Worst American president in history?

[AiliailiA]

As long as there still is a United States, there remains a very real possibility that the worst President is yet to come.

Look at it this way: neither Fillmore nor Harding did anything so disastrous that the USA was destroyed, did they?

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

Death Metal,

Didn't Coolidge advocate policies that let the people who earned the money, keep it? Do you have a fair and balanced source to support your statement?

If so, how does that make someone a rapist? I thought a rapist takes something by force, which is what government does when it taxes and redistributes wealth.

Also, for perspective, do you believe that Obama lied when he said 'you can keep your doctor'?

Coolidge's policies certainly let the wealthy keep their money, which seems somewhat different from what you said.

I don't think he really meant that Coolidge literally raped anyone and what the government does with taxation is neither rape nor wrong at all as well as being completely off topic.

It really depends, doesn't it? Don't go thinking you're setting up some devious trap with that question either, I can see what you're gunning for.

Listen, I'm sure in a few years when you're a liberal, your debate skills will be a little more bearable, less pedantic, and overall less high school debate-y, but for now it seems like you're arguing for the fight rather than the point.

Once again you smugly tout your misunderstanding of economics and history.

I'm sure you're an expert on the Mellon Tax Cuts (if you even know what they were), but by 1927 only the top 2% of earners were paying income taxes, which had been effectively eliminated for middle- and lower-income levels.

Please, please, please stop lecturing people on how to debate properly, because it really isn't your strong suit. I've never seen you justify a single one of your shitty arguments with any evidence, reasoned points or even fact-based knowledge. Yes, you're very good at articulating straw men and patronising others, but you can't actually sustain a real debate unless you're insulting the other person or declaring how much more intelligent and cultured you are.

And stop pretending that being liberal means being at the top of the political evolutionary ladder. It does not. Being liberal is for the simple-minded, the naive and those who only take arguments at face value. I remember being twelve years old, rooting against dem old smelly rapurblacans, cos free healthcare and no guns is safe and good for everybody!! But then I grew up, and realised how naive I was to support such a destructive, reactionary movement that never takes into account anything but its own bigoted, hypocritical, self-defeating points of view, never once being aware of their inherent contradictions.

I can respect the socialists and communists of the world, because they don't pretend to know much about economics, since most of their arguments are based purely on emotion and opinion. Liberals are perhaps the most erroneous type of ideologues, as they enjoy mixing emotion with economics and passing the resultant opinions off as facts that should be commonly recognised by every self-respecting political student. But nearly every argument they make is either out of context or simply wrong. Minimum wage laws reduce real wages. Gun bans increase gun deaths. Free healthcare is not free.

Maybe one day you'll wake up to your own deep-seated arrogance and pathetic attempts to bring others down to your level. But until then, I'll leave you with this meme:

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

The American Traitor Ronald Reagan.

But the buck stopped with Reagan!

Except for those eleven times that he raised non-income taxes!

Fixed.

[Dukats]

Fucking Clinton

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

Fucking Clinton

Clinton gets too much credit as a terrible/awesome President. If you take a look at his record, you can see that he was a decidedly average Commander-in-Chief, who's policies largely had no impact on the economy and the world of foreign affairs. He put on a good smile, he could speak well, but he didn't actually have many significant achievements, good or bad. Lincoln won the Civil War, FDR created the modern tax-and-spend state, Reagan helped win the Cold War. Clinton? Well, he, um... reformed welfare, I guess, and... expanded the EITC?

Don't get me wrong, he did some good things, but he didn't do any really good things.

[WRIF Army]

1. The recession was mainly due to out of control spending by the Democratic-controlled congress and throwback from the housing bubble that they inherited from the Clinton administration.
2. No.
3. The Bush wars? Many other nations were involved, namely the ones that you know, supported the terrorists that attacked us (in the case of Afghanistan), or refused to admit they didn't have nuclear weapons because they didn't want to look bad (Iraq).

1. lolwut? The same Congress that had a surplus budget? Get real. The spending didn't happen until the war effort.
2. DOMA.
3. lolwut again? Afghanistan was on our side and Iraq repeatedly claimed they had no nuclear weapons. Stop drinking the GOP kool-aid. Even they aren't parroting those lies anymore.

