| |
Main
Date: 02 Dec 2006 16:23:07
From: William Coleman
Subject: OT: Worst President Ever
|
Eric Foner, Professor of History at Columbia University, states the
obvious --
George W. Bush is the worst President in the history of the United States of
America.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/01/AR2006120101509.html
He's The Worst Ever
By Eric Foner
Sunday, December 3, 2006; B01
Ever since 1948, when Harvard professor Arthur Schlesinger Sr. asked 55
historians to rank U.S. presidents on a scale from "great" to "failure,"
such polls have been a favorite pastime for those of us who study the
American past.
Changes in presidential rankings reflect shifts in how we view history. When
the first poll was taken, the Reconstruction era that followed the Civil War
was regarded as a time of corruption and misgovernment caused by granting
black men the right to vote. As a result, President Andrew Johnson, a
fervent white supremacist who opposed efforts to extend basic rights to
former slaves, was rated "near great." Today, by contrast, scholars consider
Reconstruction a flawed but noble attempt to build an interracial democracy
from the ashes of slavery -- and Johnson a flat failure.
More often, however, the rankings display a remarkable year-to-year
uniformity. Abraham Lincoln, George Washington and Franklin D. Roosevelt
always figure in the "great" category. Most presidents are ranked "average"
or, to put it less charitably, mediocre. Johnson, Franklin Pierce, James
Buchanan, Warren G. Harding, Calvin Coolidge and Richard M. Nixon occupy the
bottom rung, and now President Bush is a leading contender to join them. A
look at history, as well as Bush's policies, explains why.
At a time of national crisis, Pierce and Buchanan, who served in the eight
years preceding the Civil War, and Johnson, who followed it, were simply not
up to the job. Stubborn, narrow-minded, unwilling to listen to criticism or
to consider alternatives to disastrous mistakes, they surrounded themselves
with sycophants and shaped their policies to appeal to retrogressive
political forces (in that era, pro-slavery and racist ideologues). Even
after being repudiated in the midterm elections of 1854, 1858 and 1866,
respectively, they ignored major currents of public opinion and clung to
flawed policies. Bush's presidency certainly brings theirs to mind.
Harding and Coolidge are best remembered for the corruption of their years
in office (1921-23 and 1923-29, respectively) and for channeling money and
favors to big business. They slashed income and corporate taxes and
supported employers' campaigns to eliminate unions. Members of their
administrations received kickbacks and bribes from lobbyists and
businessmen. "Never before, here or anywhere else," declared the Wall Street
Journal, "has a government been so completely fused with business." The
Journal could hardly have anticipated the even worse cronyism, corruption
and pro-business bias of the Bush administration.
Despite some notable accomplishments in domestic and foreign policy, Nixon
is mostly associated today with disdain for the Constitution and abuse of
presidential power. Obsessed with secrecy and media leaks, he viewed every
critic as a threat to national security and illegally spied on U.S.
citizens. Nixon considered himself above the law.
Bush has taken this disdain for law even further. He has sought to strip
people accused of crimes of rights that date as far back as the Magna Carta
in Anglo-American jurisprudence: trial by impartial jury, access to lawyers
and knowledge of evidence against them. In dozens of statements when signing
legislation, he has asserted the right to ignore the parts of laws with
which he disagrees. His administration has adopted policies regarding the
treatment of prisoners of war that have disgraced the nation and alienated
virtually the entire world. Usually, during wartime, the Supreme Court has
refrained from passing judgment on presidential actions related to national
defense. The court's unprecedented rebukes of Bush's policies on detainees
indicate how far the administration has strayed from the rule of law.
One other president bears comparison to Bush: James K. Polk. Some historians
admire him, in part because he made their job easier by keeping a detailed
diary during his administration, which spanned the years of the
Mexican-American War. But Polk should be remembered primarily for launching
that unprovoked attack on Mexico and seizing one-third of its territory for
the United States.
Lincoln, then a member of Congress from Illinois, condemned Polk for
misleading Congress and the public about the cause of the war -- an alleged
Mexican incursion into the United States. Accepting the president's right to
attack another country "whenever he shall deem it necessary," Lincoln
observed, would make it impossible to "fix any limit" to his power to make
war. Today, one wishes that the country had heeded Lincoln's warning.
Historians are loath to predict the future. It is impossible to say with
certainty how Bush will be ranked in, say, 2050. But somehow, in his first
six years in office he has managed to combine the lapses of leadership,
misguided policies and abuse of power of his failed predecessors. I think
there is no alternative but to rank him as the worst president in U.S.
history.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
|
|
| |
Date: 02 Dec 2006 10:42:32
From:
Subject: Re: OT: Worst President Ever
|
Im proud to say my first 2 eligible votes were against GW Bush.
However, I agree with the guy who said Bush is the worst ever but this
article doesn't articulate it very well. It's high on the typical
generalities and rhetoric against Bush but doesn't really make the
factual citations needed to make a forceful arguement. Talking about
detainees without explaning the added danger placed onto brave US
forces by sleezeballs who ducked out of the Vietnam War would have been
more appropriate. The bankrupcy bill is an abomination of American
ideals, did anyone realize that credit card companies can adjust your
rates for just about any reason they see fit? Does anyone remember the
"energy task force". While shrouded in secrecy, Cheney did invite
environmental representatives the last day of the commission for a
photo op, how cute. Does anyone want to point out how they used to
tell us to drive whatever vehicle we want because "we are a free
people" or some other sloppy, pandering argument.
- Ian, Windsor Locks, CT
ianmdaley@gmail.com
Will in New Haven wrote:
> William Coleman wrote:
> > "Olemite" <msolson14@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:1165077950.604310.303940@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
> > : Yes. He may very well be the worst ever, but the Democrats didn't come
> > : up with anybody better.
> >
> > Huh? Satan himself would have been better. You seriously do not understand
> > just how bad Bush is. Both Gore and Kerry would have done far less damage
> > to this country.
> >
> >
> > William Coleman (ramashiva)
>
> Satan himself, John Kerry. That's a tough choice. I voted for Kerry
> (spit) but that because was the only other chioce was Bush. Satan, you
> see, has the great advantage of not existing.
>
> If Kerry had not existed, he would have been a great candidate because
> it would have just been a vote AGAINST Bush.
>
> Will in New Haven
>
> "I am thus far a Quaker, that I would gladly argue with all the world
> to lay aside the use of arms and settle matters by negotiation, but
> unless the whole will, the matter ends, and I take up my musket and
> thank Heaven He has put it in my power."
> -Writings of Thomas Paine 56 (M. Conway ed. 1894)
|
| |
Date: 02 Dec 2006 10:42:13
From:
Subject: Re: OT: Worst President Ever
|
Im proud to say my first 2 eligible votes were against GW Bush.
However, I agree with the guy who said Bush is the worst ever but this
article doesn't articulate it very well. It's high on the typical
generalities and rhetoric against Bush but doesn't really make the
factual citations needed to make a forceful arguement. Talking about
detainees without explaning the added danger placed onto brave US
forces by sleezeballs who ducked out of the Vietnam War would have been
more appropriate. The bankrupcy bill is an abomination of American
ideals, did anyone realize that credit card companies can adjust your
rates for just about any reason they see fit? Does anyone remember the
"energy task force". While shrouded in secrecy, Cheney did invite
environmental representatives the last day of the commission for a
photo op, how cute. Does anyone want to point out how they used to
tell us to drive whatever vehicle we want because "we are a free
people" or some other sloppy, pandering argument.
Will in New Haven wrote:
> William Coleman wrote:
> > "Olemite" <msolson14@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:1165077950.604310.303940@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
> > : Yes. He may very well be the worst ever, but the Democrats didn't come
> > : up with anybody better.
> >
> > Huh? Satan himself would have been better. You seriously do not understand
> > just how bad Bush is. Both Gore and Kerry would have done far less damage
> > to this country.
> >
> >
> > William Coleman (ramashiva)
>
> Satan himself, John Kerry. That's a tough choice. I voted for Kerry
> (spit) but that because was the only other chioce was Bush. Satan, you
> see, has the great advantage of not existing.
>
> If Kerry had not existed, he would have been a great candidate because
> it would have just been a vote AGAINST Bush.
>
> Will in New Haven
>
> "I am thus far a Quaker, that I would gladly argue with all the world
> to lay aside the use of arms and settle matters by negotiation, but
> unless the whole will, the matter ends, and I take up my musket and
> thank Heaven He has put it in my power."
> -Writings of Thomas Paine 56 (M. Conway ed. 1894)
|
| | |
Date: 02 Dec 2006 12:59:40
From: FL Turbo
Subject: Re: OT: Worst President Ever
|
On 2 Dec 2006 10:42:13 -0800, IanMDaley@gmail.com wrote:
>Im proud to say my first 2 eligible votes were against GW Bush.
>However, I agree with the guy who said Bush is the worst ever but this
>article doesn't articulate it very well. It's high on the typical
>generalities and rhetoric against Bush but doesn't really make the
>factual citations needed to make a forceful arguement. Talking about
>detainees without explaning the added danger placed onto brave US
>forces by sleezeballs who ducked out of the Vietnam War would have been
>more appropriate. The bankrupcy bill is an abomination of American
>ideals, did anyone realize that credit card companies can adjust your
>rates for just about any reason they see fit? Does anyone remember the
>"energy task force". While shrouded in secrecy, Cheney did invite
>environmental representatives the last day of the commission for a
>photo op, how cute. Does anyone want to point out how they used to
>tell us to drive whatever vehicle we want because "we are a free
>people" or some other sloppy, pandering argument.
>
Recently, an economist named Milton Friedman died.
His famous book was "Free to Choose".
He pointed out that one of our most important freedoms was our freedom
of choice.
Do you disagree?
Do you think that Big Mama Gummint should tell us what to do?
Or was Friedman just some sloppy panderer?
Sir, are you a moron?
|
| | | |
Date: 02 Dec 2006 19:19:19
From: Paul Popinjay
Subject: Re: OT: Worst President Ever
|
"FL Turbo" <noemail@notime.com > wrote in message
news:lsi3n2ltc66ldqmdbei5lsnin38cgd22n4@4ax.com...
>
> Sir, are you a moron?
>
He's a 20-something. Don't waste your breath. It's practically impossible
nowadays for a 20-something to not be a stupid idiot. Look at all the young
idiots on this newsgroup. I rest my case.
-Paul Popinjay
|
| |
Date: 02 Dec 2006 09:58:10
From: Will in New Haven
Subject: Re: OT: Worst President Ever
|
William Coleman wrote:
> "Olemite" <msolson14@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1165077950.604310.303940@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
> : Yes. He may very well be the worst ever, but the Democrats didn't come
> : up with anybody better.
>
> Huh? Satan himself would have been better. You seriously do not understand
> just how bad Bush is. Both Gore and Kerry would have done far less damage
> to this country.
>
>
> William Coleman (ramashiva)
Satan himself, John Kerry. That's a tough choice. I voted for Kerry
(spit) but that because was the only other chioce was Bush. Satan, you
see, has the great advantage of not existing.
If Kerry had not existed, he would have been a great candidate because
it would have just been a vote AGAINST Bush.
Will in New Haven
"I am thus far a Quaker, that I would gladly argue with all the world
to lay aside the use of arms and settle matters by negotiation, but
unless the whole will, the matter ends, and I take up my musket and
thank Heaven He has put it in my power."
-Writings of Thomas Paine 56 (M. Conway ed. 1894)
|
| | |
Date: 02 Dec 2006 18:22:02
From: William Coleman
Subject: Re: OT: Worst President Ever
|
"Will in New Haven" <bill.reich@taylorandfrancis.com > wrote in message
news:1165082290.760744.294090@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
:
: William Coleman wrote:
: > "Olemite" <msolson14@yahoo.com> wrote in message
: > news:1165077950.604310.303940@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
: > : Yes. He may very well be the worst ever, but the Democrats didn't
come
: > : up with anybody better.
: >
: > Huh? Satan himself would have been better. You seriously do not
understand
: > just how bad Bush is. Both Gore and Kerry would have done far less
damage
: > to this country.
: >
: >
: > William Coleman (ramashiva)
:
: Satan himself, John Kerry. That's a tough choice. I voted for Kerry
: (spit) but that because was the only other chioce was Bush. Satan, you
: see, has the great advantage of not existing.
Of course Satan exists --
http://www.iflipflop.com/cheney_short_of_breath.jpg
William Coleman (ramashiva)
|
| |
Date: 02 Dec 2006 09:54:20
From: Will in New Haven
Subject: Re: OT: Worst President Ever
|
William Coleman wrote:
> "mccard" <mcsoft@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:%Vhch.1976$gj2.760@newsfe23.lga...
> :
> : "Porsche_Dan" <43080932@recpoker.com> wrote in message
> : news:1165076707$915171@recpoker.com...
> : >
> : > Agreed. Worst 8 years ever.
> : >
> :
> : Not over yet.
>
> Please tell me you are not suggesting that the situation in Iraq will
> improve during the next two years. Please tell me you do not buy into
> Bush's delusional fantasies of "victory in Iraq".
If there were improvement in the situation, the Bush administration
would be quick to claim credit. However, the record of the President
and his appointees in running this ill-starred venture is clear and it
is dismal.
As somone who is NOT a pacifist, not a collectivist and feels no grief
at the overthrow of the Saddam Hussein regime, I think I am in a pretty
good position to criticize what has been one of the worst-run campaings
in U.S. military history. Virtually every important decison has been
botched, the efforts of a very capable military have been wasted and
many lives lost unessecarily.
Even if you believe that the broad policy of invading Iraq was correct,
I don't see how anyone can defend this administration's deployment of
force, decisions about the administration of the country or lack of
foresight.
I thought when this started that the big danger in the war against
terror would be our loss of civil liberties in this country. I thought
the foreign policy and military end of things would at least be handled
competently. I was wrong. Our civil liberties have CERTAINLY been
threatened but the foreing policy and military blunders have
overshadowed even that.
Will in New Haven
--
"It is criminal to teach a man not to defend himself when he is the
constant victim of brutal attacks. It is legal and lawful to own a
shotgun or a rifle. We believe in obeying the law."
-Malcolm X, March 12, 1964
>
>
> William Coleman (ramashiva)
|
| | |
Date: 02 Dec 2006 19:47:36
From: eleaticus
Subject: Re: OT: Worst President Ever
|
"Will in New Haven" <bill.reich@taylorandfrancis.com > wrote in message
news:1165082060.194837.31340@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> As somone who is NOT a pacifist, not a collectivist and feels no grief
> at the overthrow of the Saddam Hussein regime, I think I am in a pretty
> good position to criticize what has been one of the worst-run campaings
> in U.S. military history. Virtually every important decison has been
> botched, the efforts of a very capable military have been wasted and
> many lives lost unessecarily.
>
> Even if you believe that the broad policy of invading Iraq was correct,
> I don't see how anyone can defend this administration's deployment of
> force, decisions about the administration of the country or lack of
> foresight.
Hey! They had so little good advice about the war pre-ware.
Besides the State Department, the War College, and the CIA telling them not
to do the idiotic things they were about to do, there was really no one
coming forth to help do it right. Well, besides many Arab and other Islamic
countries, probably.
>
> I thought when this started that the big danger in the war against
> terror would be our loss of civil liberties in this country. I thought
> the foreign policy and military end of things would at least be handled
> competently. I was wrong. Our civil liberties have CERTAINLY been
> threatened but the foreing policy and military blunders have
> overshadowed even that.
Not the least of which was virtually abandoning Afghanistan to the warlords
and taliban.
