What's the most damaging thing Republicans have done in the last three decades?

[Esmeralda]

Electing GW Bush (twice) as President. He nearly destroyed the country.

HNN Poll: 61% of Historians Rate the Bush Presidency Worst History News Network | HNN Poll: 61% of Historians Rate the Bush Presidency Worst
Historians Rank George W. Bush Among Worst Presidents
Historians Rank George W. Bush Among Worst Presidents - US News
On C-SPAN, Historians Rate W the 7th Worst President Ever
On C-SPAN, Historians Rate W the 7th Worst President Ever - ABC News

There are many other sites that say the same thing. GW Bush was one of the worst presidents the US ever had, in the bottom ten.

 

[eagle1462010]

Anyone know? At this point in Obama's second term, did Republicans spend more investigating Obama or Clinton? The only "smoking gun", pardon the pun, was the blue dress with the "stain".

I know how much they spent investigating Clinton. And believe me, it's a lot.

Which could have been stopped instantly if Clinton just said yeah I did here in the Oval Office..............

Instead he raised his right hand, Swore to tell the truth, and lied his ass off.

 

[jillian]

What's the most damaging thing Republicans have done in the last three decades?

Allowing a shit bird like Owe Bama to get elected President. They should have put forward better Presidential candidates.

Still lashing out against your better?

its amusing watching the right rant about the president when they handed us the stupidest, worst president we had in my lifetime.

but they love the radical rightwing neocon theocrat...

mostly b/c normal people knew what a moron baby bush was.

 

[bedowin62]

The nation still hasn't recovered from the tactics and strategies of Republican Congress members of the 90's that included Gingrich, Delay, Armey and others that implemented and promoted party first and made the good of the country secondary and even irrelevant. Demonizing became a perfectly appropriate tactic and that led to the acceptance of raw hatred of individuals due to political beliefs to become normal and accepted. Compromise to obtain solutions became treason to the party.

libs are SUCH laughable losers. the 90s you say? you mean that time when most things were going great?

you mean the "Republican Congress" that Clinton; a Democrat hero; deemd fit to ACTUALLY WORK WITH; despite them wanting to IMPEACH HIM?


you left-wing losers are laughable clowns
you cant admit the Dem Party are the ones that have moved to the extreme; and that obama simply cant lead

Everything wasn't going great. People were seeing peace and prosperity, but there was shit going on behind the curtain that was being missed by the public. People had the same kind of lack of depth in their perceptions that you do. Al Qaeda was growing and planning. When Clinton went after him the Republicans hindered him with the "Wag the Dog" fiasco. Home owners were being sold homes they could not afford. Laws and regulations were being created in the banking and investment industries while others were ignored by Democrats and Republicans to benefit the campaign contributors of both parties, which were more often than not, the same.
Our ability to govern and be pragmatic was lost in the 90's by both Dem's and Repub's. We have not recovered. It is why our government doesn't work today. We live in an ADD world of sound bites, talking points and a citizenry of shallow depth.

the only one lacking perception (and lying to himself) is you

clinton didnt "go after" al qaeda. in fact he refused 3 offers to have bin laden handed over to him on a platter. and even with the attempted takedown of the World Trade Center by truck bomb in clinton's FIRST YEAR; the WHOLE CREW that would go on to comitt 9-11 was let in by the Dem President; it had nothing to do with republicans "hindering' clinton.

ur a joke

 

[bedowin62]

Electing GW Bush (twice) as President. He nearly destroyed the country.

HNN Poll: 61% of Historians Rate the Bush Presidency Worst History News Network | HNN Poll: 61% of Historians Rate the Bush Presidency Worst
Historians Rank George W. Bush Among Worst Presidents
Historians Rank George W. Bush Among Worst Presidents - US News
On C-SPAN, Historians Rate W the 7th Worst President Ever
On C-SPAN, Historians Rate W the 7th Worst President Ever - ABC News

There are many other sites that say the same thing. GW Bush was one of the worst presidents the US ever had, in the bottom ten.

virtually everything was better when Republicans ran things; employment; food stamps, welfare, food and gas prices,

everything


oh and you cite "history" of a guy that just left office 6 years ago; as if that can be a reliable gauge

you left-wing brain-washed losers and your talking points are hilarious!

