Jimmy Carter recently commented that George W. Bush's presidency has been the worst in American history. Do you agree with President Carter's statement?

Comments

• Let me guess...You often find yourself in agreement with Rosie O' Donell, right?

  • Report
  

  by Castrate on May 20th, 2007

• Why are people so crazed about Rosie O'Donell? By constantly referring to her it gives her crazy statement credibility.

  • Report
  

  by razz4901 on May 20th, 2007

• No it doesn't...That's like saying that constantly quoting the Bible, or the Koran, gives it credibility...But you would be surprised how many sick and depraved minds actually agree with Rosie O' Donell.

  • Report
  

  by Castrate on May 20th, 2007

• overall you can't deny she's done some helpful things but essentially she's a loon.

  • Report
  

  by Morg the Army wife on May 20th, 2007

• This question is laughable. Which do you prefer: incurable cancer or poisining? Jimmy Carter was the worst president in the 20th Century. Bar none. The reasons include his mealy mouthed responses to threats on our national sovereignty. His non response to armed hostilties against America. His economic non-policies. His style of his Presidency: he could not delegate. His domestic policies. The list goes on. He is a sore loser: he has never ever worked through his loss to Reagan. If you listen to everything the man says an does through that filter, you'll soon come away with the same notion: "Come on Jimmy...get over it."

  • Report
  

  by BerksTeaParty on September 18th, 2009

• We have a republican that is offended over here Bush by far is the worst president ever and I don't think anyone can get more mindless then he can.

  • Report
  

  by Arsonist_Anarchist on October 27th, 2009

• I think you're an offended democrat, which if going along with your stupid comment, discredits everything you just said.

  • Report
  

  by Castrate on October 27th, 2009

• Geez louise guys. I just gave a one-word answer..my opinion. I don't think insulting each other should have been the result. Just my opinion. Slam away if you must but in the meantime have a Happy Wednesday! :)

  • Report
  

  by RosieGHM Jetpacker on October 28th, 2009

• Yep that is the conservative speaking he really doesn't like to be offended! but hey thats cool he wants to ride Bush's dick all day then lets just turn our backs and let him have his alone time.

  • Report
  

  by Arsonist_Anarchist on October 28th, 2009

• "Yep that is the conservative speaking" Wrong! I'm no conservative. I just hate lefties like you, spewing sewage all over the internet. I'm sorry, but truthfully, you democrats are amongst the most impulsive easily offended kumquats I have ever spoken to. I do have my problems with republicans, but it's you democrat's that really strike me as being emotionally distraught, and stupid. I didn't vote for Bush, but seeing how much he pisses lefties like you off, I wish I could have, just to spite people like you.

  • Report
  

  by Castrate on October 28th, 2009

• Wow someone has a bipolar disorder,its republicans such as yourself that go around trying to spread your selfish acts to the people because since the word struggle isn't in your vocabulary you don't understand what it's like to deal you assholes like yourself. GOD! can someone tell this guy that Bush was a mere puppet to congress and everything he did only benefitted ignorant,selfish republicans as this joke over here. Non conservative democrats deal with well off republicans that are against things like raising taxes on the wealthy so Mr.Castrate go buy an island somewhere and create your own socialist economy you prick! and you can invite McCain and Bush to join you.

  • Report
  

  by Arsonist_Anarchist on October 28th, 2009

• "its republicans such as yourself..." I have NEVER voted republican, and even if I did, it would only be to prevent any more democrats from taking office (or to piss people like you off). Seriously, create my own socialist economy? Now you're just pulling this stuff out of your ass.

  • Report
  

  by Castrate on October 28th, 2009

• Happy Thursday...anyone listening to me? :)

  • Report
  

  by RosieGHM Jetpacker on October 29th, 2009

• I AM ROSIE! HAPPY THURSDAY TO YOU SORRY IF I IGNORED YOU ITS JUST ARGUING WITH THIS REPUBLICAN OVER HERE THAT TRIES TO SOUND LIKE HE IS SO INTELLIGENT BUT REALLY HE IS JUST ANOTHER DUMBFOUNDED INDIVIDUAL IN THIS WORLD.

