Worst President of the 20th century

[GoodLuvn169]

Any other opinions
list them

[FuNk-U-uP]

Nixon. Watergate.
Hoover is a close 2nd due to all the scandals involving big business.

[GoodLuvn169]

I forgot to put Taft.  That was a fat fuck with no idea about what he was doin.

[FuNk-U-uP]

I forgot to put Taft.  That was a fat fuck with no idea about what he was doin.

LMAO.

You should've made it of all-time. That way we could have Bush on there, the actual worst president.

[Trauma-san]

You should have listed Bush.  All of these pinheads don't know any presidents besides Clinton and Bush, and Clinton walks on water to them.  

[GoodLuvn169]

I forgot to put Taft.  That was a fat fuck with no idea about what he was doin.

LMAO.

You should've made it of all-time. That way we could have Bush on there, the actual worst president.

I personally think that Bush isnt doing that bad

[GoodLuvn169]

You should have listed Bush.  All of these pinheads don't know any presidents besides Clinton and Bush, and Clinton walks on water to them.  

lol, your right

[FuNk-U-uP]

How long has it been since a president has had an overall net-loss in jobs? Yea, yea, last month 300,000 new jobs were created, but what does it bring the overall to? -1.8 million jobs?

Clinton wasn't as great as people make him out to be. Yes, the economy was great. When it comes to foreign policy, he was just like the many U.S. presidents who had come before him.

[Trauma-san]

It's amazing to me that people credit Clinton with the economy, when he clearly had nothing to do with the tecnological innovation sparked by the internet which drove the economy farther than it ever should have gone in the 90's, and then eventually crashed back down to ruins as Bush was entering office.  


so, in their feeble minds (and guys, that's the only way to describe the mind of a child who refuses to learn)... Clinton was responsible for TECNOLOGICAL advances; and even though the downturn clearly started before he left office, BUSH was responsible for stock prices being entirely too high in Clinton's term.  When the Stock settled back to more reasonable amounts, and people lost lots of money, hindering the economy, it's also Bush's fault.... When planes fly into our banks and skyscrapers, hindering the economy; that's not the terrorists fault (who claim actively that they hate americans for where they are born, regardless of policy)... it's Bush's fault.  

Furthermore, when the economy is resurged, not through any kind of outside developments like tecnology breakthroughs, but through a conservative fiscal plan which includes tax breaks instituted by Bush; it's not enough, and it's not even considered his end result, even though it's of course considered his responsibility.  


What kind of fuck up thinks like that?  The politically desperate.  


Face it.  The Economy is good.  People are getting jobs.  Nothing to see here.  Move along.  

[FuNk-U-uP]

I'm not giving Clinton credit for the economy during his time, I just said that people were more satisfied with the way the economy stood. It wasn't him that created the internet bubble of stocks and whatnot. Point is, right now during Bush's term, we're at a netloss of about 2 million jobs. A lot of this has to do with outsourcing. Our government shouldn't companies do this to our economy. But then again, this is a capitalistic society, and that's how things work. I just think there should be more control when it comes to things like that. You also see companies avoiding tax payments by setting up a little place on some island with just an office and claiming that's where the company is from.  

[GoodLuvn169]

It's amazing to me that people credit Clinton with the economy, when he clearly had nothing to do with the tecnological innovation sparked by the internet which drove the economy farther than it ever should have gone in the 90's, and then eventually crashed back down to ruins as Bush was entering office.  


so, in their feeble minds (and guys, that's the only way to describe the mind of a child who refuses to learn)... Clinton was responsible for TECNOLOGICAL advances; and even though the downturn clearly started before he left office, BUSH was responsible for stock prices being entirely too high in Clinton's term.  When the Stock settled back to more reasonable amounts, and people lost lots of money, hindering the economy, it's also Bush's fault.... When planes fly into our banks and skyscrapers, hindering the economy; that's not the terrorists fault (who claim actively that they hate americans for where they are born, regardless of policy)... it's Bush's fault.  