1.Austrian economists predicted the housing bubble and the financial collapse starting in the early and mid 2000's. Hint: when Fed artificially lowers interest rates, it spurs unsustainable investment in projects, like housing

2. DOMA was a civil rights indiscretion by the federal government that pales in comparison to the IRS, NSA, ATF..... abuses committed by the current administration. However, you are correct, DOMA was an inexcusable federal power play undermining the rights of a law abiding minority.

3. Afghanistan = Taliban = sanctuary for the group that murdered over 3000 innocents. Bush inherited the Iraq mess from Clinton who had 8 years to correct it, instead Clinton's failed sanctions policy killed tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis AND led to the fatwa by bin Laden against the USA. You don't know this because Bush did spend 24/7 blaming Clinton (and his Dad) for a cauldron in the Middle East or the dotcom bubble.

Also, if you think that progressive democrats weren't complicit in the Iraq war, you haven't read this:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

[WRIF Army]

Coolidge's policies certainly let the wealthy keep their money, which seems somewhat different from what you said.

I don't think he really meant that Coolidge literally raped anyone and what the government does with taxation is neither rape nor wrong at all as well as being completely off topic.

It really depends, doesn't it? Don't go thinking you're setting up some devious trap with that question either, I can see what you're gunning for.

Listen, I'm sure in a few years when you're a liberal, your debate skills will be a little more bearable, less pedantic, and overall less high school debate-y, but for now it seems like you're arguing for the fight rather than the point.

Once again you smugly tout your misunderstanding of economics and history.

I'm sure you're an expert on the Mellon Tax Cuts (if you even know what they were), but by 1927 only the top 2% of earners were paying income taxes, which had been effectively eliminated for middle- and lower-income levels.

Please, please, please stop lecturing people on how to debate properly, because it really isn't your strong suit. I've never seen you justify a single one of your shitty arguments with any evidence, reasoned points or even fact-based knowledge. Yes, you're very good at articulating straw men and patronising others, but you can't actually sustain a real debate unless you're insulting the other person or declaring how much more intelligent and cultured you are.

And stop pretending that being liberal means being at the top of the political evolutionary ladder. It does not. Being liberal is for the simple-minded, the naive and those who only take arguments at face value. I remember being twelve years old, rooting against dem old smelly rapurblacans, cos free healthcare and no guns is safe and good for everybody!! But then I grew up, and realised how naive I was to support such a destructive, reactionary movement that never takes into account anything but its own bigoted, hypocritical, self-defeating points of view, never once being aware of their inherent contradictions.

I can respect the socialists and communists of the world, because they don't pretend to know much about economics, since most of their arguments are based purely on emotion and opinion. Liberals are perhaps the most erroneous type of ideologues, as they enjoy mixing emotion with economics and passing the resultant opinions off as facts that should be commonly recognised by every self-respecting political student. But nearly every argument they make is either out of context or simply wrong. Minimum wage laws reduce real wages. Gun bans increase gun deaths. Free healthcare is not free.

Maybe one day you'll wake up to your own deep-seated arrogance and pathetic attempts to bring others down to your level. But until then, I'll leave you with this meme:

Thank you Lerodan Chinamerica, well done.

[Conscentia]

[...] But until then, I'll leave you with this meme:
[...]

That's not actually a meme.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

[...] But until then, I'll leave you with this meme:
[...]

That's not actually a meme.

Then what is it?

[Conscentia]

That's not actually a meme.

Then what is it?

It's a picture of an illustrated character next to some words.

[European Socialist Republic]

Then what is it?

It's a picture of an illustrated character next to some words.

I think the term is 'cartoon', no?

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

Then what is it?

It's a picture of an illustrated character next to some words.

Well, erm, thanks for the clarification.

[Conscentia]

It's a picture of an illustrated character next to some words.

I think the term is 'cartoon', no?

Cartoon: "A simple drawing showing the features of its subjects in a humorously exaggerated way, esp. a satirical one in a newspaper or magazine" (there are other definitions listed in the dictionary - this is just one of them)

Seems to fit.