 

[Camp]

libs are SUCH laughable losers. the 90s you say? you mean that time when most things were going great?

you mean the "Republican Congress" that Clinton; a Democrat hero; deemd fit to ACTUALLY WORK WITH; despite them wanting to IMPEACH HIM?


you left-wing losers are laughable clowns
you cant admit the Dem Party are the ones that have moved to the extreme; and that obama simply cant lead

Everything wasn't going great. People were seeing peace and prosperity, but there was shit going on behind the curtain that was being missed by the public. People had the same kind of lack of depth in their perceptions that you do. Al Qaeda was growing and planning. When Clinton went after him the Republicans hindered him with the "Wag the Dog" fiasco. Home owners were being sold homes they could not afford. Laws and regulations were being created in the banking and investment industries while others were ignored by Democrats and Republicans to benefit the campaign contributors of both parties, which were more often than not, the same.
Our ability to govern and be pragmatic was lost in the 90's by both Dem's and Repub's. We have not recovered. It is why our government doesn't work today. We live in an ADD world of sound bites, talking points and a citizenry of shallow depth.

the only one lacking perception (and lying to himself) is you

clinton didnt "go after" al qaeda. in fact he refused 3 offers to have bin laden handed over to him on a platter. and even with the attempted takedown of the World Trade Center by truck bomb in clinton's FIRST YEAR; the WHOLE CREW that would go on to comitt 9-11 was let in by the Dem President; it had nothing to do with republicans "hindering' clinton.

ur a joke

Your ignorance goes beyond a simple lack of depth. First, the allegations that Clinton turned down offers to take Bin Laden into custody. For Clinton to have done that would have been a violation of both US and international law. There was no warrant for Bin Laden's arrest and neither the CIA nor the FBI would meet US requirements to certify an approval for his arrest, assassination, kidnapping or acceptance into custody. That changed after the Embassy bombings when Bin Laden publicly took responsibility via a video where he admitted his involvement which led to the certification by the CIA and FBI for the previous mentioned remedies.
Clinton launched over 75 cruise missiles at al Qaeda interest in Sudan and Afghanistan, including a training camp that intelligence indicated the likely presence of Bin Laden when the certification was approved and which gave him the legal right to make such attacks.
Republicans in Congress called for "investigations" and suggested the President, with the help of the US military, was waging military actions to take attention away from the impeachment proceedings and other investigations into the President's activities.

 

[bedowin62]

Everything wasn't going great. People were seeing peace and prosperity, but there was shit going on behind the curtain that was being missed by the public. People had the same kind of lack of depth in their perceptions that you do. Al Qaeda was growing and planning. When Clinton went after him the Republicans hindered him with the "Wag the Dog" fiasco. Home owners were being sold homes they could not afford. Laws and regulations were being created in the banking and investment industries while others were ignored by Democrats and Republicans to benefit the campaign contributors of both parties, which were more often than not, the same.
Our ability to govern and be pragmatic was lost in the 90's by both Dem's and Repub's. We have not recovered. It is why our government doesn't work today. We live in an ADD world of sound bites, talking points and a citizenry of shallow depth.

the only one lacking perception (and lying to himself) is you

clinton didnt "go after" al qaeda. in fact he refused 3 offers to have bin laden handed over to him on a platter. and even with the attempted takedown of the World Trade Center by truck bomb in clinton's FIRST YEAR; the WHOLE CREW that would go on to comitt 9-11 was let in by the Dem President; it had nothing to do with republicans "hindering' clinton.

ur a joke

Your ignorance goes beyond a simple lack of depth. First, the allegations that Clinton turned down offers to take Bin Laden into custody. For Clinton to have done that would have been a violation of both US and international law. There was no warrant for Bin Laden's arrest and neither the CIA nor the FBI would meet US requirements to certify an approval for his arrest, assassination, kidnapping or acceptance into custody. That changed after the Embassy bombings when Bin Laden publicly took responsibility via a video where he admitted his involvement which led to the certification by the CIA and FBI for the previous mentioned remedies.
Clinton launched over 75 cruise missiles at al Qaeda interest in Sudan and Afghanistan, including a training camp that intelligence indicated the likely presence of Bin Laden when the certification was approved and which gave him the legal right to make such attacks.
Republicans in Congress called for "investigations" and suggested the President, with the help of the US military, was waging military actions to take attention away from the impeachment proceedings and other investigations into the President's activities.

i dont take you seriously; you'rea joke to me. just deny facts put in your face while insisting your "facts' are gospel.

