• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

who is the worse president in our history?

-Demosthenes- said:
So revolution only matters if there is a treaty to validate it? Otherwise it's the same government?

I hate to say this, but your knowledge of international law is really very simplistic. If it is a revolution where you are rebelling against your mother country, either a treaty or recognition from the prior sovereign will suffice. Still, you are bound by the prior boundary of the previous regime. Notice, when the U.S. gained its independence, its boundaries were the same as the British holdings south of Canada.



Hmmmm, no ratification proccess?? Treaty never ratified, person who signed it had no authority to do so, seems pretty clear cut to me.

As Chief of State, Santa Anna had the authority to sign it. I have found no evidence of a ratification procedure at that time in Mexican history, meaning the signature amounted to ratification. Unless you can find evidence that there WAS a ratification procedure (wikipedia doesn't cut it as that claim is unsourced), then the treaty is legally binding.

Treaty of Velasco said:
---Public Agreement---

Articles of an agreement entered into between his Excellency
David G. Burnet of the President of the Republic of Texas of the
one part & His Excellency General Antonio Lopez de Santa Ana
President General in Chief of the other part--

source
 
easyt65 said:
Hmmm, Bush hates Americans, huh? More than....lets say... Bill Clinton?!

- Clinton stood by and did NOTHING after Bin Laden declared war on the United States in 1995 then went about killing Americans abroad (Kobar Towers, USS Cole, 2 African Embassy bombings, and a failed Twin Towers Attack on U.S. Soil) - doing NOTHING to defend the lives of the Americans he had taken an oath to defend and protect! His refusal to act emboldened the enemy and led to their attack on America in this country again. He later lied, as he often did as President, about being briefed about Al Qaeda and their threat by Able Danger and sent Sandy Burglar to steal and shred classified Federal Documents that proved he lied.

- Clinton sold our enemy - the Chinese military - the missile technology they lacked in order to reach the United States with their NUKES, giving them the power to FRY MILLIONS of AMERICANS in exchange for CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS! (Most people would call this TREASON...except for Clinton-Apologists!)




Unemployment is down to 4.7%
The Stock market is stronger than it has been in YEARS.
The U.S. Economyis growing 3 times faster that the European markets/economies.....
---The stock market that you are refering to has nothing to do with the USA. Those investment are in overseas companies. We are still declining, number of jobs is going down, average pay is going down. These companies are not bringing anything to the USA, but, money for already rich investors, which will be invested overseas

all because of the idea, heralded by economists, of giving American people more of THEIR money back! The tax cuts have yielded more tax revenue this past year than the year before, which was more than the year before that. More money in people's pockets means they spend and invest more - more jobs are opened up, unemployment goes down, the stock market gets stronger, and more tax revenue is generated! The morons who criticized Reagn for his tax cuts eventually had to admit the wisdom of his actions. The economy is stronger now than in the last years of the clinton Administration, during which the economy declined, the stock market declined behind the collapse of tech stocks due to the clinton Administration going after Microsoft, and we began to dip into recession!

- Want to improve the economy - seal the border and begin enforcing the laws outlawing illegal immigrants from being given jobs. fine the companies who do - seize their land/businesses or just pad lock the doors. No jobs = no illegals coming here, meaning the $30-40 Million a year being drained from the economy by illegals will stop!
- Get rid of the 'death tax'.
- Withdraw our troops as soon as the Irai people can stand on their own 2 feet (but not before)
- Find ways to cut spending rather than sucking MORE of MY money from MY pocket!




Stupidity is always portrayed in a bad light, my friend. None of your comments above, though, were worse than this:
-Obviously the worst president in our history is the current President George W. Bush.

To simplify the debate, lets ask ourselves a few questions:

1. How manyPresidents have ever been Impeached?
Answer: 2

2. Who were they?
Answer: In the context of this debate, we need go no further than the name Bill Clinton!

3. How many Presidents committed/were busted for FELONIES?
Answer: In the context of this debate, we need go no further than the name Bill Clinton!