[Kelinfort]

1. lolwut? The same Congress that had a surplus budget? Get real. The spending didn't happen until the war effort.
2. DOMA.
3. lolwut again? Afghanistan was on our side and Iraq repeatedly claimed they had no nuclear weapons. Stop drinking the GOP kool-aid. Even they aren't parroting those lies anymore.

1.Austrian economists predicted the housing bubble and the financial collapse starting in the early and mid 2000's. Hint: when Fed artificially lowers interest rates, it spurs unsustainable investment in projects, like housing

2. DOMA was a civil rights indiscretion by the federal government that pales in comparison to the IRS, NSA, ATF..... abuses committed by the current administration. However, you are correct, DOMA was an inexcusable federal power play undermining the rights of a law abiding minority.

3. Afghanistan = Taliban = sanctuary for the group that murdered over 3000 innocents. Bush inherited the Iraq mess from Clinton who had 8 years to correct it, instead Clinton's failed sanctions policy killed tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis AND led to the fatwa by bin Laden against the USA. You don't know this because Bush did spend 24/7 blaming Clinton (and his Dad) for a cauldron in the Middle East or the dotcom bubble.

Also, if you think that progressive democrats weren't complicit in the Iraq war, you haven't read this:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

1. It's interesting the same neoliberal policies that were put in place during Clinton's tenure and supported by the Austrian School (some argue he was an adherent to the Third Way, but his policies such as repealing Glass-Steagall were clearly for deregulation. The housing bubble was caused due to the combined factors of the economic policies of Alan Greenspan, deregulation, and neoliberal economics.

2. Patriot Act. That right there. That is far worse than any of scandals that have recently broke, if you consider the complete overreach and disregard for civil liberties by the US government. This set the foundation for intelligence overreach (NSA and CIA acting against international law, set the stage for losing the most privacy in any administration in history, and gave the Presidency the most power since the 1950's-70's. https://www.aclu.org/reform-patriot-act


3. Invading Afghanistan was justified IMO, however we should have continued to conduct negotiations and sent intelligence operatives into the nation and ask for the aid of Pakistan. If talks broke down, then authorize bombing and invade. As for the fatwa Bin Laden issued, here's a link to it: http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/980223-fatwa.htm
Only in part does it mention policies based around Iraq. I still, after ten years, cannot believe that such hogwash convinced so many people in Congress to vote for yet another war and many more deaths and instability.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

1.Austrian economists predicted the housing bubble and the financial collapse starting in the early and mid 2000's. Hint: when Fed artificially lowers interest rates, it spurs unsustainable investment in projects, like housing

2. DOMA was a civil rights indiscretion by the federal government that pales in comparison to the IRS, NSA, ATF..... abuses committed by the current administration. However, you are correct, DOMA was an inexcusable federal power play undermining the rights of a law abiding minority.

3. Afghanistan = Taliban = sanctuary for the group that murdered over 3000 innocents. Bush inherited the Iraq mess from Clinton who had 8 years to correct it, instead Clinton's failed sanctions policy killed tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis AND led to the fatwa by bin Laden against the USA. You don't know this because Bush did spend 24/7 blaming Clinton (and his Dad) for a cauldron in the Middle East or the dotcom bubble.

Also, if you think that progressive democrats weren't complicit in the Iraq war, you haven't read this:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

1. It's interesting the same neoliberal policies that were put in place during Clinton's tenure and supported by the Austrian School (some argue he was an adherent to the Third Way, but his policies such as repealing Glass-Steagall were clearly for deregulation. The housing bubble was caused due to the combined factors of the economic policies of Alan Greenspan, deregulation, and neoliberal economics.

2. Patriot Act. That right there. That is far worse than any of scandals that have recently broke, if you consider the complete overreach and disregard for civil liberties by the US government. This set the foundation for intelligence overreach (NSA and CIA acting against international law, set the stage for losing the most privacy in any administration in history, and gave the Presidency the most power since the 1950's-70's. https://www.aclu.org/reform-patriot-act


3. Invading Afghanistan was justified IMO, however we should have continued to conduct negotiations and sent intelligence operatives into the nation and ask for the aid of Pakistan. If talks broke down, then authorize bombing and invade. As for the fatwa Bin Laden issued, here's a link to it: http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/980223-fatwa.htm
Only in part does it mention policies based around Iraq. I still, after ten years, cannot believe that such hogwash convinced so many people in Congress to vote for yet another war and many more deaths and instability.