  • Report
  

  by Arsonist_Anarchist on October 29th, 2009

• Thank you m'dear. I was wondering if I had become invisible or something. I appreciate your touching base with me! :)

  • Report
  

  by RosieGHM Jetpacker on October 29th, 2009

• You are so welcome my deepest appologies for not paying attention to a lady rather then taking to a naive old fart. ^_^

  • Report
  

  by Arsonist_Anarchist on October 29th, 2009

• What is new with you my dearest Rosie?

  • Report
  

  by Arsonist_Anarchist on October 29th, 2009

• Doing fine..thank you for asking m'dear. How about you? Our weather has finally gotten to be "autumn-like", if only for a couple of days. Today's high will be 70...in a couple of days we will be back to 81 or 83 but that's way way better than the triple digits we had in summer. Hope your weather is more tolerable AA! :)

  • Report
  

  by RosieGHM Jetpacker on October 29th, 2009

• Well our high is 89 and our low is 69 it has been quite warm with some cold fronts that have hit us making it go down to the mid 40s (ugh I can't stand it!)Its been fall her for about a month now (Florida) looking forward to Thanksgiving , even though I have no clue of what I am doing yet. Perhaps I can spend it with you?? ^_^ I have a good sense of humor! ^_^

  • Report
  

  by Arsonist_Anarchist on October 29th, 2009

• Why are you thanking her? That comment that was supposedly directed towards you, was laced with insults and false statements about me... Rosie, if your goal was to promote peace, than thanking somebody for doing what you asked, when they so clearly were still spewing vitriol, is NOT the way to do it. "my deepest appologies for not paying attention to a lady rather then taking to a naive old fart." Old fart? I'm 20 years old... If that's "old" to you, then you must be a 12 year old... Which really wouldn't surprise me to be honest...

  • Report
  

  by Castrate on October 29th, 2009

• Anyway, if you don't wish to continue this argument that YOU started in the first place, then I would suggest changing your tone, and/or unsubscribing from the thread.

  • Report
  

  by Castrate on October 29th, 2009

• No I am two and more intelligent then your simple mind can handle so go castrate yourself so you can calm down you freak. Also don't insist on me unsubscribing and to change my tone because last time I checked no one ran me especially not no "20 year old" fucktard if you are. And another thing that comment was not directed to me if I fucking agreed with the question in the FIRST place, just put your personal Websters Dictionary down point dexter and drop it because in all reality no one cares what the black sheep has to say, your opinion dosen't matter in this case.

  • Report
  

  by Arsonist_Anarchist on October 29th, 2009

• "No I am two and more intelligent then your simple mind can handle so go castrate yourself so you can calm down you freak." Castrate myself? Wow, aren't you a clever little bastard using my name as an insult... Original too... You've only been a member of this site for 2 days, and now you're just coming on here to stir up shit. You're a 22 year old prick with horrible music taste, ignorant and deranged political views, and an arrogant attitude. So much for listening to Rosie huh? Here you are spewing your bullshit all over the comments thread once again, adding more false accusations and general stupidity. If you think Rosie is somehow "on your side", then you are sadly mistaken. She wants BOTH of us to stop exchanging "words", and to just get along. That's not going to happen as long as you're feigning maturity, all while continuing to do the same hackneyed malarkey.

  • Report
  

  by Castrate on October 29th, 2009

Comments

Comments

• Actually Nixon was a wonderful president minus the Watergate scandal. His foreign policy was fantastic.During his Presidency, Nixon succeeded in ending American fighting in Viet Nam and improving relations with the U.S.S.R. and China. His accomplishments also included revenue sharing, the end of the draft, new anticrime laws, and a broad environmental program.

  • Report
  

  by Anon on August 7th, 2008

• Nixon brought into the community of nations the worst murderers in the history of mankind: Red China.
  Except for helping end the draft, everything else he did just made government bigger and worse.
  As to ending the Vietnam war, even that was just a sell-out, a surrender to some really vicious killers and tyrants.

  • Report
  

  by morrisonhimself on May 25th, 2009

• @Arsenic: "Other than that, mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"?

  • Report
  

  by SanityClause on June 28th, 2009

• Nixon was pro vietnam war that is why the war went on for 16 years opposed to if RFK wasn't assassinated he would of been the 35th president and the war would of ended in 1961 instead of 1975 so I believe Nixon is not the best choice.