Bill Clinton used his position and political power throughout his career to sexually harrass women. America had to endure the scandal and shame of its President's trial, in the world's eye, for sexual harrassment. During that trial, Clinton betrayed his oath of office and the Constitution of the Unided States which provides all Americans with the right to a fair trial. Clinton promised to uphold and protect those rights yet attempted to strip an American woman of that right to a fair trial in order to save his own @$$ by commiting felonious perjury and witness tampering, for which he was Impeached.

Bush? Feingold introduced legislation to Censure him for executing a LEGAL PROGRAM designed to counter the very terrorists Clinton ignored during his administration, during which time they attacked and killed Americans abroad and even attempted (failed) an attack on the World Trade Center here at home.

Clinton's administration was one of America's most scandalous ever. The biggest scandal, and the sole reason that puts Bill Clinton head and shoulders above every other President in history as the worst, was his TREASON - selling our enemy, the Chinese military, the missile technology they needed in order to reach the United States, to FRY MILLIONS of Americans and potentially one day threaten its existence, all in exchange for several million dollars in CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS! TREASON!

Clinton provided the nuclear material to North Korea with which they have built their nuclear program. He went well beyond that, though, when he committed the treasonous act of selling the Chinese military that technology that has enabled them to now reach our nation with its nukes!

No other President in U.S. history has EVER committed such a treaonous act....especially for such a pathetic reason as campaign contributions!

HE is the first president to openly display his hatred for the the American People, or at least the love of himself as more important than the prosperity, safety, and/or security of this nation!

Anyone who could attempt to argue, to come up with any explanation/reason, how Bush could possibly be any worse than the man who put the capability to slaughter millions of Americans and potentially overthrow this country in enemy hands in exchange for cash is an idiot! IMO.

I am sorry,but are you a paid member who's job is lie and mislead. Everytime I get answers like yours, I know I have hit the truth right on the head. The Truth always hurts the Radical Right wing.
 
Last edited:
Thanks a lot for reminding me of the millions in tax payer money wasted by the House trying to impeach Clinton. It all came down to absolutely nothing. Look at all the money wasted by Star. He should have to pay it back. The only reason that Bush has not been impeached is because the Radical Right controls the house. You Radicals are wonderful.

I want to thank you for your fine reply to my post. YOu made my day, and proved that I was on the right track.
 
dragonslayer said:
Thanks a lot for reminding me of the millions in tax payer money wasted by the House trying to impeach Clinton. It all came down to absolutely nothing. Look at all the money wasted by Star. He should have to pay it back. The only reason that Bush has not been impeached is because the Radical Right controls the house. You Radicals are wonderful.

I want to thank you for your fine reply to my post. YOu made my day, and proved that I was on the right track.

Nice dodge, you accuse him of being a paid member of the vast Right Wing Conspiracy, but do nothing at all to counter a multitude of valid points.
 
dragonslayer said:
Thanks a lot for reminding me of the millions in tax payer money wasted by the House trying to impeach Clinton. It all came down to absolutely nothing.

And this tells everyone what they need to know about you, a blind, Bush-hating, Clinton-Apologist -

President Clinton sexually harrassed a woman and was sued in a public court of law- 'nothing'.

Under oath, he committed felonious perjury and committed a felonious act of witness tampering in order to subvert the judicial process, in order to deny an American Citizent of her constitutional right to a fair trial. In doing so, he demonstrated contempt and disdain for the Oath of Office that he took by which he swore to uphold and defend the Constitution. - 'nothing'.

Sexually harrassing women is 'nothing' to you.
A President committing FELONIES is 'nothing' to you.
A Pres. betraying his oath of office is 'nothing' to you.
A President's denying someone their Constitutional Rights is 'nothing' to you.
A President who looks into the eyes of the American people on TV and lies to them, proving he can no longer be trusted is 'nothing' to you.

What is worth using tax payer dollars on in order to punish a President?

