No president gets a good review from the public. As long as I have lived, there is always some opposition to whoever is in the whitehouse. Its my belief that puppets are operated by strings. The president is nothing more than the puppet. They are pulled on by many strings of influence (parties, lobbiest, corporate entities, military generals, personal interests, and the PUBLIC...............etc). I dont think we have any idea of what it is like to have the job of president of the United States. There is no way that any of us would do any better job in the public eye. I believe that we have our own strings that we are pulled by and influences our opinion of the government (media, peers, hype, BB posts). If we keep scaring ourselves into thinking sh!t is f@cked up..........................then it will be f@cked up.

As far as the GI bill. That thing is great. For a $1200 dollar investment I got a masters degree for about half the cost as regular joe/josephine would have.

One word Iran, but asshat Obama was quoted as saying that Iran was a small country and not a threat...f'n Dillweed! Then of course changed that the next day to " Iran is a grave threat " he has appeaser written all over him and will be exposed during the general election.

J7,

You need to stop injecting reason and logic into arguments. That is just plain unfair.

Most polititians if given a choice between doing what is best for their party or best for the country will pick their party.

Dammit Jerry, now you're doing it!

Fixed that typo for you.

None of it could have happened without Congress' help.

It's time for a switch to parliament - and no, not George Clinton and P-Funk

They have run, but they usually arent good looking enough, good enough liars and I think, in the case of Steve Forbes and p e r h a p s.... Mitt Romney, they are smart savy, successful, and they dont NEED to be president.

I got out of the military right after Ronnie Regan took away the G.I bill. I then bought my first house , 14 % interest... " Just say no " was a really effective campaign, because as you can all see, we no longer have a drug problem. He out borrowed the U.S.S.R, and racked up a debt like never seen before.. until now. That guy was a duttering fool being used as a mouth piece for Big biz.. a lot like the ass clown in charge right now.

I guess it just ticked me off to know that we are going to get a bad deal this time regardless.. What really pisses me off is our money is worthless. It took about 5 years for G.W to sink this ship...

B-run,

Getting back to your topic, yes Bush II is the biggest POS ever to inhabit the White House. I never thought I could hate a president more than I hated Nixon, but thanx to Dumbya, he made it possible. I was no fan of Reagan for the several reasons already listed in this thread. I think he was given way too much credit for things he didn't cause and far too little blame for problems he did cause. It seems like being an A$$hole is a requisite for being president of this fine country.

Sg

I remember reading a great article about this once by William F. Buckley............what he basically said was the very steps a person has to take to run for President virtually assure that nobody with the right qualities to be a GOOD president would ever even want the job. It takes a pretty sick individual to want to run a country in the first place. That is a type of megalomania on a level thats hard to comprehend. A successful candidate has to compromise all standards of truth, consistency, accountability and morality to win an election.

Personally, I'm sick of this spoiled, punkass rich-kid frat boy we have now. I can't stand the sound of his voice and he has the laziest work habits of anyone who's ever held that office, with the possible exception of Taft, who ate pastry all day long.

Im not concerned who hates which president, but in general I think its unhealthy for the electorate as a whole, that so many people put all the blame or all the praise on one guy. They all have a huge numbers of people working in the white house, in the departments and many of them make policy that work against the administration. You have left over democrats working for republicans and visa versa. Valery Plame and Joe Wilson were two such people. Both are democrats. Why pick them?

I read an article today, that has two senior people in transportation submitting plans, one is looking for alternative means of funding highway infrastructure and another one is in favor of another approach. The last time the federal gas tax was raised was 1993. They all have their own agenda.

More importantly is how the federal budget is put together. They have a "current budget baseline" as opposed to a zero budget baseline. Currently, federal expenditures automatically increase 10% every year. So when you hear about your favorite program being cut, its being cut from a 10% increase. Thats one of the reasons that these old programs never get disolved.

The president doesnt spend money. Only the congress can appropriate funds in the budget. During RR the House Majority leader announced the Presidents budget was dead on arrival, almost every year.

According to Michael Reagan, Reagan made a deal with the house in 86 or so, when they did have a tax increase. The deal was for every dollar in new taxes, the congress would CUT 2 dollars in spending. The cuts never came.

Remember the S and L crisis? Someone convince Bush 41 to raise taxes to bail out the s and L. Then they beat him over the head with something they passed in congress to do.

The president doesnt control the Fed. In 92 up to the election, Chairman Greenspan held interest rates up even though everyone joked in the newspapers about him seeing inflation snakes everywhere he went. By the time the election was held, the economy actually had 3-4 % growth in the third qtr. of 92. That and Perot cost him the election.