clinton refused three offers to have bin laden handed over. Sandy Berger has admitted it is one of his biggest failures

 

[bedowin62]

Everything wasn't going great. People were seeing peace and prosperity, but there was shit going on behind the curtain that was being missed by the public. People had the same kind of lack of depth in their perceptions that you do. Al Qaeda was growing and planning. When Clinton went after him the Republicans hindered him with the "Wag the Dog" fiasco. Home owners were being sold homes they could not afford. Laws and regulations were being created in the banking and investment industries while others were ignored by Democrats and Republicans to benefit the campaign contributors of both parties, which were more often than not, the same.
Our ability to govern and be pragmatic was lost in the 90's by both Dem's and Repub's. We have not recovered. It is why our government doesn't work today. We live in an ADD world of sound bites, talking points and a citizenry of shallow depth.

the only one lacking perception (and lying to himself) is you

clinton didnt "go after" al qaeda. in fact he refused 3 offers to have bin laden handed over to him on a platter. and even with the attempted takedown of the World Trade Center by truck bomb in clinton's FIRST YEAR; the WHOLE CREW that would go on to comitt 9-11 was let in by the Dem President; it had nothing to do with republicans "hindering' clinton.

ur a joke

Your ignorance goes beyond a simple lack of depth. First, the allegations that Clinton turned down offers to take Bin Laden into custody. For Clinton to have done that would have been a violation of both US and international law. There was no warrant for Bin Laden's arrest and neither the CIA nor the FBI would meet US requirements to certify an approval for his arrest, assassination, kidnapping or acceptance into custody. That changed after the Embassy bombings when Bin Laden publicly took responsibility via a video where he admitted his involvement which led to the certification by the CIA and FBI for the previous mentioned remedies.
Clinton launched over 75 cruise missiles at al Qaeda interest in Sudan and Afghanistan, including a training camp that intelligence indicated the likely presence of Bin Laden when the certification was approved and which gave him the legal right to make such attacks.
Republicans in Congress called for "investigations" and suggested the President, with the help of the US military, was waging military actions to take attention away from the impeachment proceedings and other investigations into the President's activities.

you mean we can KILL people now with drones; even AMERICAN CITIZENS; WITH NO ARREST WARRANT; but we couldnt have taken custody of bin laden then?

thank God the Left gave us a "Constitutional scholar" to sort out all this

you're a joke

 

[chikenwing]

The nation still hasn't recovered from the tactics and strategies of Republican Congress members of the 90's that included Gingrich, Delay, Armey and others that implemented and promoted party first and made the good of the country secondary and even irrelevant. Demonizing became a perfectly appropriate tactic and that led to the acceptance of raw hatred of individuals due to political beliefs to become normal and accepted. Compromise to obtain solutions became treason to the party.

libs are SUCH laughable losers. the 90s you say? you mean that time when most things were going great?

you mean the "Republican Congress" that Clinton; a Democrat hero; deemd fit to ACTUALLY WORK WITH; despite them wanting to IMPEACH HIM?


you left-wing losers are laughable clowns
you cant admit the Dem Party are the ones that have moved to the extreme; and that obama simply cant lead

Actually, the most progressive legislation was when Democrats were in charge of Congress. About the only thing Republicans did once in charge was investigate Clinton and block everything he wanted to do. Guess how money the GOP spent on investigating Clinton. And the only thing they found was a blowjob by a woman was was an adult. So guess. How much did they spend investigating Clinton.

You are one dumb fuck,Clinton was impeached because he committed a crime,not the BJ you nit witt but you know that,but prefer to continue to lie not only to others but yourself as well.

Your mother have any kids that lived?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

By far and away, the worst the Rs have done is sell out our vote. We will never ever see another honest election in the US. Never.

IMO, that is worse than their fight against jobs and economic recovery. Its worse than the horrendous damage Bush did.

But, long term damage for the planet is their willful ignorance of global climate change. For the right, money is always the motivation. They are killing their own children and grand children and they know it.

 

[bedowin62]

By far and away, the worst the Rs have done is sell out our vote. We will never ever see another honest election in the US. Never.

IMO, that is worse than their fight against jobs and economic recovery. Its worse than the horrendous damage Bush did.

But, long term damage for the planet is their willful ignorance of global climate change. For the right, money is always the motivation. They are killing their own children and grand children and they know it.

"sell out our vote"
what does this even mean?
are any of you self-described "critical thinkers" on the Left capable of moving beyond empty catch-phrases?

