It seems George II is trying real hard in these last few months to be successful at something before he leaves office. It appears he does not want to be remembered as the worst president in American history.

What do you think George II thinks about the stamp he is leaving on American history? Do you think he understands he has been a total flop or do you think Georgie thinks he as been a huge success but we are just to stupid to appreciate his wisdom?

What do you thing George II thinks about his presidency?

That it was good and that he "did what he had to do." Just like every other leader since the dawn of time. Power not only corrupts, it also deludes.

~String

self-delusional-adoration Texas' style...

He probably thinks that he was always acting in the interests of the greater good, and blames his failures on others.

he should be blaming them on his mum, if there was ever one who should have been swollowed its him

He probably thinks that he was always acting in the interests of the greater good, and blames his failures on others.

He likes to think of himself as a Harry Truman. Truman is remembered for saying, "The buck stops here". George II never apparently got that famous Truman quote because he is so fond of saying that he was just listening to his generals.

That is one of the things I like about Obama. He understands leadership. He understands that as president he sets policy, generals enact policy. This is key to succesful leadership.

It must be confusing being so low in the polls when all the people he talks to probably tell him he is one of the best presidents ever.

He likes to think of himself as a Harry Truman. Truman is remembered for saying, "The buck stops here". George II never apparently got that famous Truman quote because he is so fond of saying that he was just listening to his generals.

That is one of the things I like about Obama. He understands leadership. He understands that as president he sets policy, generals enact policy. This is key to succesful leadership.

And how does he set cohearent policy, if he don't listen?

Listening to your generals make sure that, The Buck Stop Here.

And how does he set cohearent policy, if he don't listen?

Listening to your generals make sure that, The Buck Stop Here.

No, Georgie uses listening to his generals as an excuse for his mistakes. It is good to listen to your generals. But it is more important to listen to your admirals. And more important still to exercise a leadership roll and set direction...too put together a strategy.

Bush has never exhibited a coherent policy in anything and that is one of his major pitfalls. War is not a series of endless uncoordinated tactics. Georgie it seems never learned that at Yale. And most abhorent to me, is that he blames his generals. He does not have enough internal fortitude to take the blame as Truman did.

This is from the History News Network...sixty one percent of historians rate George II's presidency as the worst in the entire history of the United States. Only four rate his presidency as a success, and I suspect those 4 are on the White House payroll.

http://hnn.us/articles/48916.html

What do you think George II thinks about the stamp he is leaving on American history? Do you think he understands he has been a total flop or do you think Georgie thinks he as been a huge success but we are just to stupid to appreciate his wisdom?

I don't think it's a black and white issue. GWB has done good and bad things with his administration, and he's been blamed for things that weren't his fault.

This is from the History News Network...sixty one percent of historians rate George II's presidency as the worst in the entire history of the United States. Only four rate his presidency as a success, and I suspect those 4 are on the White House payroll.

http://hnn.us/articles/48916.html

Most historians are left-wing too, just visit your local college or university history class and you'll see.

That is what gives me a chuckle about right wingers, whenever confronted with fact they discount it as just liberal nonsense. You can't trust anything from a non scantioned (non Republican) source.
For what has George II been blamed that he was not responsible for?

That is what gives me a chuckle about right wingers, whenever confronted with fact they discount it as just liberal nonsense. You can't trust anything from a non scantioned (non Republican) source.
For what has George II been blamed that he was not responsible for?

The war in Iraq, the Democrats insisted on being able to vote for the war to.

A little something called the AUMF.

Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on S.J. Res. 45, A ...
45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against .... we insist now on a resolution that includes authorizing military action and ...
http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

And OBL.

On February 23, 1998, bin Laden reissued his 1996 fatwa - his declaration of war against the United States. He wrote, "The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies - civilians and military - is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty God, 'and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together,' and 'fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God.'"

Those were his words. Among the deeds backing them up: numerous indictments, including the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993, the bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa, and the bombing of the USS Cole. All took place before the U.S. attacked Iraq. And bin Laden got away with it, all because nobody believed him when he declared war on us.

That is what gives me a chuckle about right wingers, whenever confronted with fact they discount it as just liberal nonsense. You can't trust anything from a non scantioned (non Republican) source.
For what has George II been blamed that he was not responsible for?

I never said we couldn't trust your source, I said that a vast majority of historians are left wingers. So it isn't a surprise that many of them vote him the worst president of all time.

GWB has been blamed for the mess in Iraq, and all the deaths there. When infact it's been the terrorists and insurgents that have made Iraq a mess, and killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis.
Hell Iraq was a mess even before U.S. liberated it. I know ,I know, from a radical left-wing point a view, and a radical muslims point of view, liberation into a free democracy is "tyranny" and "horrifying".......

He , along with Clinton, Carter and Nixon were all about the same when it comes to how bad presidents can be. Look, Clinton was impeached how much worse can that get?

Clinton was impeached how much worse can that get? for getting a blowjob. in no rational way should he have been impeached.

Hell Iraq was a mess even before U.S. liberated it. no it wasn't. It was one of the most progressive arab states in the region. woman didn't have to cover up they were allowed to drive and go to college. Was it ruled be a tyrant who murdered lots of people yes, but it functioned as a country.

for getting a blowjob. in no rational way should he have been impeached.


Spin spin spin. He was impeached for purjury.........

Spin spin spin. He was impeached for purjury.........

So you think it perfectly reasonable to impeach a president for lying about a blowjob?


And the question he lied about should have never been allowed to be asked?

Yep, Clinton lied and was actually caught, which really suprised me.

So you think it perfectly reasonable to impeach a president for lying about a blowjob?


And the question he lied about should have never been allowed to be asked?

Actually he lied to Congress and that , no matter what it is about, is a criminal offense.

