Worst President Ever!!! Approval Rating Drops!!!

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by GySgt:
So you suggest that we sit by and continue to look the other way as the Middle Eastern leadership continue to oppress and create hatred towards America as we receive our oil and just react to every terrorist act that will come. Even though that means that one day, your family could be on the wrong plane at the wrong time?

This is where our foreign policy is culpret. Our willingness to stand idly by and look the other way as we receive our oil and line the pockets of the Arab elite with money is our role in the creation of Islamic extremism.

Attacking a country that did nothing to us is far more wrong than any justification you can say is right.

 

[RightinNYC]

Hi Paul, I'm billo, I enjoyed reading your post. What's a "plance?"

Hi Billo, I'm R@NYU, what's a "non-sequitur?"

 

[RightinNYC]

Attacking a country that did nothing to us is far more wrong than any justification you can say is right.

Did Cambodia do anything to us? Should we have attacked Pol Pot?

If Hitler had completely avoided attacking the US (which, for the most part, he did), should we have done nothing?

Have you no sense of decency???

[/indignancy]

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by RightatNYU:
Did Cambodia do anything to us? Should we have attacked Pol Pot?

If Hitler had completely avoided attacking the US (which, for the most part, he did), should we have done nothing?

Have you no sense of decency???

Bad analogy, Right[back]atNYU. In Cambodia, we were chasing people that were actually shooting at us. Hitler was attacking everybody around him. Iraq was doing neither of those, Mr. Decent.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by RightatNYU:
Hi Billo, I'm R@NYU, what's a "non-sequitur?"

I do not follow the logic in your arguement.

 

[ngdawg]

Hm.. I read the first 3 on that list and thought John F. Kennedy...:roll:

 

[RightinNYC]

Bad analogy, Right[back]atNYU. In Cambodia, we were chasing people that were actually shooting at us.

Pol Pot was shooting at us? Wanna take another stab at that?

Hitler was attacking everybody around him. Iraq was doing neither of those, Mr. Decent.

But he wasn't attacking us. And as you've stated so many times throughout this thread, the US should NOT attack a country that is not attacking us.

 

[RightinNYC]

I do not follow the logic in your arguement.

Your post responding to Paul completely ignored any argument he made, instead focusing on a misspelling.

That's a non-sequitur.

1. An inference or conclusion that does not follow from the premises or evidence.
2. A statement that does not follow logically from what preceded it.

 

[ngdawg]

Did Cambodia do anything to us? Should we have attacked Pol Pot?

If Hitler had completely avoided attacking the US (which, for the most part, he did), should we have done nothing?

Have you no sense of decency???

[/indignancy]

The only reason Hitler didn't attack the US is because his U-Boats were caught in our waters or just outside oceanic borders. He had every intention of doing so, he just couldn't pull it off.
Also, there were Americans on the Lusitania when the Germans sunk it, so WW1 involvement as well involved the US.
We were not attacked or under the assumption of attack in Korea, Vietnam or Iraq(twice), all initiated by different presidents.

 

[RightinNYC]

The only reason Hitler didn't attack the US is because his U-Boats were caught in our waters or just outside oceanic borders. He had every intention of doing so, he just couldn't pull it off.
Also, there were Americans on the Lusitania when the Germans sunk it, so WW1 involvement as well involved the US.
We were not attacked or under the assumption of attack in Korea, Vietnam or Iraq(twice), all initiated by different presidents.

Your point about Hitler's U-boats isn't totally true, but either way, one could argue that if Saddam could have pulled off an attack on the US, he would have.

The Lusitania was a completely different matter. It was a british ship carrying war materials illegally that US passengers had no business being on. Germany was well within its right to sink it. It was used by the US as propaganda with which to fuel the fire.

And yes, your point is well taken. Just because we weren't directly attacked doesn't mean there is no purpose for a war.

 

[ngdawg]

http://www.nps.gov/calo/U-boats.htm
Visitors to Cape Lookout National Seashore are often surprised to learn that these quiet, undeveloped shores were once an area of death and destruction due to enemy submarines off the coast. In the early days of 1942, U-boats descended upon local waters, wrecking havoc on defenseless ships in full view of the Core Banks. The campaign that followed was marked by instances of ignorance, frustration and confusion that came close to putting the United States out of World War II.
http://www.uboat.net/ops/drumbeat.htm
With the japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbour on Dec 7, 1941 Hitler was bound by a promise to Japan to also declare war on the US. He did so promptly on Dec 11 and after that all restrictions on German U-boats (which had been attacked and hunted by US convoy escorts in the North Atlantic for the last 5-6 months of 1941 anyway without permission to attack the US escorts) not to attack American shipping were removed. This opened up a whole new field for Dönitz which immediately drew up plans for a devastatingly swift blow on the US eastern seaboard.***
Germany was NOT within its rights to sink anything in British waters, but was sinking merchant ships, a fact not lost on the captain of the Lusitania, who nonetheless forged ahead. The difference was that the Lusitania was not merely a merchant ship, although it carried, supposedly, among other 'goods' bound for England, live shells for the Royal military's use(not a proven fact though as no manifest exists,only ones of conjecture) , but carried both American and British passengers from New York to England.
http://www.pbs.org/lostliners/lusitania.html
http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/1915/lusitania1.html
http://www.firstworldwar.com/features/lusitania.htm