  • Report
  

  by Arsonist_Anarchist on October 27th, 2009

Comments

Comments

• I see the trolls are out.This is a valid answer.

  • Report
  

  by jin jang on May 20th, 2007

• It is a valid answer. It's wrong, but valid.

  • Report
  

  by Someguy on July 9th, 2007

• That could be up for debate,but I don't want to debate it.

  • Report
  

  by jin jang on July 9th, 2007

• If our image in the world is so bad, then why did France and Germany recently elect leaders that were more favorable to US policies.

  • Report
  

  by Glenn Blaylock on December 9th, 2007

• Have you seen the riots in France recently, against the imposition of more 'Americanised' policies?

  • Report
  

  by freeluncher on December 9th, 2007

• They rioted over there because the previous president wanted to make it possible for employers to fire employees that were incompetent and/or otherwise not doing the job for which they were hired. There are often malcontents who don't like changes in the status quo. In France these malcontents have been able to influence policy by staging very public protests. This does not mean that they represent the majority of the population. The majority voted for the policies espoused by the current President when they elected him.

  • Report
  

  by Glenn Blaylock on December 9th, 2007

• Additionally, Mr Blaylock, the majority of these "youths" are muslim immigrants. Hmmm....

  • Report
  

  by Someguy on December 9th, 2007

• And where exactly did you read that, Glenn? These 'malcontents' as you call them, and NO 'someguy', they are not all or mostly muslim youths, are opposed to the americanised reforms Sarkozy is forcing through. No doubt apologists for capitalist greed would call it 'liberalising the economy', or some such orwellian twaddle.
  You say the 'majority' voted for Sarkozy and his policies, that is untrue. He won because he got the largest minority vote. In actual mathematical fact, the majority voted against him, as happened here in the UK at the last election. Democracy?? Yeah, right.

  • Report
  

  by freeluncher on December 10th, 2007

• Sarkozy is legally elected by the people, right? How is this not a democracy? What you want is majority rule (read: mob rule). In the American Heritage dicationary, "majority rule" is only definition #4.
  As to the Muslim riots -- the majority of the rioters are youths immigrants from the Middle East or Africa - here is some supporting documentation:
  http://www.euro-islam.info/spip/article.php3?id_article=1084
  http://www.freedomszone.com/archives/2007/11/angry_youths_riot_in_paris_ove.php
  http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1104/p06s02-woeu.html

  • Report
  

  by Someguy on December 10th, 2007

• Hitler was legally elected by the people too, as was Hamas, Bush, Mugabe, Milosovic, and many other leaders not noted for their democratic views. Mob or mass rule is far preferable to rule by a tiny elite, by the rich and their friends and families.

  • Report
  

  by freeluncher on December 10th, 2007

• You know, it really gets me how people on the far left want to lump George W Bush in with various dictators. In case you haven't realized it, Bush will be out of office in 2009. He is not setting himself up to continue in office after his term is up. This is getting pointless. I think that we have reached the point at which we should just agree to disagree and let it go at that. I and those that agree with me are obviously not convincing you of the validity of our side and I know that you are not convincing me. So, lets just let it go.

  • Report
  

  by Glenn Blaylock on December 10th, 2007

• Just let it go? Why? Bush's policies have seen more people die in Iraq than Mugabe has managed to kill in Zimbabwe, yet Mugabe is a Dictator and Bush is not. Both were 'elected'. Care to explain why Bush is somehow 'different', despite the blood on his hands~?

  • Report
  

  by freeluncher on December 11th, 2007

• free - As much as I feel Bush is a disaster in a dark suit, the definition of dictator has nothing to do with the number of people killed.
  And as far as anyone can see now, Bush is not setting up some kind of over-ride to the 2 term limit.
  Bush is many things - nearly all bad - but a dictator isn't one of them. Though I must admit that I think he often wished he could have been.

  • Report
  

  by 23Skidoo on August 8th, 2008

• I recall Bush once saying it would be easier for him if he was a dictator. Besides, a dictator is technically just one who dictates. Does Bush use hios executive power to bypass Congress etc? Yes, he does.

