regimes that you preferred?


Carter's not on my worst list at all (upthread I went with Buchanan, Tyler, Hoover, Fillmore, Nixon) - but he is painted as a saint so often, and in supposed contrast to "warmongers", that I have to call bullshiat.

Carter is most definitely on my most-overrated list, along with Wilson, LBJ, Reagan, Jackson and Obama.
 
2013-05-20 10:29:34 AM
Personally, I think he'd take Pierre Trudeau in a game of one-on-one, but may lose out if it turns out to be ice hockey - don't know if they have a similar one-on-one version of ice hockey.  So, I think Canada is wrong.  There's my proof.
 
2013-05-20 10:30:14 AM

cman: Mugato: Gulper Eel: B-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-but he was different from Reagan, Nixon and Bush?

We'll have to agree to disagree if you think all of that is worse than a campaign that cost  4 trillion dollars and around a half million deaths. Plus the laundry list of other shiat Bush did that everyone already knows.

I hear a lot about how Vietnam was one of those kind of wars. JFK put the first troops there and LBJ significantly increased them to obscene levels; yet it is Nixon who always gets the shaft for it. Obama didnt end the Iraq war as soon as he entered the White House. In fact, Obama wanted to keep troops there, but the Iraqi refusal to grant soldier immunity convinced him to bring them home.

LBJ and JFK get a free pass and Nixon takes it up the ass. Isnt that kinda farked up?

All I am saying is that if you are gonna throw out the "but-but-but-BUSH!" arguments then stop treating those on your side as flawless. JFK started a war that killed over 2 million Vietnamese and yet you guys love him.


It's because he campaigned on leaving quickly (without abandoning the South Vietnamese) and then didn't. He even had the gall to send MORE troops. JFK doesn't get flack because although he sent troops he didn't send many and when the shiat hit the fan he was very dead. LBJ didn't campaign on ending the war (unless we won, etc.), so Nixon looked bad because he made a campaign promise and then did the opposite.
 
2013-05-20 10:30:26 AM

coeyagi: Mugato: Serious Black: Let's see here. Bush almost single-handedly destroyed the world economy, wasted trillions of dollars and killed thousands of people in Iraq, and tacitly gave his approval for war crimes like torture. But because we have Benghazi instead of Ghraibgate, Bush is better. Got it.

You forgot the umbrella!

[politix.topix.com image 514x385]

But that Obamanable asshole used the God-loving God-fearing salt-of-the-earth Marines instead of those Army pukes!

What a Fartbeefer.


And proof that Carter was the worst umbrella president of all time.  He can't get someone to hold an umbrella for him, and has to hold it for foreign dignataries.  He can't get no respect.

www.agribusinesscouncil.org


Umbrella-gate is my favorite gate.
 
2013-05-20 10:35:05 AM

Mugato: Put it this way. What if Obama was elected in 2000. What if 9/11 happened under Obama and two bullshiat wars as a result. Would he have a 90+% approval rating like Bush (briefly) did? What if Bush was elected in 2008 and four people were killed in an embassy half a world away and he didn't hold his own umbrella. Would the Democrats be calling for his impeachment? That's the difference between the two "teams".


So, what you are saying is that Republicans support half of all murderous authoritarian presidents and Democrats support them all?
 
2013-05-20 10:38:04 AM

Pilikia: Sorry, the title of worst President in the history of the nation still belongs to Dick Cheney.



I'm stingy with my "smart" click. Congratulations.
 
2013-05-20 10:38:51 AM

cman: Mugato: Put it this way. What if Obama was elected in 2000. What if 9/11 happened under Obama and two bullshiat wars as a result. Would he have a 90+% approval rating like Bush (briefly) did? What if Bush was elected in 2008 and four people were killed in an embassy half a world away and he didn't hold his own umbrella. Would the Democrats be calling for his impeachment? That's the difference between the two "teams".

1. One cannot compare 9/11 and 9/11/11. The 9/11 attacks happened on our own soil while 9/11/11 attacks happened in a bumfark country that half the Americans cant find on a map. 9/11 was highly traumatic for us as a nation. 9/11/11 was not traumatic at all. One was politically stable and the other was going through a revolution. One involved the death of women and children and the other did not. These two attacks are not comparable at all.

 2. My statement does not destroy your point. Hyperpartisan bullshiat is why 9/11/11 is still brought up. You have a very valid concern. Most people who talk about Benghazi are just repeating what they have heard from others without any independent though process from their friends to them. Smart people believe dumb shiat because they trust people they shouldnt.


Once - typo
Twice- typo or confusion
Thrice - retardation

//It was 9/11/12, but thanks FoxNews for keeping you misinfromed.

He reports, you deride.™
 
2013-05-20 10:40:43 AM

Gulper Eel: Carter is most definitely on my most-overrated list, along with Wilson, LBJ, Reagan, Jackson and Obama.


Well he couldn't have been too overrated. He was a one termer and every republican thinks he's the worst next to Obama. I think people like Carter for the things he's done post-Presidency*. I respect him only because he has a degree in nuclear physics and not a law degree from a school Daddy got him into.

* and his love of beer
 
2013-05-20 10:42:09 AM

Ned Stark: So, what you are saying is that Republicans support half of all murderous authoritarian presidents and Democrats support them all?


I'm saying that for a brief moment everyone dropped their partisan bullshiat in a time of crisis, something I don't see the republicans having the ability to ever do.
 
2013-05-20 10:44:16 AM

coeyagi: cman: Mugato: Put it this way. What if Obama was elected in 2000. What if 9/11 happened under Obama and two bullshiat wars as a result. Would he have a 90+% approval rating like Bush (briefly) did? What if Bush was elected in 2008 and four people were killed in an embassy half a world away and he didn't hold his own umbrella. Would the Democrats be calling for his impeachment? That's the difference between the two "teams".

1. One cannot compare 9/11 and 9/11/11. The 9/11 attacks happened on our own soil while 9/11/11 attacks happened in a bumfark country that half the Americans cant find on a map. 9/11 was highly traumatic for us as a nation. 9/11/11 was not traumatic at all. One was politically stable and the other was going through a revolution. One involved the death of women and children and the other did not. These two attacks are not comparable at all.

 2. My statement does not destroy your point. Hyperpartisan bullshiat is why 9/11/11 is still brought up. You have a very valid concern. Most people who talk about Benghazi are just repeating what they have heard from others without any independent though process from their friends to them. Smart people believe dumb shiat because they trust people they shouldnt.

Once - typo
Twice- typo or confusion
Thrice - retardation

//It was 9/11/12, but thanks FoxNews for keeping you misinfromed.

He reports, you deride.™


You are correct. I don't know why I thought it happened in 2011. Probably the wrong neuron fired giving the incorrect date.

/BTW I don't watch Fox.
//I am a BBC News man
 
Displayed 50 of 215 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report