According to Feingold and the Democrats, the President's execution of a LEGAL Program designed to counter the terrorists who have hunted us since 1995 is worth calling for his CENSURE! Clinton's felonies and betrayal of his oath of office, the Constitution, and the American people's trust - all 'absolutely nothing' to you!

'Nuff said! Thanks for clarifying your Bush-hating, Clinton-Apologist position! :roll:
 
My new Motto is,

Bush is listening,
USE BIG WORDS


You, radicals just don't get it, Bush is the worse president we have ever had. He is run daily on a leash by his corporate masters.
I think he needs to go back to obedience school, and remember his oath to serve America, and the Constitution.
 
Last edited:
dragonslayer said:
My new Motto is,

Bush is listening,
USE BIG WORDS


You, radicals just don't get it, Bush is the worse president we have ever had. He is run daily on a leash by his corporate masters.[/SIZE]


I guess that is the response to what I posted just above? Nice dodge.....but more disturbing is that you believe Bush is worse than the man who committed treason by selling our enemy's military the technology they needed to fry millions of Americans with their nukes and thereby threaten the existence of this nation, all for campaign contributions? :shock: Ok........:roll:
 
ludahai said:
As Chief of State, Santa Anna had the authority to sign it. I have found no evidence of a ratification procedure at that time in Mexican history, meaning the signature amounted to ratification. Unless you can find evidence that there WAS a ratification procedure (wikipedia doesn't cut it as that claim is unsourced), then the treaty is legally binding.

From Cartographic Connections, a .edu site that helps teachers with history/geography/political sience as they relate to cartography and maps:
After the Battle of San Jacinto and Santa Anna�s capture in April 1836, the Texans coerced the captured Mexican president to agree to the Rio Grande as Texas� western boundary in the Treaty of Velasco. Although Santa Anna signed the treaty, the Mexican government never ratified it...
http://libraries.uta.edu/ccon/scripts/ShowMap.asp?accession=00110

From the SSC, the Texas funded educational organization for social studies:
Santa Anna was captured during the Battle of San Jacinto, April 21, 1836, and forced to sign the Treaty of Velasco. Under the terms of the treaty, he agreed to stop fighting the Texans, recognized the independence of Texas, and agreed to withdraw all Mexican troops from Texas. The treaty was never ratified in Mexico.
http://www.tea.state.tx.us/ssc/teks_and_taas/teks/glossT.htm

From Fort Tours, an aid used for finding historical sites and fact related to them:
A treaty of peace between Texas and Mexico was signed there May 14, 1836, by Presidents David G. Burnet and Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna but was never ratified by Mexico.
http://www.forttours.com/pages/hmbrazoria.asp

And from Wikipedia:
However, Santa Anna was not authorized under the Mexican Constitution to make treaties, nor did the Mexican government ratify the Treaties of Velasco.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Texas
 
easyt65 said:
I guess that is the response to what I posted just above? Nice dodge.....but more disturbing is that you believe Bush is worse than the man who committed treason by selling our enemy's military the technology they needed to fry millions of Americans with their nukes and thereby threaten the existence of this nation, all for campaign contributions? :shock: Ok........:roll:

Isn't it funny. Clinton administration was so careful not allow the sale of what you are talking about. This Sale was closely moderated by the Republican House, the Senate, and the media. This sale was pushed by a couple of huqe corporations for profit, and much of what they wanted to sell was not allowed. If this dangerous missle technology was sold, it was sold, under the table by the companies through foreign subsideraries. The Corporate Kings are not interested in loyalty to the USA, they are interested in Profits and power.
.
Remember that Clinton may have been reponsive to the power of Corporate Kings, but only a fool would not have been. Clinton did manage to moderate the sales and keep the worst from China. Today these same companies are now part of the of the companies that take Bush for his daily walks and run the obediance school he attended. Bush lets the Corporate Kings do anything. Clinton at least apposed their unlimited power.

Under Bush, we could have sold even our old chemical weapons and our souls to potential enemies. Remember under the Bush, freedom of the Press has been limited, and the hush hush hush policies control everything.
 