 

[RightinNYC]

http://www.nps.gov/calo/U-boats.htm
Visitors to Cape Lookout National Seashore are often surprised to learn that these quiet, undeveloped shores were once an area of death and destruction due to enemy submarines off the coast. In the early days of 1942, U-boats descended upon local waters, wrecking havoc on defenseless ships in full view of the Core Banks. The campaign that followed was marked by instances of ignorance, frustration and confusion that came close to putting the United States out of World War II.
http://www.uboat.net/ops/drumbeat.htm
With the japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbour on Dec 7, 1941 Hitler was bound by a promise to Japan to also declare war on the US. He did so promptly on Dec 11 and after that all restrictions on German U-boats (which had been attacked and hunted by US convoy escorts in the North Atlantic for the last 5-6 months of 1941 anyway without permission to attack the US escorts) not to attack American shipping were removed. This opened up a whole new field for Dönitz which immediately drew up plans for a devastatingly swift blow on the US eastern seaboard.***
Germany was NOT within its rights to sink anything in British waters, but was sinking merchant ships, a fact not lost on the captain of the Lusitania, who nonetheless forged ahead. The difference was that the Lusitania was not merely a merchant ship, although it carried, supposedly, among other 'goods' bound for England, live shells for the Royal military's use(not a proven fact though as no manifest exists,only ones of conjecture) , but carried both American and British passengers from New York to England.
http://www.pbs.org/lostliners/lusitania.html
http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/1915/lusitania1.html
http://www.firstworldwar.com/features/lusitania.htm

What are you trying to argue here?

Yes, Hitler had been sinking US ships that had been engaging in illegal war trade. And yes, he declared unrestricted submarine warfare. Also within his rights, although seen as a provocation toward war. Then again, so was our decision to trade in the areas we did.

And yes, the Lusitania was carrying military supplies, and as such, was a valid target.

 

[ngdawg]

What are you trying to argue here?

Yes, Hitler had been sinking US ships that had been engaging in illegal war trade. And yes, he declared unrestricted submarine warfare. Also within his rights, although seen as a provocation toward war. Then again, so was our decision to trade in the areas we did.

And yes, the Lusitania was carrying military supplies, and as such, was a
valid target.

Not 'trying to argue' at all. Just seems whenever someone declares a point is wrong, they're not doing so with information available, whereas some of us won't make the point unless there IS information.
However, now that we've totally hijacked this thread and your support of German 'defense' in both world wars is established...:roll:

At some point in almost every presidency, 'approval ratings' will drop, for whatever reasons. The economy has been traditionally blamed on presidencies, military actions are demonized, legistlative decisions are criticized. When George, Sr. made the decision to go to Iraq, the country rallied behind him, but when the 'mission' wasn't accomplished, he was deemed a total failure and lost the reelection as a result.
Depending on where you look, the worst presidents vary as a list, with only Roosevelt and Lincoln constantly in the favorites. Will this Bush make the worst list? More than likely, as he is missing the one key across the board-strength of leadership. Even his wrong decisions have little or no conviction behind them and as for good ones-uh....I got nothing...

 

[M14 Shooter]

When George, Sr. made the decision to go to Iraq, the country rallied behind him, but when the 'mission' wasn't accomplished, he was deemed a total failure and lost the reelection as a result.

Ok, this is false.
Desert Storm was regarded by all as a resounding success (at least until someone suggested much later that he didn't 'finish the job' - something unthinkable at the time).

GHWB lost in 1992 for three reasons (no particular order):
-He didnt take the Clinton candidacy seriously (with good reason)
-He didn counter the Clinton campaign's lies about the economy
-Perot.

Will this Bush make the worst list? More than likely, as he is missing the one key across the board-strength of leadership.

History will treat Bush much like Truman.