Furthermore, when the economy is resurged, not through any kind of outside developments like tecnology breakthroughs, but through a conservative fiscal plan which includes tax breaks instituted by Bush; it's not enough, and it's not even considered his end result, even though it's of course considered his responsibility.  


What kind of fuck up thinks like that?  The politically desperate.  


Face it.  The Economy is good.  People are getting jobs.  Nothing to see here.  Move along.  

Liberals believe that everything wrong with the world is Americas fault, we're the ones to blame; or so they say

[Lincoln]

Hoover, huge racist.

[FuNk-U-uP]

Liberals believe that everything wrong with the world is Americas fault, we're the ones to blame; or so they say

Not every Democrat is a true liberal, in the same sense that not every Republican is a true conservative. The Democrats to which you're referring to are hypocritic bastards, just like the many Republicans.

Do you know what happened in Iran? Iraq? Nicaragua? Guatemala? Afghanistan?

[GoodLuvn169]

Liberals believe that everything wrong with the world is Americas fault, we're the ones to blame; or so they say

Not every Democrat is a true liberal, in the same sense that not every Republican is a true conservative. The Democrats to which you're referring to are hypocritic bastards, just like the many Republicans.

Do you know what happened in Iran? Iraq? Nicaragua? Guatemala? Afghanistan?

id like to hear your interpretation of it.

[FuNk-U-uP]

Do you know what happened in Iran? Iraq? Nicaragua? Guatemala? Afghanistan?

id like to hear your interpretation of it.

GUATEMALA:
United Fruit Company (now known as Chiquita) has long exerted enormous influence throughout Central America and within the United States Government. It had grown to be the most important corporation in Guatemala. United Fruit controlled roughly 40% of the most fertile land, owned a railroad, held a monopoly on electricity production and ran the port facilities in Puerto Barrios, Atlantic Coast.
Though United Fruit owned huge tracts of land, it paid little in the way of property tax in Guatemala in part because they claimed their land was only worth a fraction of it's real value on tax receipts. When Arbenz expropriated 400,000 of their 500,000 acres, he offered them the $1.2 million they had claimed it was worth. United Fruit demanded $16 million.

When Arbenz refused, they turned to their friends in the United States Government to assist. Some, like Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs John Moors Cabot had family ties to the company. Others, such as U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Henry Cabot Lodge, were major stockholders. The Dulles Brothers had both worked as lawyers for United Fruit's legal firm. With connections such as these, it was not difficult for UFCo. to convince the U.S. Government of the need for action against Arbenz.


PANAMA: This is out of a documentary called "The Panama Deception", in which they have actualy footage of the attack.

Noriega was head of Panama’s military intelligence and had a long standing relationship with the United States.  He had been on the CIA payroll since the 60’s.  When George Bush became Director of the CIA in 1976, under President Ford, he inherited Noriega as a contact.  Despite evidence that Noriega was involved in drug trafficking, Bush kept Noriega on the payroll.  In fact, he increased Noriega’s salary to more than $100,000 a year and eliminated a requirement that intelligence reports on Panama include information on drug trafficking.

With support from the CIA, Noriega was able to outmaneuver his rivals and in August of 1983, he became Commander of the Panamanian Military.   As the Reagan administration expanded its covert war against the Sandinista government in Nicaragua, Noriega became increasingly helpful.  Working with the CIA, and with Israeli arms dealers, Noriega helped coordinate an arms supply network to provide weapons to contra bases in northern Costa Rica.

In 1984, he angered the Reagan administration by hosting Latin American leaders at the Contadora Peace Talks.  The talks called for an end to U.S. intervention in Central American affairs.

Reagan said: "“We do want Noriega out of there and a return to a civilian democratic government.”