Last edited:
Demosthenes

While it is true that the 1824 Constitution of Mexico DOES call for the Congressional approval (the word ratification is NOT used in that document), Santa Anna suspended many elements of the 1824 Constitution during the several times he was in power, INCLUDING many of the powers of the legislature - probably why he wasn't very well liked and was oused shortly after signing the 1836 treaty. Still, this was a fairly common practice and the fact is that the post-Santa Anna Mexican government DID abide by the the territorial terms of the treaty and didn't attack Mexico nor did it station troops north of the Rio Grande, indicating tacit acceptance of the treaty - that is until they declared that U.S. annexation of Texas would be viewed as an act of war. Your blame-America attitude can't seem to accept that it was the MEXICANS who turned up the rhetoric EVEN BEFORE TEXAS WAS ANNEXED!
 
dragonslayer said:
Under Bush, we could have sold even our old chemical weapons and our souls to potential enemies. Remember under the Bush, freedom of the Press has been limited, and the hush hush hush policies control everything.

Give me a freaking break. Clinton allowed the sale of sensitive technologies to the Chinese, something that those of us living in Taiwan may rue in the future. He DENIED the sale of advanced military hardware to Taiwan! OUTRIGHT DENIED IT!!! He took campaign contributions from the ChiComs... heck, some of it was right in the open!!!

Clinton was an enemy of freedom around the world. To see him go around the world as Carter did knowing the damage that was done to freedom worldwide by the two men is absolutely vomit-inducing!
 
ludahai said:
Demosthenes

While it is true that the 1824 Constitution of Mexico DOES call for the Congressional approval (the word ratification is NOT used in that document), Santa Anna suspended many elements of the 1824 Constitution during the several times he was in power, INCLUDING many of the powers of the legislature - probably why he wasn't very well liked and was oused shortly after signing the 1836 treaty. Still, this was a fairly common practice and the fact is that the post-Santa Anna Mexican government DID abide by the the territorial terms of the treaty and didn't attack Mexico nor did it station troops north of the Rio Grande, indicating tacit acceptance of the treaty - that is until they declared that U.S. annexation of Texas would be viewed as an act of war. Your blame-America attitude can't seem to accept that it was the MEXICANS who turned up the rhetoric EVEN BEFORE TEXAS WAS ANNEXED!

It wasn't written in English, but in Spanish. What ever you want the spanish word for "ratification" to mean, I don't care. It was not a lawful treaty under the Mexican Constitution.

Unless the president is allowed to suspend the constitution, but he is not.
 
-Demosthenes- said:
It wasn't written in English, but in Spanish. What ever you want the spanish word for "ratification" to mean, I don't care. It was not a lawful treaty under the Mexican Constitution.

Unless the president is allowed to suspend the constitution, but he is not.

I have read the terms of this treaty in BOTH ENglish and Spanish.

It IS a lawful treaty according to traditional international law. Please let those with at least some training in the field interpret it. You obviously don't have any. Every issue you have brought up is handled in the FIRST MONTH of an international law class.

It was common in the 19th century for dictators to suspend constitutions. While according to domestic law, that may be a violation of domestic constitutions, international norms pay that no mind whatsoever. He was the guy in charge at the time and he was the man international actors had to deal with, regardless of the legality of it at home - THAT would be an internal matter to Mexico. In terms of INTERNATIONAL LAW, the treaty he signed is absolutely legal, even if it isn't just - which is clearly debateable.

Another element of basic international law concerns the LACK of action by the Mexican government for a decade AFTER the signing of the treaty. MExico didn't station any troops in Texas north of the Rio Grande for a decade and didn't make any military attempts to reclaim the territory. This is indicative of a TACIT ACCEPTANCE of Texan independence, something that international law supports - and still supports today. This is exactly why China doesn't want the Taiwan situation to be decided by the ICJ for instance because this is EXACTLY what the court will say to Peiping.