 

[ngdawg]

Perot was definitely a thorn in the election, a derisive factor.
Granted, this is from an anti-Sr article(link below), but it does contain some interesting information on 'daddy'. His approval rating soared to 91% after the Gulf War. Unfortunately, blame for other things cropped up, of which Clinton took good advantage of, it would seem, ie: Iran-Contra, the 'no new taxes' broken promises, etc. Even as he left office, his 'approval rating' dropped to a still very respectable 56%, but economics and social issues 'took their toll' in his bid for reelection. http://www.answers.com/topic/george-bush
http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/presidents/george-hw-bush/
(How someone can get a 56% approval rating and lose an election to a relative unknown is a mind-boggler of politics.) Kind of makes one wonder if sonny-boy is not working on getting better approval because he's outtahere next election, so he'll just do whatever the hell he wants...hmmm

 

[ngdawg]

Damn, can't edit to add to my last post
Anyway....not really sure how history treats Truman. Depending on what source one uses, he was either a brilliant man with a lot of personal and legislative demons or a country boy totally out of his league.
If you ever get the opportunity, I strongly recommend visiting the Truman Presidential Library in Independence, MO. The amount of reading alone, of personal papers, news accounts, etc, will keep you there for hours. I tend to lean toward the 'brilliant man fighting demons' scenario. Coming in as the successor to the most beloved president this country ever had was a daunting task at least and he certainly did the best he could with what was tossed at him. Reading his letters and memos, I wouldn't wish his position on anyone, a sentiment he voiced more than once in his letters.

 

[RightinNYC]

Perot was definitely a thorn in the election, a derisive factor.
Granted, this is from an anti-Sr article(link below), but it does contain some interesting information on 'daddy'. His approval rating soared to 91% after the Gulf War. Unfortunately, blame for other things cropped up, of which Clinton took good advantage of, it would seem, ie: Iran-Contra, the 'no new taxes' broken promises, etc. Even as he left office, his 'approval rating' dropped to a still very respectable 56%, but economics and social issues 'took their toll' in his bid for reelection. http://www.answers.com/topic/george-bush
http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/presidents/george-hw-bush/
(How someone can get a 56% approval rating and lose an election to a relative unknown is a mind-boggler of politics.) Kind of makes one wonder if sonny-boy is not working on getting better approval because he's outtahere next election, so he'll just do whatever the hell he wants...hmmm

Random side note, but it's been proven that if not for Perot, Bush would have won reelection.

 

[cnredd]

Random side note, but it's been proven that if not for Perot, Bush would have won reelection.

Blame me...I voted Perot...

 

[RightinNYC]

Blame me...I voted Perot...

Bastard. If I hadn't have been 8 years old, I would have cancelled out your vote.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by RightatNYU:
Your post responding to Paul completely ignored any argument he made, instead focusing on a misspelling.

That's a non-sequitur.

1. An inference or conclusion that does not follow from the premises or evidence.
2. A statement that does not follow logically from what preceded it.

First, I didn't ask you for a definition, and second, I responded to the only part of his post that had merit. Now, if he would have provided the justification on how he came to those conclusions, I might have. But since he didn't, I'd rather see a long jump by Bob Beamon.

 

[MSgt]

Attacking a country that did nothing to us is far more wrong than any justification you can say is right.

By attacking Iraq, we have dispensed with a corrupt sham sustained by our "Old European" critics and the general American: the notion that a dictator, no matter how cruel and illegitimate, is untouchable behind his "sovereign" borders. What you have suggested enough times is that as long as Saddam practiced, through his written laws, abuse and tyranny upon his own people without exporting them beyond his borders as he did with Kuwait and as he did through Palestinian martyrs, then he was "protected."

Tsk..tsk. If only Hitler knew the rules.

 

[hipsterdufus]

By attacking Iraq, we have dispensed with a corrupt sham sustained by our "Old European" critics and the general American: the notion that a dictator, no matter how cruel and illegitimate, is untouchable behind his "sovereign" borders. What you have suggested enough times is that as long as Saddam practiced, through his written laws, abuse and tyranny upon his own people without exporting them beyond his borders as he did with Kuwait and as he did through Palestinian martyrs, then he was "protected."

Tsk..tsk. If only Hitler knew the rules.

GySgt,

On this Veterans Day I wanted to take the time to thank you for your service to our country.

 

[LaMidRighter]

GySgt,

On this Veterans Day I wanted to take the time to thank you for your service to our country.

very classy move, and I would like to second that.:2usflag:

 

[MSgt]

GySgt,

On this Veterans Day I wanted to take the time to thank you for your service to our country.

Thankyou. Thanking me is highly unnecessary. Performing my duties is a passion and Americans deserve my, and the rest of mine's, complete dedication. You are most certainly welcome.

 

[MSgt]

very classy move, and I would like to second that.:2usflag:

You are very welcome.