NationStates Jolt Archive

Personally, I think he's pretty bad, but not the worst.

Do you know what Josh calls him? Grandma-Man.

I think Bush is the 8th or 9th worst President.

Name other Presidents who didn't apologize after misleading nation into war?

Nanme other Presidents who endorsed Outsourcing.

Name other presidents who gave tax cuts and didn't give tax increases. (Reagon gave a tax cut then a tax increase so poo to Reagonites)

Name another President who had a name who claims to be a uniter and was a divider?

Claim another President who helped pollutters when making Environment laws? Then made it laughable with Ironic names? Heathly Forest allows peopl;e to clear cut forests. Clean Air Act raises amount of pollution allowed by companies to produce.

I can go on and on... should I?

Name other Presidents who didn't apologize after misleading nation into war?

Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, LBJ...

Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, LBJ...
Name there wars please.

Name there wars please.

WWI, WWII, Vietnam War...

Oh, yeah, and Lincoln. Civil War.

Lets see...

Enron
Invading Iraq
The budget
Lying about the previous two
His cabinet
His ignorance
His supporters
orwellianism
abu ghraib
shameful gutless cowardice
considering himself infallible
taliban religiosity

Name other Presidents who didn't apologize after misleading nation into war?

Nanme other Presidents who endorsed Outsourcing.

Name other presidents who gave tax cuts and didn't give tax increases. (Reagon gave a tax cut then a tax increase so poo to Reagonites)

Name another President who had a name who claims to be a uniter and was a divider?

Claim another President who helped pollutters when making Environment laws? Then made it laughable with Ironic names? Heathly Forest allows peopl;e to clear cut forests. Clean Air Act raises amount of pollution allowed by companies to produce.

I can go on and on... should I?
1)nixon

WWI, WWII, Vietnam War...

Oh, yeah, and Lincoln. Civil War.
WW I was a mileading war? Okay I just asked bro and we did send Lisotania boat out to draw enemy out. And we used that as reason to fight. But still how in the world was WW II misleading?
WW II was a misleading war?
I thought Japan attacked us? How was that misleading?

Lincoln didn't start the civil war, South attacked North at Fort Sumpter. Kinda like how we attacked Afganistan. Defense is a good reason.

Lets see...

Enron
Invading Iraq
The budget
Lying about the previous two
His cabinet
His ignorance
His supporters
orwellianism
abu ghraib
shameful gutless cowardice
considering himself infallible
taliban religiosity

Agreed, he's a 100% total sh**, but I don't think he's the worst President. Far from it.

WW I was a mileading war?
WW II was a misleading war?
I thought Japan attacked us? How was that misleading?

Lincoln didn't start the civil war, South attacked North at Fort Sumpter. Kinda like how we attacked Afganistan. Defense is a good reason.

Wilson and Roosevelt both repeatedly promised they wouldn't get us involved in foreign wars; both of them secretly did everything in their power to piss off the Germans (and, in Roosevelt's case, the Germans and the Japanese) so we would be attacked and they would have an excuse to get us into wars that were none of our business. Ford Sumter was in Confederate territory. Of course the South attacked it. Which was, as they had no way of knowing, all a part of Lincoln's plan.

Bush is bad, but I don't know if I'd say he's the worst US president ever.

Wilson and Roosevelt both repeatedly promised they wouldn't get us involved in foreign wars; both of them secretly did everything in their power to piss off the Germans (and, in Roosevelt's case, the Germans and the Japanese) so we would be attacked and they would have an excuse to get us into wars that were none of our business. Ford Sumter was in Confederate territory. Of course the South attacked it. Which was, as they had no way of knowing, all a part of Lincoln's plan.
It was Federal Property either way. South had no right to attack it.

I'll give you Wilson but Roosevelt I don't agree with.

In case anyone cares, he's my 'worst Presidents' list. And, please, no flaming if you disagree:

1)Franklin Roosevelt
2)Abraham Lincoln
3)Woodrow Wilson
4)Lyndon Johnson
5)Richard Nixon
6)Jimmy Carter
7)Harry Truman
8)Dwight Eisenhower
9)JFK
10)George W. Bush
11)Herbert Hoover
12)Gerald Ford
13)George H.W. Bush
14)Bill Clinton
15)Ulysses Grant
16)Ronald Reagan

To the left:

He's breathing, and pissed them off by winning over Gore.

Period. The only REAL reason they have, or need.

BastardSword, I'll tell you the same thing I told Unified West Africa in the other thread: Thank you very much for disagreeing intelligently, courteously, and without flaming. I respect you for that. :)

BastardSword, I'll tell you the same thing I told Unified West Africa in the other thread: Thank you very much for disagreeing intelligently, courteously, and without flaming. I respect you for that. :)
I do my best. And I thank you for same.