--
eleaticus
ee-lee-AT-i-cus
eleaticus@bellsouth.net
>
> Will in New Haven
>
> --
>
> "It is criminal to teach a man not to defend himself when he is the
> constant victim of brutal attacks. It is legal and lawful to own a
> shotgun or a rifle. We believe in obeying the law."
> -Malcolm X, March 12, 1964
> >
> >
> > William Coleman (ramashiva)
>
|
| |
Date: 02 Dec 2006 09:00:16
From: John A. Fish
Subject: Re: OT: Worst President Ever
|
While I agree with the conclusion, this article is laughably bad and
riddled with errors in reasoning. I find it amusing that the author's
largest paragraph is devoted to mistreatment of detainees. Are we
talking about Abu Gharab or Gitmo? He doesn't say. So this is the main
reason why Bush is the worst POTUS ever? Come on. He also mentions
reasons like misleading the country on the war and being insensitive to
world opinion and not keeping a diary. What is it with you liberals
anyway? Well, at least there is no mention of "Katrina."
Bush IS the worst ever! And I say this as someone who voted for him
twice. But this article does not get close to articulating the reasons.
- J. Fish
|
| | |
Date: 02 Dec 2006 10:38:05
From: mo_charles
Subject: Re: OT: Worst President Ever
|
> While I agree with the conclusion, this article is laughably bad and
> riddled with errors in reasoning. I find it amusing that the author's
> largest paragraph is devoted to mistreatment of detainees. Are we
> talking about Abu Gharab or Gitmo? He doesn't say. So this is the main
> reason why Bush is the worst POTUS ever? Come on. He also mentions
> reasons like misleading the country on the war and being insensitive to
> world opinion and not keeping a diary. What is it with you liberals
> anyway? Well, at least there is no mention of "Katrina."
>
> Bush IS the worst ever! And I say this as someone who voted for him
> twice. But this article does not get close to articulating the reasons.
the only way to improve this perfect post is for me to have authored it.
did you notice reagan or carter on any of his lists? LOL. another
academic hack.
mo_charles
_______________________________________________________________________
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
|
| | | |
Date: 02 Dec 2006 19:12:11
From: Paul Popinjay
Subject: Re: OT: Worst President Ever
|
"mo_charles" <harrybalzer@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:dpt844x1g8.ln2@recgroups.com...
> did you notice reagan or carter on any of his lists?
>
They're both on the Popinjay List. Carter gave Nicaragua to the communists,
and Reagan made sure that Nicaragua would stay communist.
|
| | | |
Date: 02 Dec 2006 19:03:57
From: William Coleman
Subject: Re: OT: Worst President Ever
|
"mo_charles" <harrybalzer@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:dpt844x1g8.ln2@recgroups.com...
: > While I agree with the conclusion, this article is laughably bad and
: > riddled with errors in reasoning. I find it amusing that the author's
: > largest paragraph is devoted to mistreatment of detainees. Are we
: > talking about Abu Gharab or Gitmo? He doesn't say. So this is the main
: > reason why Bush is the worst POTUS ever? Come on. He also mentions
: > reasons like misleading the country on the war and being insensitive to
: > world opinion and not keeping a diary. What is it with you liberals
: > anyway? Well, at least there is no mention of "Katrina."
: >
: > Bush IS the worst ever! And I say this as someone who voted for him
: > twice. But this article does not get close to articulating the reasons.
:
: the only way to improve this perfect post
Perfect post. LMFAO! Maybe you missed my deconstruction.
: is for me to have authored it.
Great grammar, Mo Ron. The English Department at the University of Chicago
would be proud of you. "would be" not "is".
: did you notice reagan or carter on any of his lists?
You think Reagan was one of the worst Presidents ever? I would have to
agree with you there.
: LOL. another academic hack.
Of course anyone with whom you disagree is a hack. Being a complete
historical illiterate, you are not aware that Professor Foner is one of the
most distinguished and respected historians in the world, and his speciality
is American History. I will take his opinion over those of right-wing
nutcases like you and Fish anyday.
Here is his CV --
http://www.ericfoner.com/cv.html
William Coleman (ramashiva)
|
| | |
Date: 02 Dec 2006 11:40:10
From: FL Turbo
Subject: Re: OT: Worst President Ever
|
On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 09:00:16 -0800, "John A. Fish"
<jrh@horsecreek.homeip.net > wrote:
>While I agree with the conclusion, this article is laughably bad and
>riddled with errors in reasoning. I find it amusing that the author's
>largest paragraph is devoted to mistreatment of detainees. Are we
>talking about Abu Gharab or Gitmo? He doesn't say. So this is the main
>reason why Bush is the worst POTUS ever? Come on. He also mentions
>reasons like misleading the country on the war and being insensitive to
>world opinion and not keeping a diary. What is it with you liberals
>anyway? Well, at least there is no mention of "Katrina."
>
>Bush IS the worst ever! And I say this as someone who voted for him
>twice. But this article does not get close to articulating the reasons.
>
>- J. Fish
Valid rating of Presidents can only be made years and years later.
There is no way anyone can make that judgment in the heat of the
current political climate.
There are way too many people who are currently angry about this,
that, or the other thing to have any objectivity about Bush.
People like me, in the VRWC, have plenty of reasons to Bash Bush, but
those reasons are mostly different than those of the Moonbat Left.
While BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) is still alive and well amongst
the Liberals/Moonbats, there is no way to separate the wheat from the
chaff.
Hatred is an emotion, not reasoning.
It's only with the benefit of 20-20 hindsight, maybe about 20 years
from now, that Bush's Presidency can be evaluated.
Harry S. Truman is a case in point.
He was dismissed for quite a few years as a fool.
It was only when historians took a second look quite a few years
later, that he was upgraded.
At the present time, you need only take a look at one Jimmy Carter to
see that Dubya is nowhere near being the worst president.
|
| | | |
Date: 02 Dec 2006 22:43:17
From: pokerchimp
Subject: Re: OT: Worst President Ever
|
"FL Turbo" <noemail@notime.com > wrote in message
news:rid3n2ldvclfoiljjlc5k8ddnnkemkmopc@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 09:00:16 -0800, "John A. Fish"
> <jrh@horsecreek.homeip.net> wrote:
>
>>While I agree with the conclusion, this article is laughably bad and
>>riddled with errors in reasoning. I find it amusing that the author's
>>largest paragraph is devoted to mistreatment of detainees. Are we
>>talking about Abu Gharab or Gitmo? He doesn't say. So this is the main
>>reason why Bush is the worst POTUS ever? Come on. He also mentions
>>reasons like misleading the country on the war and being insensitive to
>>world opinion and not keeping a diary. What is it with you liberals
>>anyway? Well, at least there is no mention of "Katrina."
>>
>>Bush IS the worst ever! And I say this as someone who voted for him
>>twice. But this article does not get close to articulating the reasons.
>>
>>- J. Fish
>
> Valid rating of Presidents can only be made years and years later.
>
> There is no way anyone can make that judgment in the heat of the
> current political climate.
>
> There are way too many people who are currently angry about this,
> that, or the other thing to have any objectivity about Bush.
>
> People like me, in the VRWC, have plenty of reasons to Bash Bush, but
> those reasons are mostly different than those of the Moonbat Left.
>
> While BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) is still alive and well amongst
> the Liberals/Moonbats, there is no way to separate the wheat from the
> chaff.
> Hatred is an emotion, not reasoning.
>
> It's only with the benefit of 20-20 hindsight, maybe about 20 years
> from now, that Bush's Presidency can be evaluated.
>
> Harry S. Truman is a case in point.
> He was dismissed for quite a few years as a fool.
> It was only when historians took a second look quite a few years
> later, that he was upgraded.
>
> At the present time, you need only take a look at one Jimmy Carter to
> see that Dubya is nowhere near being the worst president.
Bush is so much worse than Carter. Bush has done so much harm to the
country.
|
| | | | |
Date: 03 Dec
From: Porsche_Dan
Subject: Re: OT: Worst President Ever
|
On Dec 2 2006 2:43 PM, pokerchimp wrote:
> "FL Turbo" wrote in message
> news:rid3n2ldvclfoiljjlc5k8ddnnkemkmopc@4ax.com...
> > On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 09:00:16 -0800, "John A. Fish"
> > wrote:
> >
> >>While I agree with the conclusion, this article is laughably bad and
> >>riddled with errors in reasoning. I find it amusing that the author's
> >>largest paragraph is devoted to mistreatment of detainees. Are we
> >>talking about Abu Gharab or Gitmo? He doesn't say. So this is the main
> >>reason why Bush is the worst POTUS ever? Come on. He also mentions
> >>reasons like misleading the country on the war and being insensitive to
> >>world opinion and not keeping a diary. What is it with you liberals
> >>anyway? Well, at least there is no mention of "Katrina."
> >>
> >>Bush IS the worst ever! And I say this as someone who voted for him
> >>twice. But this article does not get close to articulating the reasons.
> >>
> >>- J. Fish
> >
> > Valid rating of Presidents can only be made years and years later.
> >
> > There is no way anyone can make that judgment in the heat of the
> > current political climate.
> >
> > There are way too many people who are currently angry about this,
> > that, or the other thing to have any objectivity about Bush.
> >
> > People like me, in the VRWC, have plenty of reasons to Bash Bush, but
> > those reasons are mostly different than those of the Moonbat Left.
> >
> > While BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) is still alive and well amongst
> > the Liberals/Moonbats, there is no way to separate the wheat from the
> > chaff.
> > Hatred is an emotion, not reasoning.
> >
> > It's only with the benefit of 20-20 hindsight, maybe about 20 years
> > from now, that Bush's Presidency can be evaluated.
> >
> > Harry S. Truman is a case in point.
> > He was dismissed for quite a few years as a fool.
> > It was only when historians took a second look quite a few years
> > later, that he was upgraded.
> >
> > At the present time, you need only take a look at one Jimmy Carter to
> > see that Dubya is nowhere near being the worst president.
>
> Bush is so much worse than Carter. Bush has done so much harm to the
> country.
Yes, do not compare a president that did little to a president that did harm.
Any politician having anything to do with the Iraq war is dirty in my opinion.
It should have never happened and the collateral damage to our country is
immeasurable.
_______________________________________________________________
Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites - http://www.recpoker.com
|
| | | | | |
Date: 03 Dec 2006 00:59:35
From: Paul Popinjay
Subject: Re: OT: Worst President Ever
|
"Porsche_Dan" <43080932@recpoker.com > wrote in message
news:1165106629$915359@recpoker.com...
>
>
> Yes, do not compare a president that did little to a president that did
> harm.
> Any politician having anything to do with the Iraq war is dirty in my
> opinion.
> It should have never happened and the collateral damage to our country is
> immeasurable.
>
I am the biggest critic of Bush on RGP. But any of you who dismiss Carter
as someone who "did little", or who think he was just a naive peanut farmer,
are totally clueless to the real workings of politics. Of course, few of
you know that the same power group behind the scenes, the ones who gave us
Carter, are also the same people who gave us Bush. Bush Sr., and Baby Bush.
I'm speaking of the Trilateral Commission, the Skull & Bones crowd, the
people who are working to destroy our country. Most of you people still
think we have two parties at the national level. You are mistaken. But
this is all you people have known all your lives. There hasn't been a good
president since, well, not since Washington.
-Paul Popinjay
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 02 Dec 2006 18:50:44
From: I_AM_EVIL
Subject: Re: OT: Worst President Ever
|
On Dec 2 2006 7:59 PM, Paul Popinjay wrote:
> "Porsche_Dan" <43080932@recpoker.com> wrote in message
> news:1165106629$915359@recpoker.com...
> >
>
> >
> > Yes, do not compare a president that did little to a president that did
> > harm.
> > Any politician having anything to do with the Iraq war is dirty in my
> > opinion.
> > It should have never happened and the collateral damage to our country is
> > immeasurable.
> >
>
>
> I am the biggest critic of Bush on RGP. But any of you who dismiss Carter
> as someone who "did little", or who think he was just a naive peanut farmer,
> are totally clueless to the real workings of politics. Of course, few of
> you know that the same power group behind the scenes, the ones who gave us
> Carter, are also the same people who gave us Bush. Bush Sr., and Baby Bush.
> I'm speaking of the Trilateral Commission, the Skull & Bones crowd, the
> people who are working to destroy our country. Most of you people still
> think we have two parties at the national level. You are mistaken. But
> this is all you people have known all your lives. There hasn't been a good
> president since, well, not since Washington.
>
> -Paul Popinjay
Three words for you........
NEW WORLD ORDER!!!
The 2nd Amendment........America's TRUE Homeland Security.
--------
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 03 Dec 2006 03:07:45
From: Paul Popinjay
Subject: Re: OT: Worst President Ever
|
"I_AM_EVIL" <a1632@webnntp.invalid > wrote in message
news:4lq944xv7a.ln2@recgroups.com...
> Three words for you........
>
> NEW WORLD ORDER!!!
>
"Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective - a new world order - can
emerge.... We are now in sight of a United Nations that performs as
envisioned by its founders." - George Bush Sr., Sept. 11, 1990
"I think that what's at stake here is the new world order. What's at stake
here is wether we can have disputes peacefully resolved in the future by a
reinvigorated United Nations." - George Bush Sr., Jan. 7, 1991
"[The Gulf Crisis] has to do with a new world order. And that new world
order is only going to be enhanced if this newly activated peacekeeping
function of the United Nations proves to be effective." - George Bush Sr.,
Jan. 9, 1991
"When we are successful, and we will be, we have a real chance at this new
world order, an order in which a credible United Nations can use its
peacekeeping role to fulfill the promise and vision of the UN's founders." -
George Bush Sr., Jan.16, 1991
"In the Gulf, we saw the United Nations playing the role dreamed of by its
founders.... I hope history will record that the Gulf crisis was the
crucible of the new world order." - George Bush Sr., Aug. 1991
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 03 Dec 2006 03:38:27
From: William Coleman
Subject: Re: OT: Worst President Ever
|
"Paul Popinjay" <paulg123[nospam]@earthlink.net > wrote in message
news:5crch.62413$si3.62229@tornado.socal.rr.com...
: "I_AM_EVIL" <a1632@webnntp.invalid > wrote in message
: news:4lq944xv7a.ln2@recgroups.com...
:
: > Three words for you........
: >
: > NEW WORLD ORDER!!!
: >
:
:
: "Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective - a new world order -
can
: emerge.... We are now in sight of a United Nations that performs as
: envisioned by its founders." - George Bush Sr., Sept. 11, 1990
:
:
: "I think that what's at stake here is the new world order. What's at
stake
: here is wether we can have disputes peacefully resolved in the future by a
: reinvigorated United Nations." - George Bush Sr., Jan. 7, 1991
:
:
: "[The Gulf Crisis] has to do with a new world order. And that new world
: order is only going to be enhanced if this newly activated peacekeeping
: function of the United Nations proves to be effective." - George Bush
Sr.,
: Jan. 9, 1991
:
:
: "When we are successful, and we will be, we have a real chance at this new
: world order, an order in which a credible United Nations can use its
: peacekeeping role to fulfill the promise and vision of the UN's
founders." -
: George Bush Sr., Jan.16, 1991
:
:
: "In the Gulf, we saw the United Nations playing the role dreamed of by its
: founders.... I hope history will record that the Gulf crisis was the
: crucible of the new world order." - George Bush Sr., Aug. 1991
Please explain to me what is so great about the Old World Order.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 03 Dec 2006 04:08:00
From: Paul Popinjay
Subject: Re: OT: Worst President Ever
|
"William Coleman" <ramashiva@earthlink.net > wrote in message news:TErch.6713
>
> Please explain to me what is so great about the Old World Order.
