Ugh.

[prog]

Worst president ever. Well, maybe, maybe not (I wasn't alive when Harding was in office, so who can say), but still, when your security team thinks it would be a good idea to shut down the city you're visiting and set up a sniper network, despite the fact that said city is the capital of one of America's strongest and most long-time allies, then I might suggest that you may be doing something wrong.

Comments

worst president EVER!

[xymotik.livejournal.com]

short comment follows (I could spend hours writing the long version):

Trust me, our Great Leader is significantly worse than Harding. Harding (and Grant) were disconnected dopes who let their cronies loot the govt. Bush and Cheney are letting their cronies loot the world--and that's just for starters. Based upon his policies and impact on the American people and the world, the only American president who was worse than Bush was Jefferson Davis, the president of the Confederacy. Even Reagan's administration was more responsible. I have to add that Harding and Grant at least won a plurality of the votes, too.

Isn't the Guardian great?

Why?

[keimel.livejournal.com]

Why do they need such security? After all, it's illegal for any private citizen in the UK to own a gun. This gun law has certainly increased security and allowed people to walk about freely anywhere they want. Why would anyone need protection?

And aside from that, doesn't clearing zones of safety for a diplomat (read King George II (he did not win the popular vote)) define "Target will be ((here)) - please shoot all weapons ((here)). " Yes, security through obscurity is not always the best model, but in the interest of protecting someone, isn't some measure of anonymity useful?

*shrug*

Hope you enjoyed the sarcasm.

[(Anonymous)]

GE MiniGun. We bring good things to life.

President Tush

[millerwolf.livejournal.com]

I really preferred how Richard Nixon dealt with protesters... that day he went outside into a crowd of them in the early 70's and sweated like a pig as he argued with them. That was cool. If they really are "peace protesters", they would know better than to bring any harm to the President.

But, I guess you just can't trust anyone now-days.