The free market did not cause the housing crisis.

[Kelinfort]

Coolidge's policies certainly let the wealthy keep their money, which seems somewhat different from what you said.

I don't think he really meant that Coolidge literally raped anyone and what the government does with taxation is neither rape nor wrong at all as well as being completely off topic.

It really depends, doesn't it? Don't go thinking you're setting up some devious trap with that question either, I can see what you're gunning for.

Listen, I'm sure in a few years when you're a liberal, your debate skills will be a little more bearable, less pedantic, and overall less high school debate-y, but for now it seems like you're arguing for the fight rather than the point.

Once again you smugly tout your misunderstanding of economics and history.

I'm sure you're an expert on the Mellon Tax Cuts (if you even know what they were), but by 1927 only the top 2% of earners were paying income taxes, which had been effectively eliminated for middle- and lower-income levels.

Please, please, please stop lecturing people on how to debate properly, because it really isn't your strong suit. I've never seen you justify a single one of your shitty arguments with any evidence, reasoned points or even fact-based knowledge. Yes, you're very good at articulating straw men and patronising others, but you can't actually sustain a real debate unless you're insulting the other person or declaring how much more intelligent and cultured you are.

And stop pretending that being liberal means being at the top of the political evolutionary ladder. It does not. Being liberal is for the simple-minded, the naive and those who only take arguments at face value. I remember being twelve years old, rooting against dem old smelly rapurblacans, cos free healthcare and no guns is safe and good for everybody!! But then I grew up, and realised how naive I was to support such a destructive, reactionary movement that never takes into account anything but its own bigoted, hypocritical, self-defeating points of view, never once being aware of their inherent contradictions.

I can respect the socialists and communists of the world, because they don't pretend to know much about economics, since most of their arguments are based purely on emotion and opinion. Liberals are perhaps the most erroneous type of ideologues, as they enjoy mixing emotion with economics and passing the resultant opinions off as facts that should be commonly recognised by every self-respecting political student. But nearly every argument they make is either out of context or simply wrong. Minimum wage laws reduce real wages. Gun bans increase gun deaths. Free healthcare is not free.

Maybe one day you'll wake up to your own deep-seated arrogance and pathetic attempts to bring others down to your level. But until then, I'll leave you with this meme:

Look, you keep creating strawmans by the barrel and misrepresenting opponents arguments in much the same fashion Fris did. Free healthcare isn't "free"; it's a single payer system that is the most efficient and provides the best healthcare for a nation. The nations with single payer systems worldwide are among the wealthiest nations on earth. This system increases the welfare of a nation's people and the well being of others. The point is, this systems has provided great dividends for the people in these nations and has increased lifespan in those nations.

Now let's move to gun control. The only weapons I advocate banning would be automatics and some assault weapons. Otherwise, the rest can be regulated privately. Next, economics. Did it ever occur to you that there are many different schools of economics? Did it also occur to you that your precious Austrian school of neoliberalism is at least partly responsible for the worldwide economic crisis of the late 2000's? The policies of deregulation and privatizations worked to a degree when the country in question was centrally planned, but when the process removes the regulation for corporations, expect trouble.

If you want my personal view on economics, mine is broadly Keynesian coupled with no regulation for small to medium business, but moderate to high regulation for corporations and banks,with ease of firing for the employers with a high minimum wage and social safety net. Sweden and Norway have the sweet spot right now, good balance of private enterprise with government intervention.

The socialists argue economics as well, their entire philosophy is based around central planning. Communism advocates the abolition of an economy, which would be all fine and well if we had an abundance of everything, including finished goods.

To sum it up: you do one real good strawman. Way to become the same person you're debating.

[Conscentia]

[...]
The socialists argue economics as well, and communists are not in the political arena due to the fact communism isn't a political ideology.
[...]

Er...
· Communism is very political.
· Socialism is social ownership of the means of production. It's just a business model.

