Conquer Club

Inspired by a recent discussion on grading...

Clinton, I guess. Slim pickin's.

Being a liberal cowardly white-guilt-feeling kinda guy I obviously had to vote Obama.

Ronald Wilson Reagan - No contest.

Side note. I am not surprised that the someone else pay my way freemiums have thus far supported the Obama - Clinton camp.

jefjef wrote:Ronald Wilson Reagan - No contest.

Side note. I am not surprised that the someone else pay my way freemiums have thus far supported the Obama - Clinton camp.

lol, agreed, at least someone here has some sense. I think it's funny that anyone would say that the only pres in the history of the US to get impeached is better than anyone else (yes, this absolutely includes bush), especially since Obama's up there, and almost all Democrats love Obama.

PS I just earned myself about 50 foes w/my first political post on CC, I've been able to stay away from it until now

PPS I wonder how long it's gonna take for someone to say that Nixon was impeached and/or Clinton wasn't

No contest.



Even with the stututter.

jrh_cardinal wrote:I think it's funny that anyone would say that the only pres in the history of the US to get impeached is better than anyone else

You're being silly if you think most of us don't think the reason he got impeached was fucking awesome. In fact, the whole thing with the statements is probably studied extensively by guys who have cheated on their girlfriends.


FACT: the guy who taught us rhetoric in highschool actually gave us the speech where Clinton claimed he never had sex with her and said it was absolutely brilliant.


I admit that Reagan was a quality bullshitter too, given the fact that he got away with the Iran-Contra scandal.

"A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not."

How awesome must he be that people still worship him despite him admitting that he just fucking lied like f*ck?

Countries other than the US have had presidents (or "presididents") in the time period 1980-Current.

Ol' Sax votes for Nicolae Ceauşescu, former President of Romania (1974-1989).



During his many years as leader of the Romanian people, Ceauşescu served as intermediary between the U.S. and China that resulted in Nixon's historic visit to Beijing and he helped Carter negotiate lasting peace between Egypt and Israel. During the ill-conceived Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968, both Romania and the DDR refused to participate and withheld their military forces. He ideated and oversaw the construction of the Romanian parliament building, which has been subsequently called a wonder of modern architecture. Ceauşescu was a fiscal eagle - by the time he left office in 1989 the national debt of Romania was US$0. (Today it is US$75 billion.)

GREAT 3-minute music video on Ceauşescu's accomplishments:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyjhQapJthQ

I'm gonna need to know why people would ever pick Reagan. He boosted our economy by removing worker and environment protections. He also made several power grabs that G.H.W.Bush was able to use later to advance his goal of an Imperial Presidency.

Jimmy Carter was still president in 1980. He needs to be added to the poll.

jrh_cardinal wrote:

jefjef wrote:Ronald Wilson Reagan - No contest.

Side note. I am not surprised that the someone else pay my way freemiums have thus far supported the Obama - Clinton camp.

lol, agreed, at least someone here has some sense. I think it's funny that anyone would say that the only pres in the history of the US to get impeached is better than anyone else (yes, this absolutely includes bush), especially since Obama's up there, and almost all Democrats love Obama.

PS I just earned myself about 50 foes w/my first political post on CC, I've been able to stay away from it until now

PPS I wonder how long it's gonna take for someone to say that Nixon was impeached and/or Clinton wasn't

I will say neither. I will say Andrew Johnson. Impeached for matters a little more important than a BJ.

jefjef wrote:Side note. I am not surprised that the someone else pay my way freemiums have thus far supported the Obama - Clinton camp.

so how much paint have you huffed tonight

more than usual, i take it

bradleybadly wrote:Jimmy Carter was still president in 1980. He needs to be added to the poll.

I was going to post the same thing.

jrh_cardinal wrote:

jefjef wrote:Ronald Wilson Reagan - No contest.

Side note. I am not surprised that the someone else pay my way freemiums have thus far supported the Obama - Clinton camp.

lol, agreed, at least someone here has some sense. I think it's funny that anyone would say that the only pres in the history of the US to get impeached is better than anyone else (yes, this absolutely includes bush), especially since Obama's up there, and almost all Democrats love Obama.

PS I just earned myself about 50 foes w/my first political post on CC, I've been able to stay away from it until now

PPS I wonder how long it's gonna take for someone to say that Nixon was impeached and/or Clinton wasn't

May you continue to live and speak without fear of what other people think

Is this what the typical Liberal Democrat supporter and freemium account holder looks like?

Reagan is, without a doubt, the most overrated president in the history of our country.

Frigidus wrote:Reagan is, without a doubt, the most overrated president in the history of our country.

Winning 49 states had to count for something

I mean C'mon, The guy after BUSH? Messiah-bama only won 28...

Phatscotty wrote:

Frigidus wrote:Reagan is, without a doubt, the most overrated president in the history of our country.

Winning 49 states had to count for something

I mean C'mon, The guy after BUSH? Messiah-bama only won 28...

I'm not saying he wasn't popular at the time, but popularity doesn't make for a good president.