  • Report
  

  by freeluncher on August 8th, 2008

• He tries - and sometimes succeeds - to bypass congress. But I have to say that congress has given him a free pass plenty of times. And the Dems all signed up as Jr Republicans long ago.
  -
  No, dictators don't have a supreme court that tells him he can't simply classify people as shit and toss them in Gitmo.
  -
  Bush, I have no doubt, would love to be a dictator but he's just not.

  • Report
  

  by 23Skidoo on August 8th, 2008

• If Chavez is a dictator, so is Bush. Maybee it's best to say would-be dictator...?

  • Report
  

  by freeluncher on August 9th, 2008

• Let's wait and see if/which one(s) become President for Life (or successful coup, whichever comes first) - I say.

  • Report
  

  by 23Skidoo on August 10th, 2008

• How could Carter comment on anyone's presidency being easily in the bottom two worst of all time.

  • Report
  

  by thekingcobra63 on September 22nd, 2008

• The same way anyone else can.

  • Report
  

  by 23Skidoo on September 22nd, 2008

• comparing Chavez to Bush is idiotic. Chavez needs to be eliminated. He is a threat to the whole hemishpere.

  • Report
  

  by thekingcobra63 on September 23rd, 2008

• not as much of a threat as Bush, kingcobra.

  • Report
  

  by freeluncher on September 24th, 2008

• And Bush is a threat to the world :-)

  • Report
  

  by 23Skidoo on September 25th, 2008

• And Bush needs to be blown up and have it broadcasted all over the world!

  • Report
  

  by Arsonist_Anarchist on October 27th, 2009

Comments

• He's still got a long way to go to be as horrible as Abraham Lincoln or Franklin del ano Roosevelt -- and he's got hundreds of thousands more deaths to account for and millions of dollars of destruction and more countries to sell into slavery.

  • Report
  

  by morrisonhimself on May 25th, 2009

• As horrible as Abraham Lincoln? Come again?

  • Report
  

  by Chekarrild on June 5th, 2009

• I've answered this elsewhere, but essentially my point is this: Lincoln expanded the size and scope of the federal government, used the military draft and tried to institute an income tax, ignored the right of habeas corpus, and jailed political opponents and newspaper editors. Despite his own assertions that people have not only the right but the duty to overthrow an oppressive government, he called up troops to prevent the people of the South having independence. The result of his actions? More than six-hundred-thousand deaths, mass destruction of homes and farms, and a new type of slavery. For more information, please see the works of Tom DiLorenzo. Thank you

  • Report
  

  by morrisonhimself on June 6th, 2009

• Expanded the size and scope of the federal government, ignored habeas corpus, asserted the right to overthrow oppressive government, caused thousands of casualties, mass destruction of homes and farms...those were all done under the Bush regime as well so doesn't that make them equally bad in your eyes?

  • Report
  

  by Mrs.mezzo is a Wagnerian soprano on June 25th, 2009

• A very interesting comparison, but I still think the scope of the Lincoln horrors surpasses those of Bush, and certainly the number of deaths does. We would be a whole lot better off if we quit making a president into a demi-god. "Thou are but a man." And a lesser man, at that. Uh, anyone who doesn't get the quote, please feel free to ask. Thanks.

  • Report
  

  by morrisonhimself on June 28th, 2009

• True, presidents are not demi-gods but I think that's part of why people feel no remorse in attacking Bush - he set himself up as some sort of divine-right president. Those types are a lot easier to knock down.

  • Report
  

  by Mrs.mezzo is a Wagnerian soprano on June 29th, 2009

• Yeah where was Bush when Katrina hit New Orleans? not anywhere near there he was soo in supportive for alot of things that his name should be next to the definition of economic downfall.

  • Report
  

  by Arsonist_Anarchist on October 27th, 2009

Comments

Comments

Comments

• Well said!

  • Report
  

  by razz4901 on May 20th, 2007

• You mean, IF someone is making a factual statement.
  FDR and Lincoln are still far worse, as is Lyndon Johnson.

  • Report
  

  by morrisonhimself on May 25th, 2009

• FDR and Lincoln are bad presidents? LBJ, the guy who helped push through civil rights legislation, is worse than someone like Nixon?