>
Good question, as I would only expect a good question from you. But I can't
answer it. Maybe the answer is "nuthin is great about the OLD order." But
the NEW order they have in mind for us, is the most horrible thing one can
imagine. Afterall, if the Bush Crime Family is FOR the NWO, then it MUST be
something horrible.
And Ramashiva, I guarantee you that if they usher in the NWO, they are going
to close down Cheetahs. No more lap dances. Those BASTARDS!
-Paul Popinjay
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 02 Dec 2006 22:49:38
From: eleaticus
Subject: Re: OT: Worst President Ever
|
"Paul Popinjay" <paulg123[nospam]@earthlink.net > wrote in message
news:A4sch.42816$Fg.5785@tornado.socal.rr.com...
> "William Coleman" <ramashiva@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:TErch.6713
> >
> > Please explain to me what is so great about the Old World Order.
> >
>
>
> Good question, as I would only expect a good question from you.
I sure wish Wm/paul would stop masturbating in public.
--
eleaticus
ee-lee-AT-i-cus
eleaticus@bellsouth.net
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 03 Dec 2006 05:16:11
From: Paul Popinjay
Subject: Re: OT: Worst President Ever
|
"eleaticus" <eleaticus@bellsouth.net > wrote in message
news:fFsch.16052$SV4.11391@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>
> I sure wish Wm/paul would stop masturbating in public.
>
I hope you are not implying that either one of us is a limp-wristed,
ass-fucking, HIV-infected, faggot. Because we don't play that shit. Yes, I
have had dreams about Ramashiva, but never anything weird. I don't even
know what he looks like. But I have awaken at night in cold sweat after
terrorizing nightmares about what my imagination thinks the Angel of Death
looks like. It usually takes about six or seven days after my last toke of
PCP-laced Kool cigarettes before my brain is able to have dreams. During
that period, there is no dream activity at all. Usually, some of the first
dreams I have after a week are the most terrorizing, gradually tapering off
at about ten days. My friend Ricky, from Florence Barrio has been smoking
that shit since we were kids. Now he is regularly killing mutherfuckers
with no remorse.
Btw, you're a freek. You and Igotskillz are the two biggest freeks on this
newsgroup.
-Paul Popinjay
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 03 Dec 2006 04:50:42
From: William Coleman
Subject: Re: OT: Worst President Ever
|
"eleaticus" <eleaticus@bellsouth.net > wrote in message
news:fFsch.16052$SV4.11391@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
: "Paul Popinjay" <paulg123[nospam]@earthlink.net > wrote in message
: news:A4sch.42816$Fg.5785@tornado.socal.rr.com...
: > "William Coleman" <ramashiva@earthlink.net> wrote in message
: news:TErch.6713
: > >
: > > Please explain to me what is so great about the Old World Order.
: > >
: >
: >
: > Good question, as I would only expect a good question from you.
:
: I sure wish Wm/paul would stop masturbating in public.
Are you suggesting that one of us is the sock puppet of the other?
William Coleman (ramashiva)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 02 Dec 2006 23:37:32
From: eleaticus
Subject: Re: OT: Worst President Ever
|
"William Coleman" <ramashiva@earthlink.net > wrote in message
news:CIsch.6021$ql2.5640@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "eleaticus" <eleaticus@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:fFsch.16052$SV4.11391@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> : "Paul Popinjay" <paulg123[nospam]@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> : news:A4sch.42816$Fg.5785@tornado.socal.rr.com...
> : > "William Coleman" <ramashiva@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> : news:TErch.6713
> : > >
> : > > Please explain to me what is so great about the Old World Order.
> : > >
> : >
> : >
> : > Good question, as I would only expect a good question from you.
> :
> : I sure wish Wm/paul would stop masturbating in public.
>
> Are you suggesting that one of us is the sock puppet of the other?
Virgin Mary forefend!
--
eleaticus
ee-lee-AT-i-cus
eleaticus@bellsouth.net
>
>
> William Coleman (ramashiva)
>
>
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 03 Dec 2006 04:35:42
From: William Coleman
Subject: Re: OT: Worst President Ever
|
"Paul Popinjay" <paulg123[nospam]@earthlink.net > wrote in message
news:A4sch.42816$Fg.5785@tornado.socal.rr.com...
: "William Coleman" <ramashiva@earthlink.net > wrote in message
news:TErch.6713
: >
: > Please explain to me what is so great about the Old World Order.
: >
:
:
: Good question, as I would only expect a good question from you. But I
can't
: answer it. Maybe the answer is "nuthin is great about the OLD order."
But
: the NEW order they have in mind for us, is the most horrible thing one can
: imagine. Afterall, if the Bush Crime Family is FOR the NWO, then it MUST
be
: something horrible.
Well, I think the crux of the matter is the existing system of sovereign
nation states versus world government. It seems to me that sovereign nation
states became obsolete at Hiroshima. The way things are progressing, we
will probably have thirty or more countries with nuclear weapons within a
few decades.
Don't you see serious problems with that scenario? Especially if the worst
case scenarios of global warming and peak oil are happening at the same
time?
William Coleman (ramashiva)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 03 Dec 2006 04:59:09
From: Paul Popinjay
Subject: Re: OT: Worst President Ever
|
"William Coleman" <ramashiva@earthlink.net > wrote in message news:yusch.6016
>
> Well, I think the crux of the matter is the existing system of sovereign
> nation states versus world government. It seems to me that sovereign
> nation
> states became obsolete at Hiroshima. The way things are progressing, we
> will probably have thirty or more countries with nuclear weapons within a
> few decades.
>
> Don't you see serious problems with that scenario? Especially if the
> worst
> case scenarios of global warming and peak oil are happening at the same
> time?
>
I see problems with any scenario. But right now, I know I am free to drive
down to the liquor store if I want. And right now, we still enjoy a
Constitution. And right now, if the cops throw my ass in the county jail
for something, I get a speedy trial if I want and a jury of my peers. Of
course, that doesn't completely apply to someone like you. You cannot have
a jury of your peers. There cannot possibly be twelve people in Clark
County who are as smart as you. But still, I know right now that I have a
great deal of freedom, and I want to keep it that way. Bush and his fellow
partners in crime want to enslave us in tyranny.
-Paul Popinjay
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 03 Dec 2006 15:39:27
From: William Coleman
Subject: Re: OT: Worst President Ever
|
"Paul Popinjay" <paulg123[nospam]@earthlink.net > wrote in message
news:xQsch.62416$si3.5596@tornado.socal.rr.com...
: "William Coleman" <ramashiva@earthlink.net > wrote in message
news:yusch.6016
: >
: > Well, I think the crux of the matter is the existing system of sovereign
: > nation states versus world government. It seems to me that sovereign
: > nation
: > states became obsolete at Hiroshima. The way things are progressing, we
: > will probably have thirty or more countries with nuclear weapons within
a
: > few decades.
: >
: > Don't you see serious problems with that scenario? Especially if the
: > worst
: > case scenarios of global warming and peak oil are happening at the same
: > time?
: >
:
: I see problems with any scenario. But right now, I know I am free to
drive
: down to the liquor store if I want. And right now, we still enjoy a
: Constitution. And right now, if the cops throw my ass in the county jail
: for something, I get a speedy trial if I want and a jury of my peers. Of
: course, that doesn't completely apply to someone like you. You cannot
have
: a jury of your peers. There cannot possibly be twelve people in Clark
: County who are as smart as you. But still, I know right now that I have a
: great deal of freedom, and I want to keep it that way.
So do I. We are very fortunate to live in a country with so much freedom
and so much prosperity. However, this freedom and prosperity are very
fragile and could disappear overnight. All it will take is one more major
terrorist attack, which you know is coming. Then enough people will be
persuaded by jackbooted Nazis like Irish Mike and FL Turbo to give up all
our freedoms in the name of national security. Then the nightmare visions I
have been having since 9/11 of the USA becoming Nazi Germany redux will be
realized.
We are still not out of the woods, as the Bush Crime Family has two more
years in power. Who knows what these Nazi thugs will do to keep power? And
they are supported by about 30% of the population, who, like Irish Mike and
FL Turbo, are Islamophobic Nazi nutcases.
I see this threat as much more serious and real than any problems with
undocumented workers, the Amero, or the North American Union. In fact, I
don't see these as problems at all. You really need to take a step back and
examine closely your xenophobic hypernationalism, which causes you to see
threats where none exist, and to ignore threats which are very real.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 03 Dec 2006 16:58:14
From: Paul Popinjay
Subject: Re: OT: Worst President Ever
|
"William Coleman" <ramashiva@earthlink.net > wrote in message news:PcCch.6315
<snip >
>
> So do I. We are very fortunate to live in a country with so much freedom
> and so much prosperity. However, this freedom and prosperity are very
> fragile and could disappear overnight. All it will take is one more major
> terrorist attack, which you know is coming. Then enough people will be
> persuaded by jackbooted Nazis like Irish Mike and FL Turbo to give up all
> our freedoms in the name of national security. Then the nightmare visions
> I
> have been having since 9/11 of the USA becoming Nazi Germany redux will be
> realized.
>
> We are still not out of the woods, as the Bush Crime Family has two more
> years in power. Who knows what these Nazi thugs will do to keep power?
> And
> they are supported by about 30% of the population, who, like Irish Mike
> and
> FL Turbo, are Islamophobic Nazi nutcases.
>
> I see this threat as much more serious and real than any problems with
> undocumented workers, the Amero, or the North American Union. In fact, I
> don't see these as problems at all. You really need to take a step back
> and
> examine closely your xenophobic hypernationalism, which causes you to see
> threats where none exist, and to ignore threats which are very real.
>
I'm not afraid of undocumented workers. I'm afraid of exactly what you just
talked about. Bush and his partners in crime have left us open to attack on
purpose. They do want to make this like Nazi Germany. But it will be Nazi
North America. And Nazis like Fl Turbo and Irish Mike, those goose
stepping, Rush Limbaugh-listening to, Bush boot-lickers, will welcome the
new 'reich' with open arms. They are completely blinded by foolish
republican loyalty. When trying to tell them that Bush the Emperor is not
wearing any clothes, all they can repeat is that Clinton got a blowjob.
Nazis like Fl Turbo and Irish Mike and DP/Wuz/Luv are mistakingly
Islamophobic, when the real enemy is currently at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
The move toward a North American Union is part of the steps that Bush and
his fellow criminals are putting in place exactly so they can completely
destroy our freedom and prosperity overnight, like you said above, under the
guise of 'protecting us' against any further attacks. Do you think the
so-called Patriot Act has anything really to do with making America safe? I
don't THINK so. Only jack-booted Nazis like Fl Turbo and Irish Mike and
DP/Wuz/Luv believe such republican lies.
-Paul Popinjay
|
| | | | |
Date: 03 Dec 2006 06:52:10
From: FL Turbo
Subject: Re: OT: Worst President Ever
|
On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 22:43:17 GMT, "pokerchimp" <mixthing@se.rr.com >
wrote:
>>"FL Turbo" <noemail@notime.com> wrote in message
>>news:rid3n2ldvclfoiljjlc5k8ddnnkemkmopc@4ax.com...
>> At the present time, you need only take a look at one Jimmy Carter to
>> see that Dubya is nowhere near being the worst president.
>
>Bush is so much worse than Carter. Bush has done so much harm to the
>country.
>
Carter is the gift that keeps on giving.
He has written a book filled with misrepresentations and downright
lies.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=25776
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carter’s Calumny
By Mitchell Bard
FrontPageMagazine.com
|
| | | | | |
Date: 03 Dec 2006 14:58:05
From: pokerchimp
Subject: Re: OT: Worst President Ever
|
Well, this is a little upsetting to me and I am too tired to really read the
whole thing, so I'll have to come back to it later.
My cousin, who is now the mayor of Teaneck NJ, was a very active part of
Carter's campaign. In fact he slept at her home. She is pretty close to
being an orthodox jew. I know she is Kosher and goes to temple on Friday
nights and Saturdays. Carter was the first president I voted for.
Like I said, I will have to read up on it when I am less tired. My view of
him has always been that while he wasn't the greatest president, he was at
least a fine human being.
"FL Turbo" <noemail@notime.com > wrote in message
news:g0i5n2127krqslg14othb17vqhtdfac7p5@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 22:43:17 GMT, "pokerchimp" <mixthing@se.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>>"FL Turbo" <noemail@notime.com> wrote in message
>>>news:rid3n2ldvclfoiljjlc5k8ddnnkemkmopc@4ax.com...
>
>>> At the present time, you need only take a look at one Jimmy Carter to
>>> see that Dubya is nowhere near being the worst president.
>>
>>Bush is so much worse than Carter. Bush has done so much harm to the
>>country.
>>
>
> Carter is the gift that keeps on giving.
> He has written a book filled with misrepresentations and downright
> lies.
>
> http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=25776
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Carter's Calumny
> By Mitchell Bard
> FrontPageMagazine.com
|
| | | | |
Date: 04 Dec 2006 14:18:12
From: Howard Treesong
Subject: Re: OT: Worst President Ever
|
Coleman:
> : I sure wish Wm/paul would stop masturbating in public.
>
> Are you suggesting that one of us is the sock puppet of the other?
I for one do NOT wish to know the precise meaning of "sock puppet" in
this context.
-Howard Treesong
|
| | |
Date: 02 Dec 2006 17:37:02
From: William Coleman
Subject: Re: OT: Worst President Ever
|
"John A. Fish" <jrh@horsecreek.homeip.net > wrote in message
news:4571B120.3060506@horsecreek.homeip.net...
: While I agree with the conclusion, this article is laughably bad and
: riddled with errors in reasoning.
Point one out.
: I find it amusing that the author's
: largest paragraph is devoted to mistreatment of detainees.
You have serious problems in reading comprehension. The paragraph to which
you refer starts out --
"Bush has taken this disdain for law even further. He has sought to strip
people accused of crimes of rights that date as far back as the Magna Carta
in Anglo-American jurisprudence: trial by impartial jury, access to lawyers
and knowledge of evidence against them."
That doesn't refer to detainees. Only the second half of that paragraph
refers to detainees.
: Are we talking about Abu Gharab or Gitmo?
What difference does that make? Severe prisoner abuse occurred at both
locations.
: He doesn't say. So this is the main
: reason why Bush is the worst POTUS ever?
Nice strawman argument. The entire article went completely over your head.
The author discussed several bad Presidents and the reasons why historians
consider them bad Presidents. His point was that Bush is worse than each of
these bad Presidents in their specialized area of badness.
: Come on. He also mentions
: reasons like misleading the country on the war
Which he has done and continues to do.
: and being insensitive to world opinion
Which he is, to the long term detriment of this country.
: and not keeping a diary.
Still another strawman argument. Please take a remedial reading course.
The author did not criticize Bush for not keeping a diary.
: What is it with you liberals anyway?
Huh? Amazing that you somehow turn this article into a pretext for bashing
liberals.
: Well, at least there is no mention of "Katrina."
Again, the article went completely over your head. There is no historical
parallel for the bungling of Katrina.
: Bush IS the worst ever! And I say this as someone who voted for him
: twice. But this article does not get close to articulating the reasons.
Maybe not your reasons. You are an obvious historical illiterate with
severe reading comprehension problems.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
|
| |
Date: 02 Dec 2006 08:59:07
From: Olemite
Subject: Re: OT: Worst President Ever
|
I voted for Gore so I can't argue with that. But if Kerry can't beat
the worst president of the US ever than you can't argue that he
would've been better. After all he voted for the war before he voted
against it, and he is completely out of touch with the American people
including himself.
I'd also like you to cite specific examples of how Satan would have
reformed health care, social secuity, and improved our situation in
Iraq.