Frigidus wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Frigidus wrote:Reagan is, without a doubt, the most overrated president in the history of our country.

Winning 49 states had to count for something

I mean C'mon, The guy after BUSH? Messiah-bama only won 28...

I'm not saying he wasn't popular at the time, but popularity doesn't make for a good president.

QFT.

Since Obama just finished his first year, its hardly a reasonable comparison.

Also, you have to define "best". Do you mean best as in "does the most to secure the power of the presidency" or "best" as in "best for the US as a whole. OR, do you mean "best" regarding who most benefits the power structure?

Oh yeah,
How could I forget,
Reagan also invaded Grenada illegally and without Congress's approval. Under the Constitution, that is an impeachable offense.

What was that legal theory that began with Nixon and propagated under Reagan's Administration? Unitary Executive Power? or something like that. The idea that the Executive branch is it's own entity, and nothing that Congress says or does can impose upon the President's prerogative to govern the nation and the Military. The president has the right to operate in total secrecy and/or wave/ignore laws that limit or control that power. The only thing Congress can do is vote on what to budget the President when they adjourn next.
Reagan was also a believe in a President's inherit power.

& Bush II used this precedent to the max.

Juan_Bottom wrote:Oh yeah,
How could I forget,
Reagan also invaded Grenada illegally and without Congress's approval. Under the Constitution, that is an impeachable offense.

What was that legal theory that began with Nixon and propagated under Reagan's Administration? Unitary Executive Power? or something like that. The idea that the Executive branch is it's own entity, and nothing that Congress says or does can impose upon the President's prerogative to govern the nation and the Military. The president has the right to operate in total secrecy and/or wave/ignore laws that limit or control that power. The only thing Congress can do is vote on what to budget the President when they adjourn next.
Reagan was also a believe in a President's inherit power.

& Bush II used this precedent to the max.

Well, from a perspective of international law, technically the US attack on Grenada was an intervention requested by the Governor-General of Grenada who had stated that, as the sole recognized government of Grenada he was dispossessed of police powers owing to his imprisonment and was using his government authority to welcome foreign troops to reposses his police powers. And, from a perspective of US law the intervention did not last more than 90 days so I don't believe it was a violation of the War Powers Act.

However, while there may not be a legal argument against Grenada, certainly there is a moral argument. The people of Grenada, in solidarity with Cuban allies, exercised their sovereign right to embrace the socialist reality of Marxism-Leninism and had empowered a communist vanguard party through popular acclaim to institute a revolutionary regime that would destroy the corrupt foundations of paternalism, capitalism and racism. This was the sacred right of the Grenadan people to liberate themselves from the imperialists and monarchists who had subjugated their country under the corrupt UK colony-making regime of ERII --- OH, NOW I'M DOING IT AGAIN.

VALUED MODS, PLEASE CREATE A NEW FORUM AS I HAVE PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED. THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN OL' SAX GETS BAITED.

maybe baiting isn't really baiting.

I always enjoy sifting through your posts to see if they are true or not. Your sense of humor is setting new highs as well.

Phatscotty wrote:maybe baiting isn't really baiting.

I always enjoy sifting through your posts to see if they are true or not. Your sense of humor is setting new highs as well.

whatev'

saxitoxin wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:Oh yeah,
How could I forget,
Reagan also invaded Grenada illegally and without Congress's approval. Under the Constitution, that is an impeachable offense.

What was that legal theory that began with Nixon and propagated under Reagan's Administration? Unitary Executive Power? or something like that. The idea that the Executive branch is it's own entity, and nothing that Congress says or does can impose upon the President's prerogative to govern the nation and the Military. The president has the right to operate in total secrecy and/or wave/ignore laws that limit or control that power. The only thing Congress can do is vote on what to budget the President when they adjourn next.
Reagan was also a believe in a President's inherit power.

& Bush II used this precedent to the max.

Well, from a perspective of international law, technically the US attack on Grenada was an intervention requested by the Governor-General of Grenada who had stated that, as the sole recognized government of Grenada he was dispossessed of police powers owing to his imprisonment and was using his government authority to welcome foreign troops to reposses his police powers. And, from a perspective of US law the intervention did not last more than 90 days so I don't believe it was a violation of the War Powers Act.

However, while there may not be a legal argument against Grenada, certainly there is a moral argument. The people of Grenada, in solidarity with Cuban allies, exercised their sovereign right to embrace the socialist reality of Marxism-Leninism and had empowered a communist vanguard party through popular acclaim to institute a revolutionary regime that would destroy the corrupt foundations of paternalism, capitalism and racism. This was the sacred right of the Grenadan people to liberate themselves from the imperialists and monarchists who had subjugated their country under the corrupt UK colony-making regime of ERII --- OH, NOW I'M DOING IT AGAIN.

VALUED MODS, PLEASE CREATE A NEW FORUM AS I HAVE PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED. THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN OL' SAX GETS BAITED.

It is the United States right and DUTY to protect U.S. citizens and interests.

The invasion was as illegal as it is for saxi to wear short shorts and juan to stare at him while he is.