The treaty WAS legal, and even if it wasn't, Texan independence was tacitly accepted by the lact of action on the part of Mexico. Texas WAS independent and the boundary was the Rio Grande.
 
ludahai said:
Give me a freaking break. Clinton allowed the sale of sensitive technologies to the Chinese, something that those of us living in Taiwan may rue in the future. He DENIED the sale of advanced military hardware to Taiwan! OUTRIGHT DENIED IT!!! He took campaign contributions from the ChiComs... heck, some of it was right in the open!!!
Even Bush has taken plenty of Money from the Chicoms.
Clinton however sent carriers in '96 when we were getting shot at for elections. What has Bush done today to protect the ROC from the missles pointed at Taiwan? Anything? Not even sale of patriot missles.

ludahai said:
Clinton was an enemy of freedom around the world. To see him go around the world as Carter did knowing the damage that was done to freedom worldwide by the two men is absolutely vomit-inducing!
If we want to go around pointing figers Bush Jr is the enemy of the free world, creating more instability and uncertainty through his unilateral and arrogant decisions.
 
jfuh said:
Even Bush has taken plenty of Money from the Chicoms.

Link?

Clinton however sent carriers in '96 when we were getting shot at for elections. What has Bush done today to protect the ROC from the missles pointed at Taiwan? Anything? Not even sale of patriot missles.

Actually, President Bush has approved the sale of advanced weaponry to Taiwan, INCLUDING PAC-3 batteries. It is your buddies in the KMT who keep blocking the purchases.

If we want to go around pointing figers Bush Jr is the enemy of the free world, creating more instability and uncertainty through his unilateral and arrogant decisions.

Actually, that isn't true. Carter and Clinton were enemies to freedom. Bush is trying to protect it, and the U.S. is currently working to bring exactly that to FIFTY MILLION people!
 
ludahai said:
Sure, who's the 2 largest creditor to the US allowing for this administration it's outrageous spending. Oh perhaps you're going to say it's congress that's making these expenditures? Hmmm last I recall there's such a thing called checks and balances in which the president has the exclusive ability to veto bogus bills?

ludahai said:
Actually, President Bush has approved the sale of advanced weaponry to Taiwan, INCLUDING PAC-3 batteries. It is your buddies in the KMT who keep blocking the purchases.
COmpletely false, the referendum in 2004 by all the peoples of Taiwan is what overwhelmingly rejected your corrupt DPP party, which btw have also done precisely 0 beneficial.

ludahai said:
Actually, that isn't true. Carter and Clinton were enemies to freedom. Bush is trying to protect it, and the U.S. is currently working to bring exactly that to FIFTY MILLION people!
Please enlighten me on just what Bush has done to bring freedom and security to 50 million ppl when taking away freedoms from Americans?
 
jfuh said:
Sure, who's the 2 largest creditor to the US allowing for this administration it's outrageous spending. Oh perhaps you're going to say it's congress that's making these expenditures? Hmmm last I recall there's such a thing called checks and balances in which the president has the exclusive ability to veto bogus bills?

When did I defend spending by this Administration?

COmpletely false, the referendum in 2004 by all the peoples of Taiwan is what overwhelmingly rejected your corrupt DPP party, which btw have also done precisely 0 beneficial.

You are completely wrong. You have gone from saying that President Bush didn't offer Taiwan advanced weapons systems to saying that the referendum was defeated. Once again, you are hiding behind lies. Actually, if you look at the vote on the referendum, the overwhelming majority of peope who voted for it APPROVED IT! However, as fifty percent of eligible voters didn't vote (due to a cynical KMT boycott because they knew it would pass.) However, according to the law, this doesn't mean a rejection of the referendum, it means it is INVALID! A clear difference that you and your fellow KMT automotons clearly don't understand.

Also, by YOUR logic, the Taiwanese people also rejected negotiations with China, BUT your beloved KMT, as usual, can't see that logic. They are the ultimate hypocrites. Why am I NOT surprised you are in bed with them?

Please enlighten me on just what Bush has done to bring freedom and security to 50 million ppl when taking away freedoms from Americans?