Ole
William Coleman wrote:
> "Olemite" <msolson14@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1165077950.604310.303940@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
> : Yes. He may very well be the worst ever, but the Democrats didn't come
> : up with anybody better.
>
> Huh? Satan himself would have been better. You seriously do not understand
> just how bad Bush is. Both Gore and Kerry would have done far less damage
> to this country.
>
>
> William Coleman (ramashiva)
|
| | |
Date: 02 Dec 2006 14:15:53
From: A Man Beaten by Jacks
Subject: Re: OT: Worst President Ever
|
On 2 Dec 2006 08:59:07 -0800, "Olemite" <msolson14@yahoo.com > wrote:
>I'd also like you to cite specific examples of how Satan would have
>reformed health care, social secuity, and improved our situation in
>Iraq.
As a politician, Satan would beat the current crops of idiots in American
politics hollow, or for that matter, the idiots anywhere.
|
| | |
Date: 02 Dec 2006 17:08:46
From: William Coleman
Subject: Re: OT: Worst President Ever
|
"Olemite" <msolson14@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1165078747.382563.86290@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
:I voted for Gore so I can't argue with that. But if Kerry can't beat
: the worst president of the US ever than you can't argue that he
: would've been better.
Huh? Because Kerry lost the election, I can't argue he would have been a
better President? Logic isn't your strong suit, is it?
: After all he voted for the war before he voted against it,
Kerry never voted for the war. Voting to authorize the use of force is not
the same as voting to go to war.
: and he is completely out of touch with the American people
: including himself.
This is a fact-free meaningless statement.
: I'd also like you to cite specific examples of how Satan would have
: reformed health care,
Universal single payer health care.
: social secuity,
Social Security doesn't need reforming.
: and improved our situation in Iraq.
Declare victory and leave.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
|
| |
Date: 02 Dec 2006 08:45:50
From: Olemite
Subject: Re: OT: Worst President Ever
|
Yes. He may very well be the worst ever, but the Democrats didn't come
up with anybody better. Where are all the good American Presidents
hiding?
Ole
Porsche_Dan wrote:
> Agreed. Worst 8 years ever.
>
> On Dec 2 2006 10:23 AM, William Coleman wrote:
>
> > Eric Foner, Professor of History at Columbia University, states the
> > obvious --
> >
> > George W. Bush is the worst President in the history of the United States of
> > America.
> >
> >
> > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/01/AR20061201015
> > 09.html
> >
> >
> > He's The Worst Ever
> >
> >
> > By Eric Foner
> >
> >
> > Sunday, December 3, 2006; B01
> >
> >
> >
> > Ever since 1948, when Harvard professor Arthur Schlesinger Sr. asked 55
> > historians to rank U.S. presidents on a scale from "great" to "failure,"
> > such polls have been a favorite pastime for those of us who study the
> > American past.
> >
> > Changes in presidential rankings reflect shifts in how we view history. When
> > the first poll was taken, the Reconstruction era that followed the Civil War
> > was regarded as a time of corruption and misgovernment caused by granting
> > black men the right to vote. As a result, President Andrew Johnson, a
> > fervent white supremacist who opposed efforts to extend basic rights to
> > former slaves, was rated "near great." Today, by contrast, scholars consider
> > Reconstruction a flawed but noble attempt to build an interracial democracy
> > from the ashes of slavery -- and Johnson a flat failure.
> >
> > More often, however, the rankings display a remarkable year-to-year
> > uniformity. Abraham Lincoln, George Washington and Franklin D. Roosevelt
> > always figure in the "great" category. Most presidents are ranked "average"
> > or, to put it less charitably, mediocre. Johnson, Franklin Pierce, James
> > Buchanan, Warren G. Harding, Calvin Coolidge and Richard M. Nixon occupy the
> > bottom rung, and now President Bush is a leading contender to join them. A
> > look at history, as well as Bush's policies, explains why.
> >
> > At a time of national crisis, Pierce and Buchanan, who served in the eight
> > years preceding the Civil War, and Johnson, who followed it, were simply not
> > up to the job. Stubborn, narrow-minded, unwilling to listen to criticism or
> > to consider alternatives to disastrous mistakes, they surrounded themselves
> > with sycophants and shaped their policies to appeal to retrogressive
> > political forces (in that era, pro-slavery and racist ideologues). Even
> > after being repudiated in the midterm elections of 1854, 1858 and 1866,
> > respectively, they ignored major currents of public opinion and clung to
> > flawed policies. Bush's presidency certainly brings theirs to mind.
> >
> > Harding and Coolidge are best remembered for the corruption of their years
> > in office (1921-23 and 1923-29, respectively) and for channeling money and
> > favors to big business. They slashed income and corporate taxes and
> > supported employers' campaigns to eliminate unions. Members of their
> > administrations received kickbacks and bribes from lobbyists and
> > businessmen. "Never before, here or anywhere else," declared the Wall Street
> > Journal, "has a government been so completely fused with business." The
> > Journal could hardly have anticipated the even worse cronyism, corruption
> > and pro-business bias of the Bush administration.
> >
> > Despite some notable accomplishments in domestic and foreign policy, Nixon
> > is mostly associated today with disdain for the Constitution and abuse of
> > presidential power. Obsessed with secrecy and media leaks, he viewed every
> > critic as a threat to national security and illegally spied on U.S.
> > citizens. Nixon considered himself above the law.
> >
> > Bush has taken this disdain for law even further. He has sought to strip
> > people accused of crimes of rights that date as far back as the Magna Carta
> > in Anglo-American jurisprudence: trial by impartial jury, access to lawyers
> > and knowledge of evidence against them. In dozens of statements when signing
> > legislation, he has asserted the right to ignore the parts of laws with
> > which he disagrees. His administration has adopted policies regarding the
> > treatment of prisoners of war that have disgraced the nation and alienated
> > virtually the entire world. Usually, during wartime, the Supreme Court has
> > refrained from passing judgment on presidential actions related to national
> > defense. The court's unprecedented rebukes of Bush's policies on detainees
> > indicate how far the administration has strayed from the rule of law.
> >
> > One other president bears comparison to Bush: James K. Polk. Some historians
> > admire him, in part because he made their job easier by keeping a detailed
> > diary during his administration, which spanned the years of the
> > Mexican-American War. But Polk should be remembered primarily for launching
> > that unprovoked attack on Mexico and seizing one-third of its territory for
> > the United States.
> >
> > Lincoln, then a member of Congress from Illinois, condemned Polk for
> > misleading Congress and the public about the cause of the war -- an alleged
> > Mexican incursion into the United States. Accepting the president's right to
> > attack another country "whenever he shall deem it necessary," Lincoln
> > observed, would make it impossible to "fix any limit" to his power to make
> > war. Today, one wishes that the country had heeded Lincoln's warning.
> >
> > Historians are loath to predict the future. It is impossible to say with
> > certainty how Bush will be ranked in, say, 2050. But somehow, in his first
> > six years in office he has managed to combine the lapses of leadership,
> > misguided policies and abuse of power of his failed predecessors. I think
> > there is no alternative but to rank him as the worst president in U.S.
> > history.
> >
> >
> >
> > William Coleman (ramashiva)
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________________________
> Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
|
| | |
Date: 02 Dec 2006 10:50:54
From: DaVoice
Subject: Re: OT: Worst President Ever
|
"Olemite" <msolson14@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1165077950.604310.303940@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
> Yes. He may very well be the worst ever, but the Democrats didn't come
> up with anybody better. Where are all the good American Presidents
> hiding?
Definitely not in the Senate. As I stated in 2000 and 2004 on this very ng,
"No sitting Senator has been elected President since 1960, and that election
was so crooked we'll never know who really won it".
Senators have records they can't hide from. Every vote on every issue.
Senators are generally not "Management" or "Executive" types, as are
Governors. Due to special interest, Union, and PAC money Senators are
generally "in the pocket" of someone, and some of those "someones" are
undesirables like the ones who owned Kennedy, and when he turned on them,
look what happened to him!
Obama may be the media darling at the moment, but there is no way he'll get
the Dem nomination. Despite what they "say" the Dems have never done well
with putting minorites up for National office on the head of a ticket. The
one thing the Bush administration CAN boast about is the diversity of the
cabinet and appointments he has made during his tenure. More females,
hispanics, and blacks in positions of power than any other adminstration.
I could easily vote for a woman or a black person for President, if they
were the best choice, but I don't think we'll be given that choice in the
next two decades. Race relations in this country are still a major factor
whether we'd like to admit it or not.
Rick "DaVoice" Charles
|
| | | |
Date: 02 Dec 2006 19:12:50
From: William Coleman
Subject: Re: OT: Worst President Ever
|
"DaVoice" <davoicergp@cox.net > wrote in message
news:aWjch.49880$4Z1.21607@newsfe09.phx...
:
: "Olemite" <msolson14@yahoo.com > wrote in message
: news:1165077950.604310.303940@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
: > Yes. He may very well be the worst ever, but the Democrats didn't come
: > up with anybody better. Where are all the good American Presidents
: > hiding?
:
: Definitely not in the Senate. As I stated in 2000 and 2004 on this very
ng,
: "No sitting Senator has been elected President since 1960, and that
election
: was so crooked we'll never know who really won it".
:
: Senators have records they can't hide from. Every vote on every issue.
: Senators are generally not "Management" or "Executive" types, as are
: Governors. Due to special interest, Union, and PAC money Senators are
: generally "in the pocket" of someone, and some of those "someones" are
: undesirables like the ones who owned Kennedy, and when he turned on them,
: look what happened to him!
:
: Obama may be the media darling at the moment, but there is no way he'll
get
: the Dem nomination. Despite what they "say" the Dems have never done well
: with putting minorites up for National office on the head of a ticket.
The
: one thing the Bush administration CAN boast about is the diversity of the
: cabinet and appointments he has made during his tenure. More females,
: hispanics, and blacks in positions of power than any other adminstration.
As usual, Rick, you are full of shit and do not know what you are talking
about --
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/07/AR2006050700731.html
William Coleman (ramashiva)
|
| | | |
Date: 02 Dec 2006 13:04:08
From: FL Turbo
Subject: Re: OT: Worst President Ever
|
On Sat, 2 Dec 2006 10:50:54 -0800, "DaVoice" <davoicergp@cox.net >
wrote:
>
>"Olemite" <msolson14@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1165077950.604310.303940@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
>> Yes. He may very well be the worst ever, but the Democrats didn't come
>> up with anybody better. Where are all the good American Presidents
>> hiding?
>
>Definitely not in the Senate. As I stated in 2000 and 2004 on this very ng,
>"No sitting Senator has been elected President since 1960, and that election
>was so crooked we'll never know who really won it".
>
>Senators have records they can't hide from. Every vote on every issue.
>Senators are generally not "Management" or "Executive" types, as are
>Governors. Due to special interest, Union, and PAC money Senators are
>generally "in the pocket" of someone, and some of those "someones" are
>undesirables like the ones who owned Kennedy, and when he turned on them,
>look what happened to him!
>
>Obama may be the media darling at the moment, but there is no way he'll get
>the Dem nomination. Despite what they "say" the Dems have never done well
>with putting minorites up for National office on the head of a ticket. The
>one thing the Bush administration CAN boast about is the diversity of the
>cabinet and appointments he has made during his tenure. More females,
>hispanics, and blacks in positions of power than any other adminstration.
>
>I could easily vote for a woman or a black person for President, if they
>were the best choice, but I don't think we'll be given that choice in the
>next two decades. Race relations in this country are still a major factor
>whether we'd like to admit it or not.
>
>Rick "DaVoice" Charles
>
The reason that Obama should not be considered for the Presidency is
that he is only 2 years into his first term as a Senator.
Leave the race baiting to the Democrats.
|
| | |
Date: 02 Dec 2006 16:52:22
From: William Coleman
Subject: Re: OT: Worst President Ever
|
"Olemite" <msolson14@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1165077950.604310.303940@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
: Yes. He may very well be the worst ever, but the Democrats didn't come
: up with anybody better.
Huh? Satan himself would have been better. You seriously do not understand
just how bad Bush is. Both Gore and Kerry would have done far less damage
to this country.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
|
| | | |
Date: 05 Dec 2006 01:31:05
From: Travel
Subject: Re: OT: Worst President Ever
|
William Coleman;1002698 Wrote:
> "Olemite" <msolson14@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1165077950.604310.303940@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
> : Yes. He may very well be the worst ever, but the Democrats didn't
> come
> : up with anybody better.
>
> Huh? Satan himself would have been better. You seriously do not
> understand
> just how bad Bush is. Both Gore and Kerry would have done far less
> damage
> to this country.
>
>
> William Coleman (ramashiva)
From a conservatives point of view, Bush has been an abject
disappointment.
This was to be expected, but he was the Repubican with all the money
and political connections. And who had a choice?
The funy part is, he's an ineffective president because he's, as Bush
Sr., too liberal. In fact, they may be actual liberals.
Both Sr. and Jr surrounded themselves with the enemy (liberals) Jr.
left a Clinton appointee holdover in, of all places, the CIA. Christy
Todd Whitman, EPA,, Powell, State, a sampling, the list is endless.
Jr., following in Sr's footsteps, tried to sneak a liberal onto the
Supreme Court by appointing his (lol!) personal lawyer. (ya, ya know,
like Souter, "no one knows where she stands on the issues, so she's
okay") He knew damn well, as did Sr., where these people stood on "the
issues".
What happened to affirmative action, flat tax? Not a fricken peep out
of the Bushes.
Now, we have the kinder gentler war in Iraq to appease the liberals and
to make Geraldo happy on the front lines giving away U.S. positions and
making a fool of himself.
In Grenada, the great President Ronald Reagan didn't even let the
communist American media know there WAS a war, (LOL!) and he kicked ass
and got the job done.
Yes, Jr. is not a very good President. He's governed practically as Al
Gore or John Kerry would have governed.
--
Travel
- http://www.pokerhelper.com RGP Access News Forums -
|
| | |
Date: 02 Dec 22:25:30
From: Bryan Kimmes
Subject: Re: OT: Worst President Ever
|
On Dec 2 2006 10:45 AM, Olemite wrote:
> Yes. He may very well be the worst ever, but the Democrats didn't come
> up with anybody better. Where are all the good American Presidents
> hiding?
>
> Ole
In North Dakota, his name is Kent Conrad.
Bryan
>
> Porsche_Dan wrote:
> > Agreed. Worst 8 years ever.
> >
> > On Dec 2 2006 10:23 AM, William Coleman wrote:
> >
> > > Eric Foner, Professor of History at Columbia University, states the
> > > obvious --
> > >
> > > George W. Bush is the worst President in the history of the United States
> > > of
> > > America.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/01
> > > /AR20061201015
> > > 09.html
> > >
> > >
> > > He's The Worst Ever
> > >
> > >
> > > By Eric Foner
> > >
> > >
> > > Sunday, December 3, 2006; B01
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Ever since 1948, when Harvard professor Arthur Schlesinger Sr. asked 55
> > > historians to rank U.S. presidents on a scale from "great" to "failure,"
> > > such polls have been a favorite pastime for those of us who study the
> > > American past.
> > >
> > > Changes in presidential rankings reflect shifts in how we view history.
> > > When
> > > the first poll was taken, the Reconstruction era that followed the Civil
> > > War
> > > was regarded as a time of corruption and misgovernment caused by granting
> > > black men the right to vote. As a result, President Andrew Johnson, a
> > > fervent white supremacist who opposed efforts to extend basic rights to
> > > former slaves, was rated "near great." Today, by contrast, scholars
> > > consider
> > > Reconstruction a flawed but noble attempt to build an interracial
> > > democracy
> > > from the ashes of slavery -- and Johnson a flat failure.