The U.S. now undertook a systematic effort to overthrow Noriega.  Economic sanctions were stepped up and additional troops were dispatched to Panama. The United States declared in effect that Panama’s General Manuel Noriega is a threat to this country’s national security.

George Bush, Sr.:  “Mr. Noriega, the drug indicted, drug-related, indicted dictator of Panama.  We want to bring him to justice.  We want to get him out and we want to restore democracy to Panama ....”

On December 20th, U.S. troops invaded Panama.  The invasion was code-named Operation Just Cause.  Shortly after midnight, U.S. troops simultaneously attacked 27 targets, many of which were in densely populated areas.  One of the primary targets in Panama City was the headquarters of the Panamanian Defense Forces, located in the crowded neighborhood of El Chorillo.  U.S. troops shelled the area for four hours before moving in and calling for surrender.

AS FOR IRAN/NICARAGUA, READ UP ON THE IRAN-CONTRA AFFAIR. WHAT HAPPENED IS WIDELY KNOWN, AND MY INTERPRETATION WOULDN'T BE ANY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT YOU ALREADY KNOW, OR WILL KNOW.

IRAQ: ( I copied this from a thread I had made in the past, written by myself)

During the 1920s the US and Britain had oil fields in the Middle East after its discovery a few years before. After World War II, OPEC raised the price of oil from $3 to $22 per barrel. That's why Abdel Karim Qassim (Iraqi leader before Saddam) placed all oil fields under the government's control. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger even publicly stated that "Middle East oil is much too important a commodity to be left in the hands of the Arabs" (That line alone explains the whole Middle East conflict, and why we're there)The CIA attempted several times to assassinate him, but remained unsuccessful, until they found their man, Saddam Hussein. In a coup, Saddam took over the country, and was in full control by 1968. Under CIA direction, he killed Communists and radicals. We provided Saddam with weapons, including chemicals. Similar thing was going on in Iran, where we replaced the ruler who wanted to place all oil under government control, with the Shah. We assisted the Shah with $22 billion between 1972-1976 in weaponry alone. When Iraq went to war with Iran, 55 countries were providing them with resources, 29 of which were assisting both countries. That included the U.S., who claimed that it was assisting neither country. Again, we were playing the double standard to boost our arms industry. After the war with Iran, Iraq was $40 billion in debt. The country was pretty much devastated. At the time there was a limit placed on the amount of oil that each OPEC country could produce. And Kuwait was producing 20% more than it was allowed to, which brought oil prices around the world down, and made the Western world very happy. But, by Kuwait doing that, Iraq lost one-third of its income, at a time it needed it most. Now this is were things got messy. The US continously, publicly claimed that it had no defense of Kuwait. They let Saddam know that they were not backing Kuwait. Saddam fell for the trap and invaded Kuwait. Before Saddam invaded however, according to Gulf War veterans, the US military was already preparing for a fight against Iraq. They were already carrying out routines in the desert, and informed the soldiers that they were most likely gonna fight Iraq. In addition, the US claimed that Iraq sent almost its entire army to Kuwait, which was complete bullshit. The US then went to Saudi Arabia and convinced them with more bullshit that Iraq was planning to invade Saudi Arabia. The US wanted the Saudis to let them into their country, for reasons that Kissinger explained many years before: OIL IS TOO DAMN IMPORTANT TO BE IN THE HANDS OF ARABS. We convinced the Saudis that they were going to be under attack. We told them that Saddam had soldiers lined up at the border, but satellite pictures proved otherwise. Satellite photos showed that there were minimal troops (which were always there) along the Saudi/Iraqi border. In fact, most Iraqi troops were to the north, and the majority of the rest were in Baghdad alongside the Republican Guard. Then we bombed the shit out of Iraq. The US military claimed that it was pin-pointing on only military facilities and such. That claim was false. The US bombed reservoires, destroyed their access to clean water, bombed electrical companies, generators, phone companies, food processing plants, and basically anything that was necessary for the survival of people. Children were dying all across the country. Pinpoint? Yeah right. Now comes another catch. People start gathering together and plan a rebellious movement to overthrow Saddam and the Iraqi government. As soon as that happens George Bush calls for an immediate end to the war. General Schwarzkopf informs Bush that in another two days they can gain control of Baghdad and get rid of Saddam and his regime. Bush stays with his decision and wants an end to the war. He ordered US troops out, giving Saddam a chance to crush the rebellion. And that was that.