[Kelinfort]

1. It's interesting the same neoliberal policies that were put in place during Clinton's tenure and supported by the Austrian School (some argue he was an adherent to the Third Way, but his policies such as repealing Glass-Steagall were clearly for deregulation. The housing bubble was caused due to the combined factors of the economic policies of Alan Greenspan, deregulation, and neoliberal economics.

2. Patriot Act. That right there. That is far worse than any of scandals that have recently broke, if you consider the complete overreach and disregard for civil liberties by the US government. This set the foundation for intelligence overreach (NSA and CIA acting against international law, set the stage for losing the most privacy in any administration in history, and gave the Presidency the most power since the 1950's-70's. https://www.aclu.org/reform-patriot-act


3. Invading Afghanistan was justified IMO, however we should have continued to conduct negotiations and sent intelligence operatives into the nation and ask for the aid of Pakistan. If talks broke down, then authorize bombing and invade. As for the fatwa Bin Laden issued, here's a link to it: http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/980223-fatwa.htm
Only in part does it mention policies based around Iraq. I still, after ten years, cannot believe that such hogwash convinced so many people in Congress to vote for yet another war and many more deaths and instability.

The free market did not cause the housing crisis.

Yet repealing Glass-Steagall, supported by the Austrian School, wasn't deregulation? The free market did cause this crisis, in part, with the interest rates being the short term cause and the long term cause being the deregulation of the banking and mortgage industries.
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2009/11/12/ ... -steagall/
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ti ... 42887.html

[Tayrona]

I haven't read too much of this thread because I can guarantee the names of the most recent presidents (Barack Obama, George W. Bush) will be mentioned more than they're worth. Both men are probably somewhere in the middle of the pack. After all, neither caused a civil war (well, not in their own country anyway).

Speaking of civil wars, I'd have to say James Buchanan or Andrew Johnson was the worst US president. Both men frequently misjudged the circumstances of the time and were weak in effecting any real solutions (both went for halfway appeasement approaches which failed). However, I feel Buchanan especially failed to note the gravity of the unfolding secession and civil war, so: Buchanan (very narrowly) takes it over Johnson for me.

As a side note, I think history will revise many presidents' positions: especially those in living memory. George H. W. Bush, for instance, IMHO, is widely underrated as a President. Likewise, I think John F. Kennedy is particularly overrated. Furthermore, I think history won't rate Obama as highly as many currently do. As time and memory cool, I think he'll be seen as one of the more divisive presidents (like Lincoln during the civil war, for instance). Maybe that says more about America than it does about her presidents?

[McNernia]

Obviously Obama.

Obama. Yup bout the most unholy man in history.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

-snip-

Look, you keep creating strawmans by the barrel and misrepresenting opponents arguments in much the same fashion Fris.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque

I want to say that my anger wasn't directed at you nor liberals, but towards Frisivisia because of his arrogance and self-perceived intellectual superiority to anything and anybody else that does not conform to his political views.

Free healthcare isn't "free"; it's a single payer system that is the most efficient and provides the best healthcare for a nation. The nations with single payer systems worldwide are among the wealthiest nations on earth. This system increases the welfare of a nation's people and the well being of others. The point is, this systems has provided great dividends for the people in these nations and has increased lifespan in those nations.

But it's not free. It's paid for by taxation. You get some national health services that work well, and others that work terribly. The British system works pretty well, to be fair, but the Canadian system is horrible. Long wait times mean that some people actually die from waiting for treatment, and cannot access private insurance since it's effectively banned. No government program can be efficient forever, as it requires constant planning, reforms and revamps to re-allocate resources more efficiently. Price systems allocate resources much more effectively due to competitive interests that internally regulate markets. Profits and losses act as signals to enterprises as to where they should allocate resources. Government funds distort these 'signals' significantly.

Back on healthcare: before Medicaid, Medicare and the excessive over-regulation of healthcare, 97% of Americans were covered by affordable health insurance in the early 60s.

Next, economics. Did it ever occur to you that there are many different schools of economics? Did it also occur to you that your precious Austrian school of neoliberalism is at least partly responsible for the worldwide economic crisis of the late 2000's?... Yet repealing Glass-Steagall, supported by the Austrian School, wasn't deregulation? The free market did cause this crisis, in part, with the interest rates being the short term cause and the long term cause being the deregulation of the banking and mortgage industries.