> > >
> > > More often, however, the rankings display a remarkable year-to-year
> > > uniformity. Abraham Lincoln, George Washington and Franklin D. Roosevelt
> > > always figure in the "great" category. Most presidents are ranked
> > > "average"
> > > or, to put it less charitably, mediocre. Johnson, Franklin Pierce, James
> > > Buchanan, Warren G. Harding, Calvin Coolidge and Richard M. Nixon occupy
> > > the
> > > bottom rung, and now President Bush is a leading contender to join them. A
> > > look at history, as well as Bush's policies, explains why.
> > >
> > > At a time of national crisis, Pierce and Buchanan, who served in the eight
> > > years preceding the Civil War, and Johnson, who followed it, were simply
> > > not
> > > up to the job. Stubborn, narrow-minded, unwilling to listen to criticism
> > > or
> > > to consider alternatives to disastrous mistakes, they surrounded
> > > themselves
> > > with sycophants and shaped their policies to appeal to retrogressive
> > > political forces (in that era, pro-slavery and racist ideologues). Even
> > > after being repudiated in the midterm elections of 1854, 1858 and 1866,
> > > respectively, they ignored major currents of public opinion and clung to
> > > flawed policies. Bush's presidency certainly brings theirs to mind.
> > >
> > > Harding and Coolidge are best remembered for the corruption of their years
> > > in office (1921-23 and 1923-29, respectively) and for channeling money and
> > > favors to big business. They slashed income and corporate taxes and
> > > supported employers' campaigns to eliminate unions. Members of their
> > > administrations received kickbacks and bribes from lobbyists and
> > > businessmen. "Never before, here or anywhere else," declared the Wall
> > > Street
> > > Journal, "has a government been so completely fused with business." The
> > > Journal could hardly have anticipated the even worse cronyism, corruption
> > > and pro-business bias of the Bush administration.
> > >
> > > Despite some notable accomplishments in domestic and foreign policy, Nixon
> > > is mostly associated today with disdain for the Constitution and abuse of
> > > presidential power. Obsessed with secrecy and media leaks, he viewed every
> > > critic as a threat to national security and illegally spied on U.S.
> > > citizens. Nixon considered himself above the law.
> > >
> > > Bush has taken this disdain for law even further. He has sought to strip
> > > people accused of crimes of rights that date as far back as the Magna
> > > Carta
> > > in Anglo-American jurisprudence: trial by impartial jury, access to
> > > lawyers
> > > and knowledge of evidence against them. In dozens of statements when
> > > signing
> > > legislation, he has asserted the right to ignore the parts of laws with
> > > which he disagrees. His administration has adopted policies regarding the
> > > treatment of prisoners of war that have disgraced the nation and alienated
> > > virtually the entire world. Usually, during wartime, the Supreme Court has
> > > refrained from passing judgment on presidential actions related to
> > > national
> > > defense. The court's unprecedented rebukes of Bush's policies on detainees
> > > indicate how far the administration has strayed from the rule of law.
> > >
> > > One other president bears comparison to Bush: James K. Polk. Some
> > > historians
> > > admire him, in part because he made their job easier by keeping a detailed
> > > diary during his administration, which spanned the years of the
> > > Mexican-American War. But Polk should be remembered primarily for
> > > launching
> > > that unprovoked attack on Mexico and seizing one-third of its territory
> > > for
> > > the United States.
> > >
> > > Lincoln, then a member of Congress from Illinois, condemned Polk for
> > > misleading Congress and the public about the cause of the war -- an
> > > alleged
> > > Mexican incursion into the United States. Accepting the president's right
> > > to
> > > attack another country "whenever he shall deem it necessary," Lincoln
> > > observed, would make it impossible to "fix any limit" to his power to make
> > > war. Today, one wishes that the country had heeded Lincoln's warning.
> > >
> > > Historians are loath to predict the future. It is impossible to say with
> > > certainty how Bush will be ranked in, say, 2050. But somehow, in his first
> > > six years in office he has managed to combine the lapses of leadership,
> > > misguided policies and abuse of power of his failed predecessors. I think
> > > there is no alternative but to rank him as the worst president in U.S.
> > > history.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > William Coleman (ramashiva)
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________________________
> > Your Online Poker Community - /
_______________________________________________________________
The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
|
| |
Date: 02 Dec 2006 16:30:59
From: Paul Popinjay
Subject: Re: Worst President Ever
|
I was reading something I have saved on my computer the other day. I will
post this some day. It is a column by a prominent conservative talk show
host in the Los Angeles area on KABC. It is a few months old. He goes on
to apologize for ever supporting Bush. And he concludes in saying that he
thinks Bush may well be the WORST president ever.
I may post that later.
-Paul Popinjay
"William Coleman" <ramashiva@earthlink.net > wrote in message
news:LLhch.5661$sf5.2305@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Eric Foner, Professor of History at Columbia University, states the
> obvious --
>
> George W. Bush is the worst President in the history of the United States
> of
> America.
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/01/AR2006120101509.html
>
>
> He's The Worst Ever
>
>
> By Eric Foner
>
>
> Sunday, December 3, 2006; B01
>
>
>
> Ever since 1948, when Harvard professor Arthur Schlesinger Sr. asked 55
> historians to rank U.S. presidents on a scale from "great" to "failure,"
> such polls have been a favorite pastime for those of us who study the
> American past.
>
> Changes in presidential rankings reflect shifts in how we view history.
> When
> the first poll was taken, the Reconstruction era that followed the Civil
> War
> was regarded as a time of corruption and misgovernment caused by granting
> black men the right to vote. As a result, President Andrew Johnson, a
> fervent white supremacist who opposed efforts to extend basic rights to
> former slaves, was rated "near great." Today, by contrast, scholars
> consider
> Reconstruction a flawed but noble attempt to build an interracial
> democracy
> from the ashes of slavery -- and Johnson a flat failure.
>
> More often, however, the rankings display a remarkable year-to-year
> uniformity. Abraham Lincoln, George Washington and Franklin D. Roosevelt
> always figure in the "great" category. Most presidents are ranked
> "average"
> or, to put it less charitably, mediocre. Johnson, Franklin Pierce, James
> Buchanan, Warren G. Harding, Calvin Coolidge and Richard M. Nixon occupy
> the
> bottom rung, and now President Bush is a leading contender to join them. A
> look at history, as well as Bush's policies, explains why.
>
> At a time of national crisis, Pierce and Buchanan, who served in the eight
> years preceding the Civil War, and Johnson, who followed it, were simply
> not
> up to the job. Stubborn, narrow-minded, unwilling to listen to criticism
> or
> to consider alternatives to disastrous mistakes, they surrounded
> themselves
> with sycophants and shaped their policies to appeal to retrogressive
> political forces (in that era, pro-slavery and racist ideologues). Even
> after being repudiated in the midterm elections of 1854, 1858 and 1866,
> respectively, they ignored major currents of public opinion and clung to
> flawed policies. Bush's presidency certainly brings theirs to mind.
>
> Harding and Coolidge are best remembered for the corruption of their years
> in office (1921-23 and 1923-29, respectively) and for channeling money and
> favors to big business. They slashed income and corporate taxes and
> supported employers' campaigns to eliminate unions. Members of their
> administrations received kickbacks and bribes from lobbyists and
> businessmen. "Never before, here or anywhere else," declared the Wall
> Street
> Journal, "has a government been so completely fused with business." The
> Journal could hardly have anticipated the even worse cronyism, corruption
> and pro-business bias of the Bush administration.
>
> Despite some notable accomplishments in domestic and foreign policy, Nixon
> is mostly associated today with disdain for the Constitution and abuse of
> presidential power. Obsessed with secrecy and media leaks, he viewed every
> critic as a threat to national security and illegally spied on U.S.
> citizens. Nixon considered himself above the law.
>
> Bush has taken this disdain for law even further. He has sought to strip
> people accused of crimes of rights that date as far back as the Magna
> Carta
> in Anglo-American jurisprudence: trial by impartial jury, access to
> lawyers
> and knowledge of evidence against them. In dozens of statements when
> signing
> legislation, he has asserted the right to ignore the parts of laws with
> which he disagrees. His administration has adopted policies regarding the
> treatment of prisoners of war that have disgraced the nation and alienated
> virtually the entire world. Usually, during wartime, the Supreme Court has
> refrained from passing judgment on presidential actions related to
> national
> defense. The court's unprecedented rebukes of Bush's policies on detainees
> indicate how far the administration has strayed from the rule of law.
>
> One other president bears comparison to Bush: James K. Polk. Some
> historians
> admire him, in part because he made their job easier by keeping a detailed
> diary during his administration, which spanned the years of the
> Mexican-American War. But Polk should be remembered primarily for
> launching
> that unprovoked attack on Mexico and seizing one-third of its territory
> for
> the United States.
>
> Lincoln, then a member of Congress from Illinois, condemned Polk for
> misleading Congress and the public about the cause of the war -- an
> alleged
> Mexican incursion into the United States. Accepting the president's right
> to
> attack another country "whenever he shall deem it necessary," Lincoln
> observed, would make it impossible to "fix any limit" to his power to make
> war. Today, one wishes that the country had heeded Lincoln's warning.
>
> Historians are loath to predict the future. It is impossible to say with
> certainty how Bush will be ranked in, say, 2050. But somehow, in his first
> six years in office he has managed to combine the lapses of leadership,
> misguided policies and abuse of power of his failed predecessors. I think
> there is no alternative but to rank him as the worst president in U.S.
> history.
>
>
>
> William Coleman (ramashiva)
>
>
>
>
|
| |
Date: 02 Dec 16:25:07
From: Porsche_Dan
Subject: Re: OT: Worst President Ever
|
Agreed. Worst 8 years ever.
On Dec 2 2006 10:23 AM, William Coleman wrote:
> Eric Foner, Professor of History at Columbia University, states the
> obvious --
>
> George W. Bush is the worst President in the history of the United States of
> America.
>
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/01/AR20061201015
> 09.html
>
>
> He's The Worst Ever
>
>
> By Eric Foner
>
>
> Sunday, December 3, 2006; B01
>
>
>
> Ever since 1948, when Harvard professor Arthur Schlesinger Sr. asked 55
> historians to rank U.S. presidents on a scale from "great" to "failure,"
> such polls have been a favorite pastime for those of us who study the
> American past.
>
> Changes in presidential rankings reflect shifts in how we view history. When
> the first poll was taken, the Reconstruction era that followed the Civil War
> was regarded as a time of corruption and misgovernment caused by granting
> black men the right to vote. As a result, President Andrew Johnson, a
> fervent white supremacist who opposed efforts to extend basic rights to
> former slaves, was rated "near great." Today, by contrast, scholars consider
> Reconstruction a flawed but noble attempt to build an interracial democracy
> from the ashes of slavery -- and Johnson a flat failure.
>
> More often, however, the rankings display a remarkable year-to-year
> uniformity. Abraham Lincoln, George Washington and Franklin D. Roosevelt
> always figure in the "great" category. Most presidents are ranked "average"
> or, to put it less charitably, mediocre. Johnson, Franklin Pierce, James
> Buchanan, Warren G. Harding, Calvin Coolidge and Richard M. Nixon occupy the
> bottom rung, and now President Bush is a leading contender to join them. A
> look at history, as well as Bush's policies, explains why.
>
> At a time of national crisis, Pierce and Buchanan, who served in the eight
> years preceding the Civil War, and Johnson, who followed it, were simply not
> up to the job. Stubborn, narrow-minded, unwilling to listen to criticism or
> to consider alternatives to disastrous mistakes, they surrounded themselves
> with sycophants and shaped their policies to appeal to retrogressive
> political forces (in that era, pro-slavery and racist ideologues). Even
> after being repudiated in the midterm elections of 1854, 1858 and 1866,
> respectively, they ignored major currents of public opinion and clung to
> flawed policies. Bush's presidency certainly brings theirs to mind.
>
> Harding and Coolidge are best remembered for the corruption of their years
> in office (1921-23 and 1923-29, respectively) and for channeling money and
> favors to big business. They slashed income and corporate taxes and
> supported employers' campaigns to eliminate unions. Members of their
> administrations received kickbacks and bribes from lobbyists and
> businessmen. "Never before, here or anywhere else," declared the Wall Street
> Journal, "has a government been so completely fused with business." The
> Journal could hardly have anticipated the even worse cronyism, corruption
> and pro-business bias of the Bush administration.
>
> Despite some notable accomplishments in domestic and foreign policy, Nixon
> is mostly associated today with disdain for the Constitution and abuse of
> presidential power. Obsessed with secrecy and media leaks, he viewed every
> critic as a threat to national security and illegally spied on U.S.
> citizens. Nixon considered himself above the law.
>
> Bush has taken this disdain for law even further. He has sought to strip
> people accused of crimes of rights that date as far back as the Magna Carta
> in Anglo-American jurisprudence: trial by impartial jury, access to lawyers
> and knowledge of evidence against them. In dozens of statements when signing
> legislation, he has asserted the right to ignore the parts of laws with
> which he disagrees. His administration has adopted policies regarding the
> treatment of prisoners of war that have disgraced the nation and alienated
> virtually the entire world. Usually, during wartime, the Supreme Court has
> refrained from passing judgment on presidential actions related to national
> defense. The court's unprecedented rebukes of Bush's policies on detainees
> indicate how far the administration has strayed from the rule of law.
>
> One other president bears comparison to Bush: James K. Polk. Some historians
> admire him, in part because he made their job easier by keeping a detailed
> diary during his administration, which spanned the years of the
> Mexican-American War. But Polk should be remembered primarily for launching
> that unprovoked attack on Mexico and seizing one-third of its territory for
> the United States.
>
> Lincoln, then a member of Congress from Illinois, condemned Polk for
> misleading Congress and the public about the cause of the war -- an alleged
> Mexican incursion into the United States. Accepting the president's right to
> attack another country "whenever he shall deem it necessary," Lincoln
> observed, would make it impossible to "fix any limit" to his power to make
> war. Today, one wishes that the country had heeded Lincoln's warning.
>
> Historians are loath to predict the future. It is impossible to say with
> certainty how Bush will be ranked in, say, 2050. But somehow, in his first
> six years in office he has managed to combine the lapses of leadership,
> misguided policies and abuse of power of his failed predecessors. I think
> there is no alternative but to rank him as the worst president in U.S.
> history.
>
>
>
> William Coleman (ramashiva)
_______________________________________________________________
Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
|
| | |
Date: 02 Dec 2006 08:36:43
From: igotskillz com
Subject: Re: OT: Worst President Ever
|
Why ? because he let Al Queda move in next door to me ?
Oh wait that was bj clinton
On Dec 2 2006 12:25 PM, Porsche_Dan wrote:
> Agreed. Worst 8 years ever.
>
> On Dec 2 2006 10:23 AM, William Coleman wrote:
>
> > Eric Foner, Professor of History at Columbia University, states the
> > obvious --
> >
> > George W. Bush is the worst President in the history of the United States
of
> > America.
> >
> >
> >
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/01/AR20061201015
> > 09.html
> >
> >
> > He's The Worst Ever
> >
> >
> > By Eric Foner
> >
> >
> > Sunday, December 3, 2006; B01
> >
> >
> >
> > Ever since 1948, when Harvard professor Arthur Schlesinger Sr. asked 55
> > historians to rank U.S. presidents on a scale from "great" to "failure,"
> > such polls have been a favorite pastime for those of us who study the
> > American past.
> >
> > Changes in presidential rankings reflect shifts in how we view history.