  • Report
  

  by ConservativelyLiberal on June 28th, 2009

• LBJ probably compares well with Nixon.
  Johnson was much more of a crook, making millions of dollars through his political activities; Nixon didn't make money as a politician.
  Johnson used the CIA to spy on political opponents, including Barry Goldwater.
  According to Howard Hunt, LBJ was the mastermind behind the conspiracy that killed Kennedy; and Hunt claimed to be have been a "bench-warmer" in the actual murder.
  When I was a child, I was told "FDR showed a man could be president for life; Truman showed any man could be president; Ike showed we didn't need a president; Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon showed it is dangerous to have a president."

  • Report
  

  by morrisonhimself on June 29th, 2009

• Wow what a load of garbage.

  • Report
  

  by ConservativelyLiberal on June 29th, 2009

• Add the 31st president Herbert Hoover with his lack to get the economy out of a downward spiral when the Wall Street crashed in 1929 and his lack of charisma ,denoucing of laissez-faire.

  • Report
  

  by Arsonist_Anarchist on October 27th, 2009

Comments

• I live among "our global neighbors". Outside of the Middle East, they really couldn't give a damn. The lines for visas to the US at our foreign embassies are still as long, if not longer than ever. Not that I can't stand Dubya, mind you. But his administration's ACTUAL policies (the ones they really pushed) and thare essentially the same as those of every other Presidential Administration of the 20th Century, with the arguable exceptions of Taft, Coolidge, and Reagan.

  • Report
  

  by Stormarm on September 13th, 2009

Comments

• His election was rigged being that they were numerous recounts in places like Fl.

  • Report
  

  by Arsonist_Anarchist on October 27th, 2009

Comments

Comments

• Great answer!

  • Report
  

  by hi_there on July 11th, 2008

• Outstanding answer! Thank you.

  • Report
  

  by Spaniel on March 30th, 2009

• That's funny, everything you have stated sounds just like what the Lefties have been doing for the last 8 years and are continuing now under Obama. I'm not saying that it was a good thing that Bush went along with them but he did and they are at fault for all of our problems now. Democrats are the cancer in Washington and it's only going to get worse. In his short few months in office, Obama has now spent more money then any President in history, all combined.

  • Report
  

  by Shes Country on June 12th, 2009

• I love the way the far right have adopted the mantra of fiscal responsibility after bankrupting a country that had a massive surplus when GWB took office!

  • Report
  

  by Spaniel on June 13th, 2009

• And that would make him different from every other President of the last 80 years in what way?

  • Report
  

  by Razzle-Fratchit on September 13th, 2009

• I think that's pretty funny too, Spaniel. :0)

  • Report
  

  by hi_there on September 14th, 2009

Comments

• At that would distinguish him from Clinton, Bush-I, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Truman, FDR, Hoover, Harding, Wilson, and TR in what way?

  • Report
  

  by Stormarm on September 13th, 2009

Comments

• Clinton was the reason for the good economy. Not that he just happened to be there when it went well.

  • Report
  

  by ConservativelyLiberal on December 27th, 2008

• No, the Republicans running Congress were the reason for the good economy. The president doesn't set our taxes or the laws to do with business that allow for good economical growth. You should read the "Contract with America" which the Republican party implemented during Clinton's term. How lucky for him to have a useful Congress body while he was in office.

  • Report
  

  by Morg the Army wife on January 3rd, 2009

• Oh please the contract with America was nothing more than an attempt by the congress to limit Clintons approval ratings, by making themselves look like they were doing something.
  .
  But how about this, What exactly did the contract with America do? Was it a law? No. It was a non-binding resolution. Nothing manditory about it.
  .
  Just a piece of political spin, that they use to make themselves look good. Totally worthless.
  .
  Also Clinton was the one pushing the balanced budget. The republicans blocked him until the American people started to notice, then it was contract with America time. When they claim to have FORCED a ballanced budget on the president. Rather than the truth, that it was the exact opposite.

  • Report
  

  by ConservativelyLiberal on January 4th, 2009

Comments

• LOL...I agree

  • Report
  

  by Jade on May 21st, 2007

• Clinton-let's see-good economy, low unemployment, respected by the world, no war, budget surplus-yeah, he was a disaster.

  • Report
  

  by Possum on July 11th, 2008

• Go look up the unemployment rates in the 90's compared to today's. The are actually comparable.

  • Report
  

  by jeremymy on October 11th, 2008

• Nope-war keeps people busy

  • Report
  

  by Possum on October 11th, 2008

• You should be thanking Newt, not Bill, do some research.