Afghanistan and Iraq.
What freedoms has he taken away from Americans? Please be specific!
 
ludahai said:
I have read the terms of this treaty in BOTH ENglish and Spanish.

It IS a lawful treaty according to traditional international law. Please let those with at least some training in the field interpret it. You obviously don't have any. Every issue you have brought up is handled in the FIRST MONTH of an international law class.

It was common in the 19th century for dictators to suspend constitutions. While according to domestic law, that may be a violation of domestic constitutions, international norms pay that no mind whatsoever. He was the guy in charge at the time and he was the man international actors had to deal with, regardless of the legality of it at home - THAT would be an internal matter to Mexico. In terms of INTERNATIONAL LAW, the treaty he signed is absolutely legal, even if it isn't just - which is clearly debateable.

Another element of basic international law concerns the LACK of action by the Mexican government for a decade AFTER the signing of the treaty. MExico didn't station any troops in Texas north of the Rio Grande for a decade and didn't make any military attempts to reclaim the territory. This is indicative of a TACIT ACCEPTANCE of Texan independence, something that international law supports - and still supports today. This is exactly why China doesn't want the Taiwan situation to be decided by the ICJ for instance because this is EXACTLY what the court will say to Peiping.

The treaty WAS legal, and even if it wasn't, Texan independence was tacitly accepted by the lact of action on the part of Mexico. Texas WAS independent and the boundary was the Rio Grande.

Like if Bush decided to suspend the constitution and sign over Alaska to Canada without the treaty being ratified.

I'm sure it's perfectly legal under "international law."

Or does it only apply in non-white inhabited countries?
 
ludahai said:
When did I defend spending by this Administration?
:lamo hmm wow, I wonder, let's flip through the former posts and see what you've said. Continuous bombardment of the Clinton administration in apologetics towards this current administration.

ludahai said:
You are completely wrong. You have gone from saying that President Bush didn't offer Taiwan advanced weapons systems to saying that the referendum was defeated.
Was Ageis offered? nope. What systems were being offered? The latest in technology or stuff that is decades old?

ludahai said:
Once again, you are hiding behind lies. Actually, if you look at the vote on the referendum, the overwhelming majority of peope who voted for it APPROVED IT! However, as fifty percent of eligible voters didn't vote (due to a cynical KMT boycott because they knew it would pass.) However, according to the law, this doesn't mean a rejection of the referendum, it means it is INVALID! A clear difference that you and your fellow KMT automotons clearly don't understand.
BS. The referendum was defeated, you can hide behind your apologetics all you want. Your party whom you proudly tout nothing but thugs wearing Armani.

ludahai said:
Also, by YOUR logic, the Taiwanese people also rejected negotiations with China, BUT your beloved KMT, as usual, can't see that logic. They are the ultimate hypocrites. Why am I NOT surprised you are in bed with them?
I'd like to see you point out where I said the ppl of Taiwan rejected negotiations with China.

ludahai said:
Afghanistan and Iraq.
Freedom? Security? Sorry but why do explosions and terrorists ring more a bell when I think of these two nations today?

ludahai said:
What freedoms has he taken away from Americans? Please be specific!
Ownership of the government.
Right to privacy through unwarrented searchs.
 
-Demosthenes- said:
Like if Bush decided to suspend the constitution and sign over Alaska to Canada without the treaty being ratified.

I'm sure it's perfectly legal under "international law."

Or does it only apply in non-white inhabited countries?

Gee, why is it that the complexities of international law are simply beyond you?
 
jfuh said:
:lamo hmm wow, I wonder, let's flip through the former posts and see what you've said. Continuous bombardment of the Clinton administration in apologetics towards this current administration.

I believe this administration has handled some things correctly, and others incorrectly. If you look at the full body of my posts, you will see that I have criticized him on spending and the increasing size of government.

Was Ageis offered? nope. What systems were being offered? The latest in technology or stuff that is decades old?

PAC 3s are decades old? Still, what was offered was FAR BETTER than what Clinton offered. Regardless, your buddies in the KMT continue to block it.