When
> > the first poll was taken, the Reconstruction era that followed the Civil
War
> > was regarded as a time of corruption and misgovernment caused by granting
> > black men the right to vote. As a result, President Andrew Johnson, a
> > fervent white supremacist who opposed efforts to extend basic rights to
> > former slaves, was rated "near great." Today, by contrast, scholars
consider
> > Reconstruction a flawed but noble attempt to build an interracial
democracy
> > from the ashes of slavery -- and Johnson a flat failure.
> >
> > More often, however, the rankings display a remarkable year-to-year
> > uniformity. Abraham Lincoln, George Washington and Franklin D. Roosevelt
> > always figure in the "great" category. Most presidents are ranked
"average"
> > or, to put it less charitably, mediocre. Johnson, Franklin Pierce, James
> > Buchanan, Warren G. Harding, Calvin Coolidge and Richard M. Nixon occupy
the
> > bottom rung, and now President Bush is a leading contender to join them. A
> > look at history, as well as Bush's policies, explains why.
> >
> > At a time of national crisis, Pierce and Buchanan, who served in the eight
> > years preceding the Civil War, and Johnson, who followed it, were simply
not
> > up to the job. Stubborn, narrow-minded, unwilling to listen to criticism
or
> > to consider alternatives to disastrous mistakes, they surrounded
themselves
> > with sycophants and shaped their policies to appeal to retrogressive
> > political forces (in that era, pro-slavery and racist ideologues). Even
> > after being repudiated in the midterm elections of 1854, 1858 and 1866,
> > respectively, they ignored major currents of public opinion and clung to
> > flawed policies. Bush's presidency certainly brings theirs to mind.
> >
> > Harding and Coolidge are best remembered for the corruption of their years
> > in office (1921-23 and 1923-29, respectively) and for channeling money and
> > favors to big business. They slashed income and corporate taxes and
> > supported employers' campaigns to eliminate unions. Members of their
> > administrations received kickbacks and bribes from lobbyists and
> > businessmen. "Never before, here or anywhere else," declared the Wall
Street
> > Journal, "has a government been so completely fused with business." The
> > Journal could hardly have anticipated the even worse cronyism, corruption
> > and pro-business bias of the Bush administration.
> >
> > Despite some notable accomplishments in domestic and foreign policy, Nixon
> > is mostly associated today with disdain for the Constitution and abuse of
> > presidential power. Obsessed with secrecy and media leaks, he viewed every
> > critic as a threat to national security and illegally spied on U.S.
> > citizens. Nixon considered himself above the law.
> >
> > Bush has taken this disdain for law even further. He has sought to strip
> > people accused of crimes of rights that date as far back as the Magna
Carta
> > in Anglo-American jurisprudence: trial by impartial jury, access to
lawyers
> > and knowledge of evidence against them. In dozens of statements when
signing
> > legislation, he has asserted the right to ignore the parts of laws with
> > which he disagrees. His administration has adopted policies regarding the
> > treatment of prisoners of war that have disgraced the nation and alienated
> > virtually the entire world. Usually, during wartime, the Supreme Court has
> > refrained from passing judgment on presidential actions related to
national
> > defense. The court's unprecedented rebukes of Bush's policies on detainees
> > indicate how far the administration has strayed from the rule of law.
> >
> > One other president bears comparison to Bush: James K. Polk. Some
historians
> > admire him, in part because he made their job easier by keeping a detailed
> > diary during his administration, which spanned the years of the
> > Mexican-American War. But Polk should be remembered primarily for
launching
> > that unprovoked attack on Mexico and seizing one-third of its territory
for
> > the United States.
> >
> > Lincoln, then a member of Congress from Illinois, condemned Polk for
> > misleading Congress and the public about the cause of the war -- an
alleged
> > Mexican incursion into the United States. Accepting the president's right
to
> > attack another country "whenever he shall deem it necessary," Lincoln
> > observed, would make it impossible to "fix any limit" to his power to make
> > war. Today, one wishes that the country had heeded Lincoln's warning.
> >
> > Historians are loath to predict the future. It is impossible to say with
> > certainty how Bush will be ranked in, say, 2050. But somehow, in his first
> > six years in office he has managed to combine the lapses of leadership,
> > misguided policies and abuse of power of his failed predecessors. I think
> > there is no alternative but to rank him as the worst president in U.S.
> > history.
> >
> >
> >
> > William Coleman (ramashiva)
Thank YOU
www.igotskillz.com
________________________________________________________________________
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
|
| | | |
Date: 02 Dec 2006 16:55:40
From: William Coleman
Subject: Re: OT: Worst President Ever
|
"igotskillz com" <a7cd0d4@webnntp.invalid > wrote in message
news:rlm844xev7.ln2@recgroups.com...
: Why ?
The Professor explained that in the article, which you obviously didn't
read.
: because he let Al Queda move in next door to me ?
Al Qaeda didn't move in next door to you. That is just another one of your
paranoid delusional fantasies.
: Oh wait that was bj clinton
How long are you Bush fellators going to keep changing the subject to
Clinton every time Bush is criticized?
William Coleman (ramashiva)
|
| | | | |
Date: 02 Dec 2006 10:12:09
From: igotskillz com
Subject: Re: OT: Worst President Ever
|
Everytime a know-nothing like you opens your mouth about something that is
far from your knowledge base.
On Dec 2 2006 12:55 PM, William Coleman wrote:
> "igotskillz com" <a7cd0d4@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> news:rlm844xev7.ln2@recgroups.com...
>
> : Why ?
>
> The Professor explained that in the article, which you obviously didn't
> read.
>
> : because he let Al Queda move in next door to me ?
>
> Al Qaeda didn't move in next door to you. That is just another one of your
> paranoid delusional fantasies.
>
> : Oh wait that was bj clinton
>
> How long are you Bush fellators going to keep changing the subject to
> Clinton every time Bush is criticized?
>
>
> William Coleman (ramashiva)
Thank YOU
www.igotskillz.com
---
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
|
| | | | | |
Date: 02 Dec 20:36:10
From: ChrisRobin
Subject: Re: OT: Worst President Ever
|
On Dec 2 2006 12:12 PM, igotskillz com wrote:
> Everytime a know-nothing like you opens your mouth about something that is
> far from your knowledge base.
Ha! This from the guy who can't even figure out how to cash out from UB?
_______________________________________________________________
New Feature: Mark All As Read! - http://www.recpoker.com
|
| | |
Date: 02 Dec 2006 10:36:38
From: mccard
Subject: Re: OT: Worst President Ever
|
"Porsche_Dan" <43080932@recpoker.com > wrote in message
news:1165076707$915171@recpoker.com...
>
> Agreed. Worst 8 years ever.
>
Not over yet.
>
> On Dec 2 2006 10:23 AM, William Coleman wrote:
>
>> Eric Foner, Professor of History at Columbia University, states the
>> obvious --
>>
>> George W. Bush is the worst President in the history of the United States
>> of
>> America.
>
|
| | | |
Date: 02 Dec 2006 16:59:05
From: William Coleman
Subject: Re: OT: Worst President Ever
|
"mccard" <mcsoft@cox.net > wrote in message
news:%Vhch.1976$gj2.760@newsfe23.lga...
:
: "Porsche_Dan" <43080932@recpoker.com > wrote in message
: news:1165076707$915171@recpoker.com...
: >
: > Agreed. Worst 8 years ever.
: >
:
: Not over yet.
Please tell me you are not suggesting that the situation in Iraq will
improve during the next two years. Please tell me you do not buy into
Bush's delusional fantasies of "victory in Iraq".
William Coleman (ramashiva)
|
| | | | |
Date: 02 Dec 2006 12:52:44
From: mccard
Subject: Re: OT: Worst President Ever
|
"William Coleman" <ramashiva@earthlink.net > wrote in message
news:thich.5679$sf5.3016@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "mccard" <mcsoft@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:%Vhch.1976$gj2.760@newsfe23.lga...
> :
> : "Porsche_Dan" <43080932@recpoker.com> wrote in message
> : news:1165076707$915171@recpoker.com...
> : >
> : > Agreed. Worst 8 years ever.
> : >
> :
> : Not over yet.
>
> Please tell me you are not suggesting that the situation in Iraq will
> improve during the next two years. Please tell me you do not buy into
> Bush's delusional fantasies of "victory in Iraq".
>
Quite the opposite.
|
| | | |
Date: 02 Dec 20:16:56
From: Porsche_Dan
Subject: Re: OT: Worst President Ever
|
Includes the last two years of Clinton.
On Dec 2 2006 8:36 AM, mccard wrote:
> "Porsche_Dan" <43080932@recpoker.com> wrote in message
> news:1165076707$915171@recpoker.com...
> >
> > Agreed. Worst 8 years ever.
> >
>
> Not over yet.
>
> >
> > On Dec 2 2006 10:23 AM, William Coleman wrote:
> >
> >> Eric Foner, Professor of History at Columbia University, states the
> >> obvious --
> >>
> >> George W. Bush is the worst President in the history of the United States
> >> of
> >> America.
> >
_______________________________________________________________
* New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
|
| |
Date: 02 Dec 2006 18:57:46
From:
Subject: Re: OT: Worst President Ever
|
BUsh, the president who took away Kim Jong's Ipod. The leaker-in
chief.
William Coleman wrote:
> Eric Foner, Professor of History at Columbia University, states the
> obvious --
>
> George W. Bush is the worst President in the history of the United States of
> America.
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/01/AR2006120101509.html
>
>
> He's The Worst Ever
>
>
> By Eric Foner
>
>
> Sunday, December 3, 2006; B01
>
>
>
> Ever since 1948, when Harvard professor Arthur Schlesinger Sr. asked 55
> historians to rank U.S. presidents on a scale from "great" to "failure,"
> such polls have been a favorite pastime for those of us who study the
> American past.
>
> Changes in presidential rankings reflect shifts in how we view history. When
> the first poll was taken, the Reconstruction era that followed the Civil War
> was regarded as a time of corruption and misgovernment caused by granting
> black men the right to vote. As a result, President Andrew Johnson, a
> fervent white supremacist who opposed efforts to extend basic rights to
> former slaves, was rated "near great." Today, by contrast, scholars consider
> Reconstruction a flawed but noble attempt to build an interracial democracy
> from the ashes of slavery -- and Johnson a flat failure.
>
> More often, however, the rankings display a remarkable year-to-year
> uniformity. Abraham Lincoln, George Washington and Franklin D. Roosevelt
> always figure in the "great" category. Most presidents are ranked "average"
> or, to put it less charitably, mediocre. Johnson, Franklin Pierce, James
> Buchanan, Warren G. Harding, Calvin Coolidge and Richard M. Nixon occupy the
> bottom rung, and now President Bush is a leading contender to join them. A
> look at history, as well as Bush's policies, explains why.
>
> At a time of national crisis, Pierce and Buchanan, who served in the eight
> years preceding the Civil War, and Johnson, who followed it, were simply not
> up to the job. Stubborn, narrow-minded, unwilling to listen to criticism or
> to consider alternatives to disastrous mistakes, they surrounded themselves
> with sycophants and shaped their policies to appeal to retrogressive
> political forces (in that era, pro-slavery and racist ideologues). Even
> after being repudiated in the midterm elections of 1854, 1858 and 1866,
> respectively, they ignored major currents of public opinion and clung to
> flawed policies. Bush's presidency certainly brings theirs to mind.
>
> Harding and Coolidge are best remembered for the corruption of their years
> in office (1921-23 and 1923-29, respectively) and for channeling money and
> favors to big business. They slashed income and corporate taxes and
> supported employers' campaigns to eliminate unions. Members of their
> administrations received kickbacks and bribes from lobbyists and
> businessmen. "Never before, here or anywhere else," declared the Wall Street
> Journal, "has a government been so completely fused with business." The
> Journal could hardly have anticipated the even worse cronyism, corruption
> and pro-business bias of the Bush administration.
>
> Despite some notable accomplishments in domestic and foreign policy, Nixon
> is mostly associated today with disdain for the Constitution and abuse of
> presidential power. Obsessed with secrecy and media leaks, he viewed every
> critic as a threat to national security and illegally spied on U.S.
> citizens. Nixon considered himself above the law.
>
> Bush has taken this disdain for law even further. He has sought to strip
> people accused of crimes of rights that date as far back as the Magna Carta
> in Anglo-American jurisprudence: trial by impartial jury, access to lawyers
> and knowledge of evidence against them. In dozens of statements when signing
> legislation, he has asserted the right to ignore the parts of laws with
> which he disagrees. His administration has adopted policies regarding the
> treatment of prisoners of war that have disgraced the nation and alienated
> virtually the entire world. Usually, during wartime, the Supreme Court has
> refrained from passing judgment on presidential actions related to national
> defense. The court's unprecedented rebukes of Bush's policies on detainees
> indicate how far the administration has strayed from the rule of law.
>
> One other president bears comparison to Bush: James K. Polk. Some historians
> admire him, in part because he made their job easier by keeping a detailed
> diary during his administration, which spanned the years of the
> Mexican-American War. But Polk should be remembered primarily for launching
> that unprovoked attack on Mexico and seizing one-third of its territory for
> the United States.
>
> Lincoln, then a member of Congress from Illinois, condemned Polk for
> misleading Congress and the public about the cause of the war -- an alleged
> Mexican incursion into the United States. Accepting the president's right to
> attack another country "whenever he shall deem it necessary," Lincoln
> observed, would make it impossible to "fix any limit" to his power to make
> war. Today, one wishes that the country had heeded Lincoln's warning.
>
> Historians are loath to predict the future. It is impossible to say with
> certainty how Bush will be ranked in, say, 2050. But somehow, in his first
> six years in office he has managed to combine the lapses of leadership,
> misguided policies and abuse of power of his failed predecessors. I think
> there is no alternative but to rank him as the worst president in U.S.
> history.
>
>
>
> William Coleman (ramashiva)
|
| |
Date: 03 Dec 2006 01:13:09
From: Tate and Lyle
Subject: Re: Worst President Ever
|
Bush - Worst president since sliced bread:O
|
| | |
Date: 03 Dec 2006 07:58:49
From: Ernie Lazlo
Subject: Re: Worst President Ever
|
"Tate and Lyle" <me@invalid.net > wrote in news:Fwpch.2191$Os5.1517@newsfe4-
gui.ntli.net:
> Bush - Worst president since sliced bread:O
|
| | | |
Date: 03 Dec 2006 15:04:00
From: William Coleman
Subject: Re: Worst President Ever
|
"Ernie Lazlo" <ernie27@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:Zsvch.3530$un3.366@newsfe14.phx...
: "Tate and Lyle" <me@invalid.net > wrote in
news:Fwpch.2191$Os5.1517@newsfe4-
: gui.ntli.net:
:
: > Bush - Worst president since sliced bread:O
|
| | | | |
Date: 03 Dec 2006 22:18:47
From: Ernie Lazlo
Subject: Re: Worst President Ever
|
"William Coleman" <ramashiva@earthlink.net > wrote in news:AHBch.6306
$tM1.139@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
>
> "Ernie Lazlo" <ernie27@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Zsvch.3530$un3.366@newsfe14.phx...
>: "Tate and Lyle" <me@invalid.net> wrote in
> news:Fwpch.2191$Os5.1517@newsfe4-
>: gui.ntli.net:
>:
>: > Bush - Worst president since sliced bread:O
|
| |
Date: 02 Dec 2006 12:20:05
From: OrangeSFO
Subject: Re: OT: Worst President Ever
|
Olemite wrote:
> I voted for Gore so I can't argue with that. But if Kerry can't beat
> the worst president of the US ever
Kerry DID beat him.