  • Report
  

  by Cowboy-Matter of Fact on May 21st, 2009

• Newt-another Republican hounded out of office in disgrace.

  • Report
  

  by Possum on May 22nd, 2009

• Actually, thanks to Gingrich and Nixon, simply being a Republican is a disgrace.

  • Report
  

  by morrisonhimself on May 25th, 2009

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

• Here it is and the question is VERY deceitful. Carter said worst regarding foreign policy, not overall. I figured something was fishy. Jimmy Carter could never claim any other presidency was worse than his with a straight face....
  
  http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/news_theswamp/2007/05/carter_bush_adm.html

  • Report
  

  by Cowboy-Matter of Fact on May 20th, 2007

• Thanks unit22 I thought it sounded out of character for an ex pres to say that. And as far as the real comment of his administration being the worst at foreign policy, that's not true either. I think Johnston holds that title. But his being a Democrat probably excludes him from the running.

  • Report
  

  by unknown on May 20th, 2007

• Has the Canadian dollar been worth more than the US dollar during any other President's term besides Bush?
  http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/508384

  • Report
  

  by Halliburton Shill on December 12th, 2007

• Well, between 1952-1960 (Eisenhower) and 1972-1976 (Nix-Ford).
  And these guys were all Republicans.
  Hmmm...
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_dollar#Value

  • Report
  

  by ET-11 on November 13th, 2008

• To sIDNEy: You asked for the link to the question, you did not get it so I don't know which link was used but here is one about the same subject. http://bbsnews.net/article.php/20070520225140669

  • Report
  

  by Carpediem COAT ab imo pectore on December 12th, 2008

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

• lol i got neg'ed, who knew Jimmy Carter was an ABer.

  • Report
  

  by Beauregard on December 27th, 2008

• Maybe it was because you suggested that the President stifle someone else's right to free speech?

  • Report
  

  by Mrs.mezzo is a Wagnerian soprano on June 25th, 2009

Comments

• Great point..but who truly sees themselves as themselves...do you think G W Bush thinks he is as bad as the polls show?

  • Report
  

  by razz4901 on October 11th, 2008

• it doesn't look like Kansas anymore.

  • Report
  

  by Esteban-- Smartest Pumpkin on October 11th, 2008

Comments

Comments

Comments

• Interesting website. My vote goes to Andrew Jackson, noted control freak, grudge carrier and stubborn a**!

  • Report
  

  by LynfromNM on December 9th, 2007

• Many have done far worse than the current president...he is no prize, but some actively supported slavery. I think in 50 years we may have a different view of our current president. Only time will tell but I have a feeling some will have very different views of Bush in 50 years. Keep in mind, that while Lincoln was President he was very UNPOPULAR on both sides. Now he has a statue and considered next to saintly by comparison to many that have held the office. People forget, we were at war before Iraq...we just didn't acknowledge it. Iraq appears to be a mistake but Maybe over time who knows.

  • Report
  

  by Vampyre Bat on December 9th, 2007

• Bush is far worse than all those guys, with the possible exception of Nixon. Bush has presided over the killing of a million innocents in Iraq, ruined the US's reputation around the world, and instituted torture centres and secret jails. Historians in 50 years will recognise him for what he is, a despicable war-criminal and liar.

  • Report
  

  by freeluncher on December 9th, 2007

Comments

Comments

• Then I'd say you haven't been paying attention to what President Bush-Cheney have been doing. What happened under those presidents that beats openly lying to the American people to start a war, setting up buddy no-bid contracts to get rich off the war, and breaking the Geneva Convention on torture?

  • Report
  

  by Halliburton Shill on December 10th, 2007

• You are completely wrong. I am not in the mood today to point out all the things other Presidents have done that are equal to and much worse than what Bush has done. While Bush is not the best President, he is not the worse, either. Have some perspective.

  • Report
  

  by unknown on December 11th, 2007

• In other words, you can't back up your statement. That's perspective.

  • Report
  

  by Halliburton Shill on December 11th, 2007

• Yes, I can. I just don't want to. If that is your argument so be it. I am unsubscribing because I am just not in the mood.

  • Report
  

  by unknown on December 11th, 2007

• Sure. Cut & run.