BS. The referendum was defeated, you can hide behind your apologetics all you want. Your party whom you proudly tout nothing but thugs wearing Armani.

Wrong again. The overwhelming majority of people who voted in the referendum voted FOR IT! The rules, as passed by the KMT majority Legislative Yuan, was that a MAJORITY of eligible voters had to vote for it to be BINDING. That didn't happen, so the vote was not binding. If you keep to your twisted logic, what about the vote on negotiations with China? By your logic, THAT was also defeated!

I'd like to see you point out where I said the ppl of Taiwan rejected negotiations with China.

By your logic, the referendum that was voted on the same day as the arms referendum.

Freedom? Security? Sorry but why do explosions and terrorists ring more a bell when I think of these two nations today?

Why do tyrants like the Taliban and Saddam ring a bell from the 1990s in those countries?

Ownership of the government.
Right to privacy through unwarrented searchs.

You need to be MUCH more specific than that!
 
ludahai said:
I believe this administration has handled some things correctly, and others incorrectly. If you look at the full body of my posts, you will see that I have criticized him on spending and the increasing size of government.
He hasn't done a single thing right.

ludahai said:
PAC 3s are decades old? Still, what was offered was FAR BETTER than what Clinton offered. Regardless, your buddies in the KMT continue to block it.
KMT blocking the idiot chen from buying is because of corruption by chen and his thugs.

ludahai said:
Wrong again. The overwhelming majority of people who voted in the referendum voted FOR IT! The rules, as passed by the KMT majority Legislative Yuan, was that a MAJORITY of eligible voters had to vote for it to be BINDING. That didn't happen, so the vote was not binding. If you keep to your twisted logic, what about the vote on negotiations with China? By your logic, THAT was also defeated!
:spin:

ludahai said:
By your logic, the referendum that was voted on the same day as the arms referendum.
Nope, hardly even on the same level nor comparable.

ludahai said:
Why do tyrants like the Taliban and Saddam ring a bell from the 1990s in those countries?
What year is it now? Hmmm.

ludahai said:
You need to be MUCH more specific than that!
Sorry it doesn't get much more specific then those rights being taken away.
 
jfuh said:
He hasn't done a single thing right.

:2rofll: Yeah, right.

KMT blocking the idiot chen from buying is because of corruption by chen and his thugs
.

Gee, I thought it was because the people allegedly voted against it. Get your story straight.


Not my fault if you can't understand the difference between a defeated referendum and a non binding result. Question, of the people who voted, did a majority vote in favor or against the referendum?

Nope, hardly even on the same level nor comparable.

Talk about :spin:

What year is it now? Hmmm.

2006 and both countries are on the right path.

Sorry it doesn't get much more specific then those rights being taken away.

How are those rights being taken away? How is any of that different from the computer programs used to listen in for key words during the Clinton administration?
 
ludahai said:
Gee, I thought it was because the people allegedly voted against it. Get your story straight.
Keep on spining.

ludahai said:
Not my fault if you can't understand the difference between a defeated referendum and a non binding result. Question, of the people who voted, did a majority vote in favor or against the referendum?
His inability to get his supporters to back him is pretty much defeat. Technicalities on terminology is irrelevent. If he's so popular as you claim, shouldn't have been a problem. Damn the KMT is just too powerful.
Talk about :spin:

ludahai said:
2006 and both countries are on the right path.
Really? Strange how it doesn't appear so in all the news reports that I see. Not a single one showing any success now in either of those countries. Only more and more failures and an incompetant administration trying to cover its ***.

ludahai said:
How are those rights being taken away? How is any of that different from the computer programs used to listen in for key words during the Clinton administration?
wow, you really don't understand the concept of tu quo quoi huh? Clinton did it so it's ok now? NO warrent? Illegal.
 
the worst president in history is:........<drum roll>

LYNDON B. JOHNSON!

lyndonbainsjohnson-266.jpg
 
Back
Top Bottom