Then Diebold beat Kerry.
|
| |
Date: 02 Dec 2006 12:17:58
From: OrangeSFO
Subject: Re: OT: Worst President Ever
|
What Iraq needs is a strong leader who can keep the various sectarian
groups from each others throats and fend off Islamist influence from
surrounding countries.
Hey, wait a minute...!
|
| | |
Date: 02 Dec 2006 19:49:19
From: eleaticus
Subject: Re: OT: Worst President Ever
|
"OrangeSFO" <intangible103@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1165090678.382964.102150@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> What Iraq needs is a strong leader who can keep the various sectarian
> groups from each others throats and fend off Islamist influence from
> surrounding countries.
Especially someone to whom Osama/al Qaeda was a threat/enemy, and who was
the Ayotallahs' enemy.
>
> Hey, wait a minute...!
Hey, wait a minute!
--
eleaticus
ee-lee-AT-i-cus
eleaticus@bellsouth.net
>
|
| |
Date: 03 Dec 2006 09:00:30
From: Grunty
Subject: Re: OT: Worst President Ever
|
John A. Fish wrote:
> Bush IS the worst ever!
> And I say this as someone who voted for him twice.
Yes, the lesson to be learnt is, a "worst ever president" takes a bunch
of "worst ever voters".
|
| | |
Date: 03 Dec 2006 17:00:17
From: eleaticus
Subject: Re: OT: Worst President Ever
|
"Grunty" <gruntingdwarf@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1165165230.206775.204940@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> John A. Fish wrote:
>
> > Bush IS the worst ever!
> > And I say this as someone who voted for him twice.
>
> Yes, the lesson to be learnt is, a "worst ever president" takes a bunch
> of "worst ever voters".
you go, guy/girl!
--
eleaticus
ee-lee-AT-i-cus
eleaticus@bellsouth.net
>
|
| |
Date: 04 Dec 2006 08:58:46
From: wadner
Subject: Re: OT: Worst President Ever
|
William Coleman wrote:
> : I'd also like you to cite specific examples of how Satan would have
> : reformed health care,
>
> Universal single payer health care.
>
> William Coleman (ramashiva)
Now when you mean single payer, are you suggesting we have 7 Medigap
plans, a seperate part D prescription plan, and the new Medicare
Advantage plans from which to choose? Or do you mean something else
entirely?
|
| | |
Date: 04 Dec 2006 17:05:48
From: William Coleman
Subject: Re: OT: Worst President Ever
|
"wadner" <wadner@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1165248025.727249.161850@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
:
: William Coleman wrote:
:
: > : I'd also like you to cite specific examples of how Satan would have
: > : reformed health care,
: >
: > Universal single payer health care.
: >
: > William Coleman (ramashiva)
:
: Now when you mean single payer, are you suggesting we have 7 Medigap
: plans, a seperate part D prescription plan, and the new Medicare
: Advantage plans from which to choose? Or do you mean something else
: entirely?
I mean making everyone eligible for Medicare, with government subsidies,
similar to Medicaid, for those who cannot afford the premiums. Those who
wish can continue with private health insurance plans.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
|
| |
Date: 05 Dec
From: Follow
Subject: Re: OT: Worst President Ever
|
On Dec 2 2006 9:23 AM, William Coleman wrote:
> He's The Worst Ever
Oh ya.
Follow :)
_______________________________________________________________
Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
|
| |
Date: 04 Dec 2006 16:29:37
From: WuzYoungOnceToo
Subject: Re: OT: Worst President Ever
|
On Dec 4, 5:46 pm, "eleaticus" <eleati...@bellsouth.net > wrote:
>
> Other countries make health care universal at much less cost per
> tax-paying-capita than the much-less-diverse coverage we have here at three
> times the cost per tax-paying-capita.
Yes...by rationing. Though I'm not sure what you mean by
"less-diverse" coverage.
|
| |
Date: 04 Dec 2006 16:11:37
From: Olemite
Subject: Re: OT: Worst President Ever
|
I heard some guy (Democrat) talking about national health care. It was
lumped in with a bunch of other BS promises on how the Democrats would
improve the country when they won the House.
Ole
William Coleman wrote:
> "Olemite" <msolson14@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1165275802.659684.12850@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> : By the way, your beloved Democrats already bailed on that campaign
> : promise.
>
> What campaign promise was that? I don't recall the Democrats, as a party,
> making any campaign promises.
>
>
> William Coleman (ramashiva)
|
| | |
Date: 05 Dec 2006 00:18:26
From: William Coleman
Subject: Re: OT: Worst President Ever
|
"Olemite" <msolson14@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1165277496.838874.261640@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...
:I heard some guy (Democrat) talking about national health care. It was
: lumped in with a bunch of other BS promises on how the Democrats would
: improve the country when they won the House.
Some guy, huh? You are pathetic. Show me a specific Democrat who promised
during the campaign that he would make Universal Single Payer Health Care a
priority. Then show me where that SAME Democrat has since said he no longer
will work for this objective.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
|
| |
Date: 04 Dec 2006 15:43:22
From: Olemite
Subject: Re: OT: Worst President Ever
|
By the way, your beloved Democrats already bailed on that campaign
promise.
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=535435
Ole
William Coleman wrote:
> "wadner" <wadner@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1165272132.500746.136870@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> :
> : William Coleman wrote:
> : > "wadner" <wadner@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> :
> : > :
> : > : Do fat, smoking, alcoholic, 50 year old diabetics get charged the same
> : > : as a physically fit 25 year olds?
> : >
> : > Yes.
> : >
> : >
> : > William Coleman (ramashiva)
> :
> : Well that sure sucks for healthy individuals. Why should they pay the
> : same amount?
>
> That's the way it works in the current Medicare system, which delivers
> health care at a lower total cost than private sector health care. The
> objective here is to make affordable health care available for everyone.
> You can't achieve that objective if you start charging high risk individuals
> higher premiums. Plus you would have the unending bureaucratic nightmare of
> assessing the risk factors for each individual.
>
> Ask yourself this. Why should people without children pay taxes to fund
> public education?
>
>
>
> William Coleman (ramashiva)
|
| | |
Date: 04 Dec 2006 23:58:59
From: William Coleman
Subject: Re: OT: Worst President Ever
|
"Olemite" <msolson14@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1165275802.659684.12850@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
: By the way, your beloved Democrats already bailed on that campaign
: promise.
What campaign promise was that? I don't recall the Democrats, as a party,
making any campaign promises.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
|
| |
Date: 04 Dec 2006 15:32:54
From: Olemite
Subject: Re: OT: Worst President Ever
|
Err. Meant, people without children never went to school?
Ole
Olemite wrote:
> People with children don't go to school?
>
> Ole
>
> William Coleman wrote:
> > "wadner" <wadner@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1165272132.500746.136870@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > :
> > : William Coleman wrote:
> > : > "wadner" <wadner@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > :
> > : > :
> > : > : Do fat, smoking, alcoholic, 50 year old diabetics get charged the same
> > : > : as a physically fit 25 year olds?
> > : >
> > : > Yes.
> > : >
> > : >
> > : > William Coleman (ramashiva)
> > :
> > : Well that sure sucks for healthy individuals. Why should they pay the
> > : same amount?
> >
> > That's the way it works in the current Medicare system, which delivers
> > health care at a lower total cost than private sector health care. The
> > objective here is to make affordable health care available for everyone.
> > You can't achieve that objective if you start charging high risk individuals
> > higher premiums. Plus you would have the unending bureaucratic nightmare of
> > assessing the risk factors for each individual.
> >
> > Ask yourself this. Why should people without children pay taxes to fund
> > public education?
> >
> >
> >
> > William Coleman (ramashiva)
|
| | |
Date: 04 Dec 2006 17:40:41
From: Susan
Subject: Re: OT: Worst President Ever
|
besides which education benefits each and everyone of us - not just the
parents.
"Olemite" <msolson14@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1165275174.665374.326290@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
> Err. Meant, people without children never went to school?
>
> Ole
>
> Olemite wrote:
>> People with children don't go to school?
>>
>> Ole
>>
>> William Coleman wrote:
>> > "wadner" <wadner@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> > news:1165272132.500746.136870@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > :
>> > : William Coleman wrote:
>> > : > "wadner" <wadner@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> > :
>> > : > :
>> > : > : Do fat, smoking, alcoholic, 50 year old diabetics get charged the
>> > same
>> > : > : as a physically fit 25 year olds?
>> > : >
>> > : > Yes.
>> > : >
>> > : >
>> > : > William Coleman (ramashiva)
>> > :
>> > : Well that sure sucks for healthy individuals. Why should they pay
>> > the
>> > : same amount?
>> >
>> > That's the way it works in the current Medicare system, which delivers
>> > health care at a lower total cost than private sector health care. The
>> > objective here is to make affordable health care available for
>> > everyone.
>> > You can't achieve that objective if you start charging high risk
>> > individuals
>> > higher premiums. Plus you would have the unending bureaucratic
>> > nightmare of
>> > assessing the risk factors for each individual.
>> >
>> > Ask yourself this. Why should people without children pay taxes to
>> > fund
>> > public education?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > William Coleman (ramashiva)
>
|
| |
Date: 04 Dec 2006 15:29:58
From: Olemite
Subject: Re: OT: Worst President Ever
|
People with children don't go to school?
Ole
William Coleman wrote:
> "wadner" <wadner@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1165272132.500746.136870@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> :
> : William Coleman wrote:
> : > "wadner" <wadner@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> :
> : > :
> : > : Do fat, smoking, alcoholic, 50 year old diabetics get charged the same
> : > : as a physically fit 25 year olds?
> : >
> : > Yes.
> : >
> : >
> : > William Coleman (ramashiva)
> :
> : Well that sure sucks for healthy individuals. Why should they pay the
> : same amount?
>
> That's the way it works in the current Medicare system, which delivers
> health care at a lower total cost than private sector health care. The
> objective here is to make affordable health care available for everyone.
> You can't achieve that objective if you start charging high risk individuals
> higher premiums. Plus you would have the unending bureaucratic nightmare of
> assessing the risk factors for each individual.
>
> Ask yourself this. Why should people without children pay taxes to fund
> public education?
>
>
>
> William Coleman (ramashiva)
|
| |
Date: 04 Dec 2006 15:20:06
From: Howard Treesong
Subject: Re: OT: Worst President Ever
|
William Coleman wrote:
> Ask yourself this. Why should people without children pay taxes to fund
> public education?
They shoudn't.
-Howard Treesong
|
| | |
Date: 04 Dec 2006 17:46:24
From: eleaticus
Subject: Re: OT: Worst President Ever
|
"Howard Treesong" <ricklee90@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1165274406.050005.23300@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> William Coleman wrote:
>
> > Ask yourself this. Why should people without children pay taxes to fund
> > public education?
>
> They shoudn't.
You underscore (the likes of your response should never be connected with
'high') the essential treason of the right-wing position.
The country and its economy cannot help but be stronger with - for
everyone - as full an education as the kid can handle, and with
health/healthcare as good as necessary.
Other countries make health care universal at much less cost per
tax-paying-capita than the much-less-diverse coverage we have here at three
times the cost per tax-paying-capita. And our fed insurance programs'
administrative costs are much less than private insurance admin costs.
--
eleaticus
ee-lee-AT-i-cus
eleaticus@bellsouth.net
|
| | | |
Date: 04 Dec 2006 16:49:21
From: pokerchimp
Subject: Re: OT: Worst President Ever
|
On Dec 4 2006 6:46 PM, eleaticus wrote:
> "Howard Treesong" <ricklee90@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1165274406.050005.23300@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > William Coleman wrote:
> >
> > > Ask yourself this. Why should people without children pay taxes to fund
> > > public education?
> >
> > They shoudn't.
>
> You underscore (the likes of your response should never be connected with
> 'high') the essential treason of the right-wing position.
>
> The country and its economy cannot help but be stronger with - for
> everyone - as full an education as the kid can handle, and with
> health/healthcare as good as necessary.
>
> Other countries make health care universal at much less cost per
> tax-paying-capita than the much-less-diverse coverage we have here at three
> times the cost per tax-paying-capita. And our fed insurance programs'
> administrative costs are much less than private insurance admin costs.
> --
> eleaticus
> ee-lee-AT-i-cus
> eleaticus@bellsouth.net
Excuse me if I am misinterpreting. You are saying that the countries
where universal health care is the standard provide more diverse coverage
than here? You will have to explain how you are using diverse. National
Health Care is great unless you want to wait months on a list for
surgeries and have many less proceedures available.
thumbers on stars, pokerchimp1 on absolute
--------
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
|
| | | |
Date: 04 Dec 2006 15:57:22
From: mo_charles
Subject: Re: OT: Worst President Ever
|
> > > Ask yourself this. Why should people without children pay taxes to fund
> > > public education?
> >
> > They shoudn't.
>
> You underscore (the likes of your response should never be connected with
> 'high') the essential treason of the right-wing position.
>
> The country and its economy cannot help but be stronger with - for
> everyone - as full an education as the kid can handle, and with
> health/healthcare as good as necessary.
strawman ALERT! wooop, wooop! STRAWMAN!
mo_charles
-------
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
|
| |
Date: 04 Dec 2006 14:42:12
From: wadner
Subject: Re: OT: Worst President Ever
|
William Coleman wrote:
> "wadner" <wadner@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> :
> : Do fat, smoking, alcoholic, 50 year old diabetics get charged the same
> : as a physically fit 25 year olds?
>
> Yes.
>
>
> William Coleman (ramashiva)
Well that sure sucks for healthy individuals. Why should they pay the
same amount?
|
| | |
Date: 04 Dec 2006 22:57:08
From: William Coleman
Subject: Re: OT: Worst President Ever
|
"wadner" <wadner@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1165272132.500746.136870@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
:
: William Coleman wrote:
: > "wadner" <wadner@hotmail.com> wrote in message
:
: > :
: > : Do fat, smoking, alcoholic, 50 year old diabetics get charged the same
: > : as a physically fit 25 year olds?
: >
: > Yes.
: >
: >
: > William Coleman (ramashiva)
:
: Well that sure sucks for healthy individuals. Why should they pay the
: same amount?
That's the way it works in the current Medicare system, which delivers
health care at a lower total cost than private sector health care. The
objective here is to make affordable health care available for everyone.
You can't achieve that objective if you start charging high risk individuals
higher premiums. Plus you would have the unending bureaucratic nightmare of
assessing the risk factors for each individual.
Ask yourself this. Why should people without children pay taxes to fund
public education?
William Coleman (ramashiva)
|
| |
Date: 04 Dec 2006 12:04:31
From: wadner
Subject: Re: OT: Worst President Ever
|
William Coleman wrote:
> I mean making everyone eligible for Medicare, with government subsidies,
> similar to Medicaid, for those who cannot afford the premiums. Those who
> wish can continue with private health insurance plans.
>
>
> William Coleman (ramashiva)
Do fat, smoking, alcoholic, 50 year old diabetics get charged the same
as a physically fit 25 year olds?
|
| | |
Date: 04 Dec 2006 20:12:32
From: William Coleman
Subject: Re: OT: Worst President Ever
|
"wadner" <wadner@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1165262671.352593.74440@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
:
: William Coleman wrote:
:
: > I mean making everyone eligible for Medicare, with government subsidies,
: > similar to Medicaid, for those who cannot afford the premiums. Those
who
: > wish can continue with private health insurance plans.
: >
: >
: > William Coleman (ramashiva)
:
: Do fat, smoking, alcoholic, 50 year old diabetics get charged the same
: as a physically fit 25 year olds?