In case anyone cares, he's my 'worst Presidents' list. And, please, no flaming if you disagree:

1)Franklin Roosevelt
2)Abraham Lincoln
3)Woodrow Wilson
4)Lyndon Johnson
5)Richard Nixon
6)Jimmy Carter
7)Harry Truman
8)Dwight Eisenhower
9)George W. Bush
10)Herbert Hoover
11)Gerald Ford
12)George H.W. Bush
13)Bill Clinton
14)Ulysses Grant

I'll agree with you about Both the Bushes, Nixon, Carter, and LBJ. The rest... I'm not so inclined to agree. That is all.

I do my best. And I thank you for same.

You're most welcome. You're a very nice person. :)

To the left:

He's breathing, and pissed them off by winning over Gore.

Period. The only REAL reason they have, or need.


couldn't have said it better myself.

In case anyone cares, he's my 'worst Presidents' list. And, please, no flaming if you disagree:

1)Franklin Roosevelt
2)Abraham Lincoln
3)Woodrow Wilson
4)Lyndon Johnson
5)Richard Nixon
6)Jimmy Carter
7)Harry Truman
8)Dwight Eisenhower
9)George W. Bush
10)Herbert Hoover
11)Gerald Ford
12)George H.W. Bush
13)Bill Clinton
14)Ulysses Grant

Not so much a reply as a suggestion. With the exceptions of Lincoln and
Grant on your list, all of these are presidents from this century. Perhaps
some research into previous centuries would show you presidents who
exceed this list in sheer incompotence, corruption, amorality, misfortune, or
a combination of these and more.

Incidentally, I'm just curious. Why were Reagan and Kennedy omitted from your list?

It's too early to say whether he was the worst ever. Give him four more years and he'll probably win it walking away, but it'll take us a few years yet to truly assess the damage he has done.

Right now, tops on my list would still be Nixon. He really did put us in a constitutional crisis. His one saving grace was that when the Supreme Court told him that he had to give up the tapes, he didn't give them the finger and submitted--at least partially--to their judgment. (The missing seventeen minutes was the extent of his refusal to cooperate in that matter.)

On a side note, it seems particularly ironic to me that of the three times where impeachment of a President was considered, the only one who deserved it quit before he could be slapped down by the Senate.

Incidentally, I'm just curious. Why were Reagan and Kennedy omitted from your list?

:headbang: Damn it, I knew I was forgetting somebody!

It's too early to say whether he was the worst ever. Give him four more years and he'll probably win it walking away, but it'll take us a few years yet to truly assess the damage he has done.

Right now, tops on my list would still be Nixon. He really did put us in a constitutional crisis. His one saving grace was that when the Supreme Court told him that he had to give up the tapes, he didn't give them the finger and submitted--at least partially--to their judgment. (The missing seventeen minutes was the extent of his refusal to cooperate in that matter.)

On a side note, it seems particularly ironic to me that of the three times where impeachment of a President was considered, the only one who deserved it quit before he could be slapped down by the Senate.
If you were Nixon, wouldn't you have quit?

Updated my list.

To the left:

He's breathing, and pissed them off by winning over Gore.

Period. The only REAL reason they have, or need.
yeah so true
too bad he has given us so very many EXTRA reasons to despise him.

James Buchanan was probably the worst. The Civil War was obviously on its way, and he did nothing. Just sat there with his thumb up his ass doing nothing.

http://www.525reasons.com/

To the left:

He's breathing, and pissed them off by winning over Gore.

Period. The only REAL reason they have, or need.

You don't know much about the issues, i take it. Others have listed some very pertinent reasons, and you reduce it to sour grapes over a rigged election? The farce of an election is a good place to start, but it goes so much deeper than that.

Why does Bush keep pushing his extreme religious right ideology? Because the religious right is the only voting block he hasn't pissed off besides the wealthy.

If you were Nixon, wouldn't you have quit?Oh, of course I would have. It's just funny to me that he was the only one to actually deserve impeachment and he didn't actually go through it. Both Johnson and Clinton were the victims of a Congress that was out of control with partisan hatred.

Lets see...

Enron
Invading Iraq
The budget
Lying about the previous two
His cabinet
His ignorance
His supporters
orwellianism
abu ghraib
shameful gutless cowardice
considering himself infallible
taliban religiosity

His hideous exploitation of 9/11 to justify his corporate imperialism
His blocking of the 9/11 investigation
His steeping up of the Drug War in the name of "fighting terror"
TIPS
Patriot Act
JOHN "calico" ASHCROFT

this list goes on and on and on

Ironically, I think Bill Clinton was a great president for the US. (This is from a Canadians view).

Bush is not the worst president ever, yet. Give him four more years and we'll see what else he can do.

Maybe not the worse, but one horrible thing about him is that he only seems to be working towards goals other people want him to --daddy, puppeteers, businesses, religious right..and he doesn't really care what he does.

Why does Bush keep pushing his extreme religious right ideology? Because the religious right is the only voting block he hasn't pissed off besides the wealthy.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2106590/

that's a pretty good article about the whole religious issue.