 

[bedowin62]

"sellout our vote"

you mean like al gore and buddhist fundraisers that were actually agents of Red china?
like "no controlling authority"?

you mean like Dems attempted coup in 2000? where Gore wanted only the urban areas recounted and not areas with more conservative and established areas?

libs are losers who lie to themselves

 

[bedowin62]

"fight against jobs and recovery...'

where are the 3 MILLION "GREEN' jobs obama promised?
its a FACT that Repubs werent able to stop obama from giving tens of BILLIONS TO HIS POLITICAL DONORS AND CRONIES for green energy jobs that never materialized; and the money disappeared too

libs are losers who lie to themsselves

 

[chikenwing]

By far and away, the worst the Rs have done is sell out our vote. We will never ever see another honest election in the US. Never.

IMO, that is worse than their fight against jobs and economic recovery. Its worse than the horrendous damage Bush did.

But, long term damage for the planet is their willful ignorance of global climate change. For the right, money is always the motivation. They are killing their own children and grand children and they know it.

And you point fingers calming willful ignorance??!!,who taught you to hate your fellow country men so much?

Killing our own children,that's so special coming from a pro abortionist,simply priceless!!

 

[Camp]

the only one lacking perception (and lying to himself) is you

clinton didnt "go after" al qaeda. in fact he refused 3 offers to have bin laden handed over to him on a platter. and even with the attempted takedown of the World Trade Center by truck bomb in clinton's FIRST YEAR; the WHOLE CREW that would go on to comitt 9-11 was let in by the Dem President; it had nothing to do with republicans "hindering' clinton.

ur a joke

Your ignorance goes beyond a simple lack of depth. First, the allegations that Clinton turned down offers to take Bin Laden into custody. For Clinton to have done that would have been a violation of both US and international law. There was no warrant for Bin Laden's arrest and neither the CIA nor the FBI would meet US requirements to certify an approval for his arrest, assassination, kidnapping or acceptance into custody. That changed after the Embassy bombings when Bin Laden publicly took responsibility via a video where he admitted his involvement which led to the certification by the CIA and FBI for the previous mentioned remedies.
Clinton launched over 75 cruise missiles at al Qaeda interest in Sudan and Afghanistan, including a training camp that intelligence indicated the likely presence of Bin Laden when the certification was approved and which gave him the legal right to make such attacks.
Republicans in Congress called for "investigations" and suggested the President, with the help of the US military, was waging military actions to take attention away from the impeachment proceedings and other investigations into the President's activities.

you mean we can KILL people now with drones; even AMERICAN CITIZENS; WITH NO ARREST WARRANT; but we couldnt have taken custody of bin laden then?

thank God the Left gave us a "Constitutional scholar" to sort out all this

you're a joke

My comments are based on facts that are easy to google and find multiple links to confirm. Your comments are based on opinions based on speculation by agenda driven pundits.
In regards to our current "drone" policies, there is a legal process that is followed every time a target is selected for a drone attack. It is the method we use to kill and cripple our terrorist enemies. Weird and hypocritical that you bitch about Clinton not doing enough to get Bin Laden and at the same time bitch about Obama going after the terrorist with drones. Come up with another solution or make up your mind.

 

[peach174]

Have the liberal losers fixed the economy yet...............

Specifically the Job participation rate.

When they have accomplished this action perhaps they will have a leg to stand on.

In the mean time they are the party of excuses, and we need another bail out Asses.

You mean after Republicans wrecked it?

Who is the party that got the Feds into the housing business in the first place?

Hint- it wasn't the Repubs.

 

[bedowin62]

Your ignorance goes beyond a simple lack of depth. First, the allegations that Clinton turned down offers to take Bin Laden into custody. For Clinton to have done that would have been a violation of both US and international law. There was no warrant for Bin Laden's arrest and neither the CIA nor the FBI would meet US requirements to certify an approval for his arrest, assassination, kidnapping or acceptance into custody. That changed after the Embassy bombings when Bin Laden publicly took responsibility via a video where he admitted his involvement which led to the certification by the CIA and FBI for the previous mentioned remedies.
Clinton launched over 75 cruise missiles at al Qaeda interest in Sudan and Afghanistan, including a training camp that intelligence indicated the likely presence of Bin Laden when the certification was approved and which gave him the legal right to make such attacks.
Republicans in Congress called for "investigations" and suggested the President, with the help of the US military, was waging military actions to take attention away from the impeachment proceedings and other investigations into the President's activities.