The Fed chairman Bernanke was late coming to the rescue of the large banks and reducing interest rates. The banks of course had so much bad paper that they all wrote, they didnt trust each other and Libor rates, which is the rate banks charge each other for short term loans has been pretty high.

Now that energy and commodity inflation is hitting consumers, this fed chairman and the fed res board is considering interest rate hikes. Normally the fed hikes rates to quell inflation, but there is no guarantee that energy inflation is going to be stopped with that kind of policy. In addition, the Sub prime crisis, is not over. More mortgages will go into default and although there is help, homeowners are not reaching out for help. We still have a glut of homes in a number of states and increased interest rates will kill a lot of sales. (All of which has little to do with the whitehouse) Subprime was the creation of bankers and traders to the extent some mortgages were sold so many times, its difficult to know who owns your mortgage. The regulators did not police the banking institutions and the rating agencies like Moodies were not paying attention, and a lot of ratings were to high. The mortgage insurers were a case in point. Bear Stearns is no longer in business. The stock was 170 dollars per share last year and JP Morgan came in and scooped it up for 2 dollars per share and in a week or so the shares came up to about 10 bucks.

Countrywide Mortgage, the largest in the nation was bought by Bank of American and now they are sweating the paper losses in CWM portfolio.

Washington Mutual screwed up bad and all of these banks have laid off a lot of people. Foreign countries have bought some of these loser securities.

Citibank and others were cuting up to 19,000 employees at a whack.

Remember JUNK BONDS? Michael Milkin. The S and L crisis, the sub prime loan crisis are all bank and trader type of creations and they cause a lot of trouble when the bubble breaks.

None of these guys call the white house and get the ok to do this crap.

All of these institutions answer to congress. We all remembers how well congressman ran their own bank.

Congress is no different than the FW Commission. If you dont write, you dont exist. Actually you do exist. You're on the menu.

I'd like to nominate Mayor Greg Nichols for our local POS. He is attempting to supercede State Law and take more of our rights away.

In law, treason is the crime that covers some of the more serious acts of disloyalty to one's sovereign or nation. Historically, treason also covered the murder of specific social superiors, such as the murder of a husband by his wife (treason against the king was known as high treason and treason against a lesser superior was petit treason). A person who commits treason is known as a traitor.

Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as: "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]." In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aided or involved by such an endeavour.

Outside legal spheres, the word "traitor" may also be used to describe a person who betrays (or is accused of betraying) their own political party, nation, family, friends, ethnic group, religion, social class, or other group to which they may belong. Often, such accusations are controversial and disputed, as the person may not identify with the group of which they are a member, or may otherwise disagree with the group leaders making the charge. See, for example, race traitor.

At times, the term "traitor" has been levelled as a political epithet, regardless of any verifiable treasonable action. In a civil war or insurrection, the winners may deem the losers to be traitors. Likewise the term "traitor" is used in heated political discussion – typically as a slur against political dissidents, or against officials in power who are perceived as failing to act in the best interest of their constituents. In certain cases, as with the German Dolchstoßlegende, the accusation of treason towards a large group of people can be a unifying political message.

Murder is now generally considered the worst of crimes, but in the past, treason was thought of as worse. In English law high treason was punishable by being hanged, drawn and quartered (men) or burnt at the stake (women), the only crime which attracted those penalties (until the Treason Act 1814). The penalty was used by later monarchs against people who could reasonably be called traitors, although most modern jurists would call it excessive. Many of them would now just be considered dissidents.

In Shakespeare's play King Lear (c. 1600), when the King learns that his daughter Regan has publicly dishonoured him, he says They could not, would not do 't; 'tis worse than murder: a conventional attitude at that time. In Dante's Inferno, the lowest circles of Hell are reserved for traitors; Judas, who betrayed Jesus, suffers the worst torments of all. His treachery is in fact so notorious that his name has long been synonymous with traitor, a fate he shares with Benedict Arnold, Brutus, and Quisling.....and now we can add GW Bush.

Dogfish, the Iranians turned over the hostages for weapons. Remember the Iran Contra deal with Olie North taking the fall for Ronnie. GW is the diggest DipSH!t we have had in the 51 years of my life.

Does Bush qualify to be brought up on war crimes?

Would like to see Cheney interrogated with his approved methods until we know all about his little energy conference.

Congress voted overwhelmly for the war remember? You want to put 70 % of them on trial too?

That sounds good. Lets just start over with no good old boys in there to corrupt the newbies. Ban lobbyists also.

That vote may have been influenced by Bushco`s B S intelligence.