Yes.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
|
| |
Date: 05 Dec 2006 10:10:03
From: wadner
Subject: Re: OT: Worst President Ever
|
William Coleman wrote:
>
> That's the way it works in the current Medicare system, which delivers
> health care at a lower total cost than private sector health care.
Lower total cost by having health care of people that choose extremely
unhealthy lifestyles be subsidized by healthy individuals??
Why don't we subsidize housing, and cars, prostitutes and strippers
too? I think for the benefit of society we should all subsidize my
subscription to Russ's site so I can be a better poker player.
>The
> objective here is to make affordable health care available for everyone.
My objective is affordable poker lessons for everyone.
> You can't achieve that objective if you start charging high risk individuals
> higher premiums. Plus you would have the unending bureaucratic nightmare of
> assessing the risk factors for each individual.
We should have socialized car insurance too. That way idiots that
drive like maniacs don't have to pay increased insurance costs. We
should have a no-fault system where your insurance pays for your
injuries no matter who is at fault. Basically like single-payor health
care. Oh wait...
> Ask yourself this. Why should people without children pay taxes to fund
> public education?
>
We shouldn't have public schools.
>
> William Coleman (ramashiva)
|
| | |
Date: 05 Dec 2006 19:13:37
From: William Coleman
Subject: Re: OT: Worst President Ever
|
"wadner" <wadner@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1165342203.606664.5740@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
:
: William Coleman wrote:
:
: >
: > That's the way it works in the current Medicare system, which delivers
: > health care at a lower total cost than private sector health care.
:
: Lower total cost by having health care of people that choose extremely
: unhealthy lifestyles be subsidized by healthy individuals??
Whether everyone is being charged the same premium has no effect on the
total cost of a given quantity of health care.
My statement is correct. What you are missing is that the unhealthy
individuals will pay a lot more in deductibles and copays. What you are
also missing is that no one is forced to enroll in Medicare. Presumably,
healthy individuals can seek out lower cost alternatives from the private
sector. Yet virtually everyone 65 and over enrolls in Medicare. I wonder
why that is? The answer is simple. Medical care is one of many examples
where the government is more efficient than private enterprise.
You should really read up on this subject and stop spouting your ignorant
opinions. Doctors who specialize in medical economics have concluded that a
universal single payer system would save $500 billion per year in total
health care costs, while insuring everyone.
: Why don't we subsidize housing, and cars, prostitutes and strippers
: too? I think for the benefit of society we should all subsidize my
: subscription to Russ's site so I can be a better poker player.
:
: >The objective here is to make affordable health care available for
everyone.
:
: My objective is affordable poker lessons for everyone.
:
: > You can't achieve that objective if you start charging high risk
individuals
: > higher premiums. Plus you would have the unending bureaucratic
nightmare of
: > assessing the risk factors for each individual.
:
: We should have socialized car insurance too. That way idiots that
: drive like maniacs don't have to pay increased insurance costs. We
: should have a no-fault system where your insurance pays for your
: injuries no matter who is at fault.
Apparently you are unaware that some states do have no fault insurance,
which tends to cost more than the tort system.
: Basically like single-payor health care.
There is no analogy. Reckless drivers increase your chance of being
injured. Unhealthy individuals do not increase your chance of getting sick.
I suppose there are some minor exceptions, such as second hand smoke and
communicable diseases.
Oh wait...
:
:
: > Ask yourself this. Why should people without children pay taxes to fund
: > public education?
: >
:
: We shouldn't have public schools.
Yes. That way only the relatively affluent could send their children to
school. Great plan. You are an idiot.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
|
| | |
Date: 05 Dec 2006 20:05:08
From: William Coleman
Subject: Re: OT: Worst President Ever
|
"wadner" <wadner@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1165342203.606664.5740@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
LOL. I thought your name sounded familiar, so I did a Google search. Seems
we already debated this issue once. Now you want to go over the same issues
again.
Sorry. I am not interested in beating a spot on the ground where a dead
horse used to lie.
Don't expect any more replies to me on this subject.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
|
| |
Date: 05 Dec 2006 15:54:58
From: wadner
Subject: Re: OT: Worst President Ever
|
William Coleman wrote:
> "wadner" <wadner@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1165342203.606664.5740@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
> :
> : William Coleman wrote:
> :
> : >
> : > That's the way it works in the current Medicare system, which delivers
> : > health care at a lower total cost than private sector health care.
> :
> : Lower total cost by having health care of people that choose extremely
> : unhealthy lifestyles be subsidized by healthy individuals??
>
> Whether everyone is being charged the same premium has no effect on the
> total cost of a given quantity of health care.
>
> My statement is correct. What you are missing is that the unhealthy
> individuals will pay a lot more in deductibles and copays.
No, they don't pay a lot more in deductibles and copays. The single
largest expense is in the premiums. Once a deductible is satisfied, it
is satisfied. You don't have to keep paying deductibles each time you
see a doc.
>What you are
> also missing is that no one is forced to enroll in Medicare. Presumably,
> healthy individuals can seek out lower cost alternatives from the private
> sector.
Actually you can't for some reason.
Why is the federal government using private insurance companies to
adminster both Medicar Advantage plans and also Medicare Part D?
>Yet virtually everyone 65 and over enrolls in Medicare. I wonder
> why that is? The answer is simple. Medical care is one of many examples
> where the government is more efficient than private enterprise.
> You should really read up on this subject and stop spouting your ignorant
> opinions. Doctors who specialize in medical economics have concluded that a
> universal single payer system would save $500 billion per year in total
> health care costs, while insuring everyone.
> : Why don't we subsidize housing, and cars, prostitutes and strippers
> : too? I think for the benefit of society we should all subsidize my
> : subscription to Russ's site so I can be a better poker player.
> :
> : >The objective here is to make affordable health care available for
> everyone.
> :
> : My objective is affordable poker lessons for everyone.
> :
> : > You can't achieve that objective if you start charging high risk
> individuals
> : > higher premiums. Plus you would have the unending bureaucratic
> nightmare of
> : > assessing the risk factors for each individual.
> :
> : We should have socialized car insurance too. That way idiots that
> : drive like maniacs don't have to pay increased insurance costs. We
> : should have a no-fault system where your insurance pays for your
> : injuries no matter who is at fault.
>
> Apparently you are unaware that some states do have no fault insurance,
> which tends to cost more than the tort system.
>
> : Basically like single-payor health care.
>
> There is no analogy. Reckless drivers increase your chance of being
> injured. Unhealthy individuals do not increase your chance of getting sick.
> I suppose there are some minor exceptions, such as second hand smoke and
> communicable diseases.
Reckless individuals increase the usage of the health care system
thereby driving up costs of the premiums.
> Oh wait...
> :
> :
> : > Ask yourself this. Why should people without children pay taxes to fund
> : > public education?
> : >
> :
> : We shouldn't have public schools.
>
> Yes. That way only the relatively affluent could send their children to
> school. Great plan. You are an idiot.
I know plenty of non-affluent individuals who have received great
college educations.
You should try buying health insurance in Massachusetts.
>
> William Coleman (ramashiva)
|
| | |
Date: 06 Dec 2006 00:14:29
From: William Coleman
Subject: Re: OT: Worst President Ever
|
"wadner" <wadner@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1165362898.621876.196140@16g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
:
: William Coleman wrote:
: > "wadner" <wadner@hotmail.com> wrote in message
: > news:1165342203.606664.5740@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
: > :
: > : William Coleman wrote:
: > :
: > : >
: > : > That's the way it works in the current Medicare system, which
delivers
: > : > health care at a lower total cost than private sector health care.
: > :
: > : Lower total cost by having health care of people that choose extremely
: > : unhealthy lifestyles be subsidized by healthy individuals??
: >
: > Whether everyone is being charged the same premium has no effect on the
: > total cost of a given quantity of health care.
: >
: > My statement is correct. What you are missing is that the unhealthy
: > individuals will pay a lot more in deductibles and copays.
:
: No, they don't pay a lot more in deductibles and copays. The single
: largest expense is in the premiums. Once a deductible is satisfied, it
: is satisfied. You don't have to keep paying deductibles each time you
: see a doc.
You have a serious problem interpreting written English. When I said,
"unhealthy individuals will pay a lot more in deductibles and copays.", I
meant THAN healthy individuals.
: >What you are
: > also missing is that no one is forced to enroll in Medicare.
Presumably,
: > healthy individuals can seek out lower cost alternatives from the
private
: > sector.
:
: Actually you can't for some reason.
Some reason??? LMFAO! The reason you can't is that private insurance
companies cannot compete with Medicare on cost.
: Why is the federal government using private insurance companies to
: adminster both Medicar Advantage plans
By Medicare Advantage, I assume you mean Medicare supplement insurance. The
federal government is not "using" these plans. You are really sloppy with
language.
: and also Medicare Part D?
You don't know anything at all about this subject, do you? Because the
insurance lobby insisted that Medicare not be allowed to offer a competing
plan. Why? Because the insurance companies know they cannot compete on
cost.
: >Yet virtually everyone 65 and over enrolls in Medicare. I wonder
: > why that is? The answer is simple. Medical care is one of many
examples
: > where the government is more efficient than private enterprise.
: > You should really read up on this subject and stop spouting your
ignorant
: > opinions. Doctors who specialize in medical economics have concluded
that a
: > universal single payer system would save $500 billion per year in total
: > health care costs, while insuring everyone.
:
:
: > : Why don't we subsidize housing, and cars, prostitutes and strippers
: > : too? I think for the benefit of society we should all subsidize my
: > : subscription to Russ's site so I can be a better poker player.
: > :
: > : >The objective here is to make affordable health care available for
: > everyone.
: > :
: > : My objective is affordable poker lessons for everyone.
: > :
: > : > You can't achieve that objective if you start charging high risk
: > individuals
: > : > higher premiums. Plus you would have the unending bureaucratic
: > nightmare of
: > : > assessing the risk factors for each individual.
: > :
: > : We should have socialized car insurance too. That way idiots that
: > : drive like maniacs don't have to pay increased insurance costs. We
: > : should have a no-fault system where your insurance pays for your
: > : injuries no matter who is at fault.
: >
: > Apparently you are unaware that some states do have no fault insurance,
: > which tends to cost more than the tort system.
: >
: > : Basically like single-payor health care.
: >
: > There is no analogy. Reckless drivers increase your chance of being
: > injured. Unhealthy individuals do not increase your chance of getting
sick.
: > I suppose there are some minor exceptions, such as second hand smoke and
: > communicable diseases.
:
:
: Reckless individuals increase the usage of the health care system
: thereby driving up costs of the premiums.
Correct. That also occurs with private health insurance.
: > Oh wait...
: > :
: > :
: > : > Ask yourself this. Why should people without children pay taxes to
fund
: > : > public education?
: > : >
: > :
: > : We shouldn't have public schools.
: >
: > Yes. That way only the relatively affluent could send their children to
: > school. Great plan. You are an idiot.
:
: I know plenty of non-affluent individuals who have received great
: college educations.
Another total irrelevancy. We were discussing the public school system.
Please explain to me how they would have attended college if they had not
been educated for twelve years in the public school system.
You have demonstrated an inability to think logically and total ignorance of
the issue. In addition, as I mentioned in the post below, we have already
debated this issue previously. As I said below, I am not interested in
beating the spot on the ground where a dead horse used to lie. Please do
not expect any more replies from me on this subject.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
|
| |
Date: 05 Dec 2006 11:21:49
From: WuzYoungOnceToo
Subject: Re: OT: Worst President Ever
|
On Dec 5, 12:10 pm, "wadner" <wad...@hotmail.com > wrote:
>
> Why don't we subsidize housing, and cars, prostitutes and strippers
> too?
Lap-dance stamps? I'm intrigued. Tell me more.
|
| |
Date: 06 Dec 2006 07:29:46
From: wadner
Subject: Re: OT: Worst President Ever
|
William Coleman wrote:
>
> Some reason??? LMFAO! The reason you can't is that private insurance
> companies cannot compete with Medicare on cost.
Medicare determines what it will pay doctors for certain procedures.
You allow insurance companies to cap what a doc charges and you will
have competition.
> : Why is the federal government using private insurance companies to
> : adminster both Medicar Advantage plans
>
> By Medicare Advantage, I assume you mean Medicare supplement insurance. The
> federal government is not "using" these plans. You are really sloppy with
> language.
No I mean the new Medicare Advantage plan. Look it up. For an
"expert" on Medicare you certainly don't seem to be up-to-date with the
current program.
Go to google.com and type in "M E D I C A R E (double space right here)
A D V A N T A G E". The federal government has instituted a new
Medicare Advantage program which is being adminstered by private
insurance companies.
> : and also Medicare Part D?
> You don't know anything at all about this subject, do you? Because the
> insurance lobby insisted that Medicare not be allowed to offer a competing
> plan. Why? Because the insurance companies know they cannot compete on
> cost.
>
> : >Yet virtually everyone 65 and over enrolls in Medicare. I wonder
> : > why that is? The answer is simple. Medical care is one of many
> examples
> : > where the government is more efficient than private enterprise.
> : > You should really read up on this subject and stop spouting your
> ignorant
> : > opinions. Doctors who specialize in medical economics have concluded
> that a
> : > universal single payer system would save $500 billion per year in total
> : > health care costs, while insuring everyone.
> :
> :
> : > : Why don't we subsidize housing, and cars, prostitutes and strippers
> : > : too? I think for the benefit of society we should all subsidize my
> : > : subscription to Russ's site so I can be a better poker player.
> : > :
> : > : >The objective here is to make affordable health care available for
> : > everyone.
> : > :
> : > : My objective is affordable poker lessons for everyone.
> : > :
> : > : > You can't achieve that objective if you start charging high risk
> : > individuals
> : > : > higher premiums. Plus you would have the unending bureaucratic
> : > nightmare of
> : > : > assessing the risk factors for each individual.
> : > :
> : > : We should have socialized car insurance too. That way idiots that
> : > : drive like maniacs don't have to pay increased insurance costs. We
> : > : should have a no-fault system where your insurance pays for your
> : > : injuries no matter who is at fault.
> : >
> : > Apparently you are unaware that some states do have no fault insurance,
> : > which tends to cost more than the tort system.
> : >
> : > : Basically like single-payor health care.
> : >
> : > There is no analogy. Reckless drivers increase your chance of being
> : > injured. Unhealthy individuals do not increase your chance of getting
> sick.
> : > I suppose there are some minor exceptions, such as second hand smoke and
> : > communicable diseases.
> :
> :
> : Reckless individuals increase the usage of the health care system
> : thereby driving up costs of the premiums.
>
> Correct. That also occurs with private health insurance.
Correct, but unhealthy groups pay increased shares of premium versus
healthy groups. That will not occur in your single-pay system.
> : > Oh wait...
> : > :
> : > :
> : > : > Ask yourself this. Why should people without children pay taxes to
> fund
> : > : > public education?
> : > : >
> : > :
> : > : We shouldn't have public schools.
> : >
> : > Yes. That way only the relatively affluent could send their children to
> : > school. Great plan. You are an idiot.
> :
> : I know plenty of non-affluent individuals who have received great
> : college educations.
> Another total irrelevancy. We were discussing the public school system.
> Please explain to me how they would have attended college if they had not
> been educated for twelve years in the public school system.
Because they would have been educated for 12 years in a private school
setting.
> You have demonstrated an inability to think logically and total ignorance of
> the issue. In addition, as I mentioned in the post below, we have already
> debated this issue previously. As I said below, I am not interested in
> beating the spot on the ground where a dead horse used to lie. Please do
> not expect any more replies from me on this subject.
>
>
> William Coleman (ramashiva)
|
|