you mean we can KILL people now with drones; even AMERICAN CITIZENS; WITH NO ARREST WARRANT; but we couldnt have taken custody of bin laden then?

thank God the Left gave us a "Constitutional scholar" to sort out all this

you're a joke

My comments are based on facts that are easy to google and find multiple links to confirm. Your comments are based on opinions based on speculation by agenda driven pundits.
In regards to our current "drone" policies, there is a legal process that is followed every time a target is selected for a drone attack. It is the method we use to kill and cripple our terrorist enemies. Weird and hypocritical that you bitch about Clinton not doing enough to get Bin Laden and at the same time bitch about Obama going after the terrorist with drones. Come up with another solution or make up your mind.

really? are you saying we havent target people for death by drones? you're saying i made that up? or got it from "agenda-driven pundits"?

you're a comical loser deep in denial

 

[bedowin62]

Your ignorance goes beyond a simple lack of depth. First, the allegations that Clinton turned down offers to take Bin Laden into custody. For Clinton to have done that would have been a violation of both US and international law. There was no warrant for Bin Laden's arrest and neither the CIA nor the FBI would meet US requirements to certify an approval for his arrest, assassination, kidnapping or acceptance into custody. That changed after the Embassy bombings when Bin Laden publicly took responsibility via a video where he admitted his involvement which led to the certification by the CIA and FBI for the previous mentioned remedies.
Clinton launched over 75 cruise missiles at al Qaeda interest in Sudan and Afghanistan, including a training camp that intelligence indicated the likely presence of Bin Laden when the certification was approved and which gave him the legal right to make such attacks.
Republicans in Congress called for "investigations" and suggested the President, with the help of the US military, was waging military actions to take attention away from the impeachment proceedings and other investigations into the President's activities.

you mean we can KILL people now with drones; even AMERICAN CITIZENS; WITH NO ARREST WARRANT; but we couldnt have taken custody of bin laden then?

thank God the Left gave us a "Constitutional scholar" to sort out all this

you're a joke

My comments are based on facts that are easy to google and find multiple links to confirm. Your comments are based on opinions based on speculation by agenda driven pundits.
In regards to our current "drone" policies, there is a legal process that is followed every time a target is selected for a drone attack. It is the method we use to kill and cripple our terrorist enemies. Weird and hypocritical that you bitch about Clinton not doing enough to get Bin Laden and at the same time bitch about Obama going after the terrorist with drones. Come up with another solution or make up your mind.

really dimwit? what IS this legal process every time somebody is targeted for death by drone?
and who besides us recognizes it?
the only one being hypocritical is the Left. when bush targeted people with drones the Left screamed that he was merely creating new terrorists; and called him a war criminal over it. now obama has tripled drone attacks and its all good in the hood with LWNJs

amazing the way left-wing nutjobs try to re-write their own history

 

[chikenwing]

The patriot act,was by all reason the worst legislation put forth,they also had overwhelming support fro the other side of the fence to get it done. Home land insecurity along with it.

 

[Camp]

you mean we can KILL people now with drones; even AMERICAN CITIZENS; WITH NO ARREST WARRANT; but we couldnt have taken custody of bin laden then?

thank God the Left gave us a "Constitutional scholar" to sort out all this

you're a joke

My comments are based on facts that are easy to google and find multiple links to confirm. Your comments are based on opinions based on speculation by agenda driven pundits.
In regards to our current "drone" policies, there is a legal process that is followed every time a target is selected for a drone attack. It is the method we use to kill and cripple our terrorist enemies. Weird and hypocritical that you bitch about Clinton not doing enough to get Bin Laden and at the same time bitch about Obama going after the terrorist with drones. Come up with another solution or make up your mind.

really dimwit? what IS this legal process every time somebody is targeted for death by drone?
and who besides us recognizes it?
the only one being hypocritical is the Left. when bush targeted people with drones the Left screamed that he was merely creating new terrorists; and called him a war criminal over it. now obama has tripled drone attacks and its all good in the hood with LWNJs

amazing the way left-wing nutjobs try to re-write their own history

You could greatly improve your knowledge if you spent more energy attempting to learn basic stuff instead of foolishly insulting people you don't know on a message board. Google 'drone targeting procedure' and you will have access to pages of data from the Dept. of Defense, Justice, the WH and news sites from the left, center and right.