  • Report
  

  by Halliburton Shill on December 12th, 2007

Comments

• At least Iran would be held back.

  • Report
  

  by Barrat per negòci on December 9th, 2007

• Gina, Saddam had nothing to do with the 'terrorists', which I presume you mean 9/11. That is another of the Bush/Cheney LIES.

  • Report
  

  by freeluncher on December 9th, 2007

• When Saddam was removed, Iran took control of the action.

  • Report
  

  by Barrat per negòci on December 9th, 2007

• Nonsense. From where did you gather that conclusion, Tainted Joy?

  • Report
  

  by freeluncher on December 9th, 2007

• REGARDLESS of him having nothing to do with 9/11, Hussein was a HUGE figure of terrorism, There's absolutely nothing you can say to make me think otherwise, He ranks right there with Hitler, and Bin Laden....How can you say he had nothing to do with terrorists??? He was a terrorist. When 9/11 happened, I'm sure Saddam danced a little jig when he found out about it. And I agree with Tainted Joy, Iran has assumed the control of terrorism action since the fall of Saddam.

  • Report
  

  by Gina on December 9th, 2007

• Gina typed "there is nothing you can say to make me THINK otherwise.."
  
  What, not even the facts of the matter? Thank you for giving me the benefit of your closed mind. You did know Bin Laden and Saddam were created and supported by US governments...?

  • Report
  

  by freeluncher on December 10th, 2007

• The facts of the matter????? I happen to be very closed minded about Saddam. I know someone from Kurdistan, Iraq. His family was terrorized and hunted by Saddam, and his regime. He killed tens of thousands of Kurds (women, children, and babies included) And left them in the streets to rot. He didn't like us (Americans), Do you think that had he been capable, he would not have struck? It was just a matter of time. Not to mention the other hundreds of thousands he killed, in Iraq and Kuwait. Tell me Freeluncher, what is YOUR definition of terrorism?

  • Report
  

  by Gina on December 10th, 2007

• Gina, my definition of terrorism is the same as in the Oxford English Dictionary, not what I, or my government THINK it is. According to the dictionary, terrorism is 'the threat, or use of force to achieve a political aim'. This makes Bush's shock awe campaign a campaign of terrorism, as it was force for a political outcome.

  • Report
  

  by freeluncher on December 11th, 2007

• Now, you mention Saddam and the Kurds, and yes, what Saddam did to the Kurds was horrifying, that he did it when he was being armed, backed and supported by President Reagan and under-secretary Rumsfeld is even more shocking.
  
  And it should be noted, just to be factual, that Saddam DID indeed kill "hundreds of thousands" in Iraq. We have done the same, what does that make us?

  • Report
  

  by freeluncher on December 11th, 2007

Comments

• And you know this how? What is your educational background? Smarter, more degrees, more experience in executive positions?

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on June 12th, 2009

Comments

• I was gonna say the same. +

  • Report
  

  by MyGiveaDamnsBusted on June 1st, 2009

Comments

• +2

  • Report
  

  by MyGiveaDamnsBusted on June 1st, 2009

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

• why is that? I don't know much about the past presidents, but from the little information I just read about Carter, he didn't sound like an awful president

  • Report
  

  by GreenFreak on October 11th, 2008

• You need to read a little more. The Iranians took over our embacy in Tahran and held everyone hostage for 444 days. When he sent in elite troops to rescue them, he approved the plan and it was a disaster. Under equiped and over loaded and many died in the infurno. Inflation at 17+ percent, fuel lines for miles at unbelievable prices. Oh, ya and a beer guzzling brother who was a foriegn agent for Libya. I'll not go on, but please read more and read unbiased information. Not just from the Carter web site.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on June 12th, 2009

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

• Has the Canadian dollar been worth more than the US dollar during any other President's term besides Bush?
  http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/508384

  • Report
  

  by Halliburton Shill on December 12th, 2007

• This question isn't about the Canadian dollar. Carter had higher unemployment, gas shortages, and an inability or unwillingness to do anything about the hostages in Iran.

  • Report
  

  by Tempter on December 12th, 2007

Comments

• If it's unwritten, it's not a rule. All the fairer with a President that has violated the Constitution and Geneva Convention.

  • Report
  

  by Halliburton Shill on December 12th, 2007

Comments

Comments