BTW... guess who had exclusive rights to offshore oil in the Gulf at that time? George W Bush... so daddy was making his crackbaby a lil money.

*About 250,000 Iraqis were killed; 100,000 of which were civilians, half of those being children
*We didn't rebuild what we destroyed, and due to our sanctions placed on them, we didn't give them  the chance to do so either
*In the 8 years since the end of the war, 1,500,000 Iraqis have died as a direct result of US/UN sanctions; half of those are kids under the age of 5
*100-200 kept dying daily
*We used 500 tons of depleted uranium bombs and artillery shells. The radioactive dust caused birth defects and cancer to soar

What right did we have? Why did we do all this? Kissinger seemed to have the answer: OIL IS TOO DAMN IMPORTANT TO BE IN THE HANDS OF THE ARABS

Sad, sad shit, and now we're there again... I guess all the oil is worth fucking the country up to a greater extent and rebuilding it after....



AFGHANISTAN:

Basically, the U.S. assisted the Mujahideen during the war against Russia (Cold War). Russia invaded in 1979, and the United States sponsored Afghanistan, giving them money, weapons, and training them. Guess who one of the guys there was? Osama bin Laden. He was a close ally to the U.S. and because of his money he was willing to help Afghanistan with, the U.S. loved him. Anyways, those guys were trained by the CIA, and eventually defeated Russia. Good. Here's where everything went wrong. The U.S. just left without helping Afghanistan rebuild, or reorganize themselves. The U.S. left, leaving all the weapons behind. So now you have a third world country, with no government, and full of weapons. Civil war was raging until the Taliban arrived. The Taliban once again were trained by the CIA in Pakistan, and were helped to power. Why did we want the Taliban in power? Well it just so happens that UNOCAL wanted to build a pipeline down Afghanistan, but a legitamite government had to be in place to give the okay. For years, the Taliban had ruled with their strict Islamic laws, killing people,etc. The U.S. didn't give a fuck. In addition to all that, Afghanistan became a breeding ground for other extremists/terrorists. The U.S. didn't care until the Taliban said "No, we won't let you build your pipeline across our country". Then the U.S. started portraying them as evil wrongdoers and all that bullshit you're fed. If that's what they are, and have been, why did we help them to power and support them until they declined us permission for that pipeline. 9/11 happened, and the U.S. found its excuse to attack. No Afghan was involved in 9/11, but due to the breeding ground and bin Laden hiding there, the U.S. attacked. Cool. No Biggie. But now what? There is no stability there, and the Afghan leaders in place are former human rights abusers. They also pocket a huge amount of money provided for reconstruction. There's a lot more to all this, but I think you see the point.





IF THAT DOESN'T SATISFY YOU, HERE'S A SPEECH FROM JOHN STOCKWELL, FORMER CIA STATION CHIEF:

“My expertise, as you know, is CIA, Marine Corp, three CIA Secret Wars.  I had a position in the National Security Council in 1975 as the Chief of the Angola Task Force running the Secret War in Angola.  It was the third CIA Secret War I was part of.”

 

“The National Security law creating the National Security Council and the CIA, as you know, was passed in 1947.  The CIA was given its charter to perform such other duties and functions as might be necessary to national security interests and given a vague authority to protect its sources and methods.  I think it was in the mid ‘80s that I coined this phrase the ‘Third World War’ because in my research I realized that we were not attacking the Soviet Union in the CIA’s activities, we were attacking people in the Third World.  And I am going to just quickly, in the interest of time, just give you a little sense of what that means, this Third World War.”