So you think it perfectly reasonable to impeach a president for lying about a blowjob?

And the question he lied about should have never been allowed to be asked?

Well I don't think he should have been impeached as in kicked out of office, but maybe some other type of repremand.

Actually he lied to Congress and that , no matter what it is about, is a criminal offense.

Should he have been punished yes, But i mean honestly impeaching someone over lying about a sexual act is just retarded. I mean really its just so fucking stupid and it made america look stupid.

Should he have been punished yes, But i mean honestly impeaching someone over lying about a sexual act is just retarded. I mean really its just so fucking stupid and it made america look stupid.

It wasn't about the sexual implications, it was the LIE!

It wasn't about the sexual implications, it was the LIE!

From your attitude you seem to think it perfectly ok for congress to interagate a president over their personal lives which is just fucked up.

From your attitude you seem to think it perfectly ok for congress to interagate a president over their personal lives which is just fucked up.

Clinton committed perjury in front of a Federal Judge, and engauged in obstruction of justice, that is why they tried to bring charges against him and Impeach him.

The House adopted two articles of impeachment, charging the President with perjury in his grand jury testimony and obstructing justice in his dealings with various potential witnesses.

Nothing about sex with Lewinsky.

Clinton committed perjury in front of a Federal Judge, and engauged in obstruction of justice, that is why they tried to bring charges against him and Impeach him.
he commited perjury about the affair. I know your not to bright but even some one as dim as you should be able to wrap your head around that.



Nothing about sex with Lewinsky.
Of course their not going to come right out and say it. You have to look in to the whole debacle to find out it was about the sex. Why did they do it about the blowjob because it was the only thing they had on him.

he commited perjury about the affair. I know your not to bright but even some one as dim as you should be able to wrap your head around that.

Clinton, Commited Perjury, in a Federal Grand Jury.

Clinton, engauged in obstruction of justice. even some one as dumb as you should be able to wrap his head around that.


Of course their not going to come right out and say it. You have to look in to the whole debacle to find out it was about the sex. Why did they do it about the blowjob because it was the only thing they had on him.

All you have to do is look at the articles of Impeachment, those are the only thing's that were to be considered in that Action.

It was the Democrats who kept bringing up the sex angle.

Clinton, Commited Perjury, in a Federal Grand Jury.

Clinton, engauged in obstruction of justice. even some one as dumb as you should be able to wrap his head around that. About an act of sex
It was the Democrats who kept bringing up the sex angle. no they didn't. i watched the impeachment on c-span. It was the republicans.

Another swing and a miss for you. quit embaressing yourself.

Bush has committed a much more serious offenses while in office. But the Democrats are focusing on doing the business of the nation rather than trying to gain political advantage by conducting an impeachment hearing.

The Republicans should have done the same when Clinton was in office instead of using the entire eight years to conduct witch hunts.

Bush has committed a much more serious offenses while in office. But the Democrats are focusing on doing the business of the nation rather than trying to gain political advantage by conducting an impeachment hearing.

The Republicans should have done the same when Clinton was in office instead of using the entire eight years to conduct witch hunts.

Doing the business of the Nation....$4.00+ a gallon gas....stopping the ability to drill for our own resources....stopping the ability to use our abundant coal for energy need....stopping any new construction of nuclear power plants to move use on the road to energy independence.....sending our economy into a tail spin by blocking for decade's any move towards energy independence, and not having a energy policy that is workable when they took control of the House and Senate in 2006, the congress is where the bills are written, and it is the House who appropriates the moneys, so yes tell me just what business has the Democrat Congress accomplished?

Social Security is still a shambeles........

The V.A. is still under funded, the hospitals are still crumbling...........

The Troops still don't have everything they need in the Field.............

And what did the Democrats in Congress focus on?

Mark Foley

Tom DeLay

Covering for: JEFFERSON'S COLD CASH

Hurricane Katrina

Larry Craig

Memogate: The Senate Computer Theft

Halliburton

Valerie Plame

The housing crash: a Democratic scandal?

As the old man's Presidential campaign mutters along, and John Ensign would be thrilled to only lose a handful of Senate seats, and Republican hopes look generally bleak, Republicans should mine the rich material of the housing bubble.

As housing prices continue to plummet through the summer and fall, the housing bubble and crash and ensuing economic fallout is sure to rank high on the list of issues in voters' minds. And so far, it appears to be an overwhelmingly Democratic scandal:

* Fannie Mae is at the heart of the problem for using its government-sponsored status to guarantee billions of dollars in bad loans that never should have been made. Fannie Mae's guarantees helped kick off the easy-credit lending spree that created the bubble. Fannie Mae is essentially a personal enrichment vehicle for Democratic functionaries like Franklin Raines and Jim Johnson, who became obscenely wealthy by being appointed to lead the government-sponsored enterprise. Fannie Mae will likely require a massive taxpayer bailout as more loans continue to go bad.

* Housing bubble poster boy Angelo Mozilo of Countrywide had a "Friends of Angelo" program where he gave mortgage discounts to legislators and policymakers, the overwhelming majority of whom are Democrats, including Senator Chris Dodd, Senator Kent Conrad, and the aforementioned Jim Johnson. The highest-profile Republican named in the scandal so far is already-disgraced ex-HUD Secretary Alphonso Jackson. These special loans appear to be a clear violation at least of Congressional ethics rules, if not of laws.

* Foreclosure Queen Laura Richardson, Democratic Congresswoman from Long Beach, defaulted eight times on three houses, and is now being sued over a very fishy rescinding of a foreclosure. Special treatment, anyone?

Most everything you mentioned Buffalo can be laid at the feet of the Republicans as they have controlled Washington for the last 8 years and congress for the last 16 years and still have enough power in the Senate to block legislation which they are doing with a vengance.