The Austrian School has never been put into practice. Keynesianism caused the economic crisis, an ideology followed by Bush. In the words of the great Paul Krugman, "The Fed has to replace the NASDAQ Bubble with a housing bubble."

Interest rates were artificially lowered around 2000 to combat the NASDAQ bubble. It created an artificial boom that eventually snowballed into an even harder crash. Glass-Steagall largely affected Federal Reserve banks, not the entire banking industry, and basically restricted their ability to make risky investments in order to prevent a future banking collapse. The repeal of the act was accompanied by significant new regulations that created barriers of entry for new enterprises, restricting competition and strengthening the state-corporate partnership. This source is small, but it has several good points about why it was not the 'free' market that caused the Great Recession.

The policies of deregulation and privatizations worked to a a degree when the country in question was centrally planned, but when the process removes the regulation for all corporations, expect trouble. If you want my personal view on economics, mine is broadly Keynesian coupled with no regulation for small to medium business, but moderate to high regulation for business, with ease of firing for the employers with a high minimum wage and social safety net.

That sounds nice in theory, but the vast majority of regulations apply to all businesses. And that is what creates monopolies. The only reason the modern regulatory state exists is to create state-supported cartels. Small and medium businesses often struggle to combat regulations, while bigger enterprises with more capital are much more flexible to compensate for these and even dodge them. In practice this means that many smaller enterprises cannot compete, with the larger businesses becoming more prosperous and solidifying their grip on the market. Corporations should be regulated by competition, as they were supposed to be.

To provide a real-life example of what I'm saying, who do you think was most adamantly opposed to US deregulation of trucking in the late 1970s? Do you think it was the unions, or perhaps green organisations? It was actually GM, who lobbied the government furiously to prevent it from happening.

Sweden and Norway have the sweet spot right now, good balance of private enterprise with government intervention.

Two countries that did largely nothing in response to the Great Recession, and saw quick recoveries. Like Iceland, which let its banking system fail, but now has an unemployment rate of 5.6% with high economic growth.

The socialists argue economics as well, their entire philosophy is based around central planning.

What I mean is that most of them don't pretend to have any knowledge about economics, but argue for economic theories based on emotional arguments rather than economic ones. For example, an emotional argument would be "The workers are entitled to own the business they work for!", while an economic one would look like "If workers are paid more then this stimulates the economy through increased spending." The first argument is based on an emotional point of view, while the second is based on an interpretation of economics.

To sum it up: you do one real good strawman. Way to become the same person you're fighting.

What?

[Seveth]

I haven't read too much of this thread because I can guarantee the names of the most recent presidents (Barack Obama, George W. Bush) will be mentioned more than they're worth. Both men are probably somewhere in the middle of the pack. After all, neither caused a civil war (well, not in their own country anyway).

Speaking of civil wars, I'd have to say James Buchanan or Andrew Johnson was the worst US president. Both men frequently misjudged the circumstances of the time and were weak in effecting any real solutions (both went for halfway appeasement approaches which failed). However, I feel Buchanan especially failed to note the gravity of the unfolding secession and civil war, so: Buchanan (very narrowly) takes it over Johnson for me.

As a side note, I think history will revise many presidents' positions: especially those in living memory. George H. W. Bush, for instance, IMHO, is widely underrated as a President. Likewise, I think John F. Kennedy is particularly overrated. Furthermore, I think history won't rate Obama as highly as many currently do. As time and memory cool, I think he'll be seen as one of the more divisive presidents (like Lincoln during the civil war, for instance). Maybe that says more about America than it does about her presidents?

I agree with this. Our two most recent presidents definitely were not the worst, but neither were they the best. This thread has turned into a debate about the merits of Obama and Bush which is absolutely pointless because no one will concede that he/she is wrong and also certainly not what the thread was intended for.

Personally, I would have to say the two Presidents that Tayrona above mentioned are the worst in addition to Nixon and Hoover.

[The High Guardians]

Reagan....bloody Reagan....or Hoover..

[The Holy Therns]

Anyone who is not Emperor Norton.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

Reagan....bloody Reagan....or Hoover..

What's wrong with Reagan?