 

“Basically, it’s the third, I believe in terms of loss of life and human destruction, the third bloodiest war in all of history.  They undertake to run operations in every corner of the globe.  They also undertook the license of operating just totally above and beyond U.S. laws.  They had a license, if you will, to kill, but also they took that to a license to smuggle drugs, a license to do all kinds of things to other people and other societies in violation of international law, our law, and every principle of nations working together for a healthier and more peaceful world.”

 

“Meanwhile, again, they battled to convert the U.S. legal system in such a way that it would give them control of our society.  Now we have massive documentation of what they call the secret wars of the CIA.  We don’t have to guess or speculate. We had the Church committee investigate them in 1975 which gave us our first really in-depth powerful look inside this structure.”

 

“Senator Church said in the 14 years before he did his investigation that he found that they had run 900 major operations and 3000 minor operations.  And if you extrapolate that over the whole period of the 40 odd years that we’ve had a CIA, you come up with 3000 major operations and over 10,000 minor operations.  Every one of them illegal. Every one of them disruptive of the lives and societies of other peoples and many of them bloody and gory beyond comprehension, almost.”

 

“Extensively, we manipulated and organized the overthrow of functioning constitutional democracies in other countries.  We organized secret armies and directed them to fight in just about every continent in the world.  We encouraged ethnic minorities to rise up and fight.  People like the Mosquito Indians in Nicaragua, the Kurds in the Middle East, the Hmongs in Southeast Asia.”

 

“And of course, we have organized, and still do, fund death squads in countries around the world.  Like the Treasury Police in El Salvador which are responsible for most of the killing of the 50,000 people just in the ‘80s and there was 70,000 before that.  An orchestration of CIA secret teams and propaganda led us directly into the Korean War.  We were attacking China from the islands of Quemoy and Matsu, Thailand, Tibet, (a lot of drug trafficking involved in this by the way) until eventually we convinced ourselves to fight the Chinese in Korea and we had the Korean War and a million people were killed.  Same thing for the Vietnam War and we have extensive documentation of how the CIA was involved at every level of the national security complex because it’s a very cooperative thing into manipulating the nation into the Vietnam War.  And we wound up creating the Golden Triangle in which the CIA Air America airplanes were flying in arms to our allies and flying back out with the heroin.”

 

“We launched the largest; this is something that Jimmy Carter did, Admiral Turner brags about it, the operation in Afghanistan. The biggest single operation I am told in the history of CIA secret wars and sure enough very quickly we produced the Golden Crescent which is still the largest source of heroin perhaps in the world today.”

 

“Trying to summarize this Third World War that the CIA, the U.S. National Security Complex with the military all interwoven in it in many different ways, has been waging, let me just put it this way, the best heads that I coordinate with studying this thing, we count at least minimum figure six million people who’ve been killed in this long 40-year war that we have waged against the people of the Third World.”

 

“These are not Soviets, we have not been parachuting teams into the Soviet Union to kill and hurt and maim people, especially not since 1954 when they developed actually the capability of dropping atomic weapons on the United States.  They aren’t British, French, Swedes, Swiss, Belgians, we don’t do bloody gory operations in the countries of Europe.  These are all people of the Third World.  They are people of countries like the Congo, Vietnam, Kampuchea, Indonesia, Nicaragua, where conspicuously, they nor their governments, do not have the capability of doing any physical hurt to the United States.  They don’t have ICBM’s, they don’t have armies or navies.  They could not hurt us if they wanted to.  There has rarely been any evidence that they really wanted to.  And that, in fact is perhaps the whole point. If they had had ICBMs we probably wouldn’t have done the things to them for fear of retaliation.”  

 
“Cheap shots, if you will, killing people of other countries of the world who cannot defend themselves under the guise of secrecy and under the rubric of national security.”