Good president? Bad president?

Well, let me say this: Bush never actually DID anything! Oh, he's doing lots of things. No Child Left Behind. The War in Iraq. The War on Terror. But he hasn't finished anything!

Name oe thing Bush has seen through from beginning to end. Just one. *waits*

Name oe thing Bush has seen through from beginning to end. Just one. *waits*

That book he was reading on the 11th of Sept 2001. No terrorist attack was going to stop him seeing that through to the end...

That book he was reading on the 11th of Sept 2001. No terrorist attack was going to stop him seeing that through to the end...

Book? Hah! It was a newspaper. ;)

Hey roachbuster! do you seriously think that all the 20th century US presidents are heaps worse than the 19th century ones?

You people amaze me.

After an Administration that stripped the military, made Intelligence criminally deficient, did nothing to control the growth of global terrorism after being attacked repeatedly in 8 years, and after comitting perjury you claim that Bush is one of our worst Presidents ever. Give me a break!! :headbang:

QUOTE=New Granada]Lets see...

Enron
Invading Iraq
The budget
Lying about the previous two
His cabinet
His ignorance
His supporters
orwellianism
abu ghraib
shameful gutless cowardice
considering himself infallible
taliban religiosity[/QUOTE]

Half this list pure personal opinion and malarky "his ignorance" and such rubbish.

The other's are just tripe. Bush is a bad President because a handful of soldiers that were prosecuted and punished humiliated some war prisoners? Are you kidding me?

The President is responsible for the extremism of the Taliban? How? By destroying them?

Are the terrorists pissed? You bet they are. Good. How many times should hundreds and thousands of civilians die before we go after the extremists? Right now we are at about five. Four of which happened on Clinton's watch but he's not being held accountable. No matter.

You people amaze me. And I am frightened for the future of our Republic.

Family Freedom 93
After an Administration that stripped the military, made Intelligence criminally deficient, did nothing to control the growth of global terrorism after being attacked repeatedly in 8 years

Uhm, excuse me.

Clinton stripped the military? Call me crazy but I seem to recall a certain Secretary of Defense Cheney advising massive cuts of our armed services pretty much throughout his time at that post. Which was the common wisdom at the time -- the cold war being over, what would we ever need troops for?

Clinton made intelligence criminally deficient? How, exactly? Our human intelligence has been pretty sad, well, basically since world war 2. We've always had a problem with HUMINT, we've just made up for it with SIGINT...great against another world superpower, fairly useless against a few terrorists passing information by word of mouth.

And as for Clinton not retaliating against terrorists, I direct your attention to the aspirin factory bombing, and the other cruise missile attacks he launched towards the end of his presidency in an attempt to do exactly that. Prompting cries from the republicans of "wagging the dog", among other things. Clinton probably could not have gotten away with doing any more.

But you /totally/ got him on the lying about a blowjob thing.

Sheesh.

i was going to ask why no one had mentioned his tendancy to only work half the year then i realised actiualy there were lazyer presidents...well one
although admittedly HH mostly caused problems by not working more than anything else

Family Freedom 93
After an Administration that stripped the military, made Intelligence criminally deficient, did nothing to control the growth of global terrorism after being attacked repeatedly in 8 years

Uhm, excuse me.

Clinton stripped the military? Call me crazy but I seem to recall a certain Secretary of Defense Cheney advising massive cuts of our armed services pretty much throughout his time at that post. Which was the common wisdom at the time -- the cold war being over, what would we ever need troops for?

Clinton made intelligence criminally deficient? How, exactly? Our human intelligence has been pretty sad, well, basically since world war 2. We've always had a problem with HUMINT, we've just made up for it with SIGINT...great against another world superpower, fairly useless against a few terrorists passing information by word of mouth.

And as for Clinton not retaliating against terrorists, I direct your attention to the aspirin factory bombing, and the other cruise missile attacks he launched towards the end of his presidency in an attempt to do exactly that. Prompting cries from the republicans of "wagging the dog", among other things. Clinton probably could not have gotten away with doing any more.

But you /totally/ got him on the lying about a blowjob thing.

Sheesh.

There is a great difference between cuts and butchering.

That's right, he bombed an aspirin factory. Wow, that was probably the best target. He was wagging the dog. Had he actually gone after some terrorists than he would have had some support. But that wasn't what the goal was now was it?

What is it about you liberals defending him for lying UNDER OATH? Nowhere in that oath does it say you only have to tell the whole truth if its not personal. He said he would tell "the whole truth". He didn't. That is perjury. It is a crime. He should have done time for it.

We all know that politicians lie. If their lips are moving you know their lying right. But NOT UNDER OATH. If he had just said "yeah, she gave me a blowjob and it was good," then all would be fine. He didn't. He LIED!

Get it?

Family Freedom 93
There is a great difference between cuts and butchering.

Right. "Cuts" are what your politician does. "Butchering" is what the other side does. I get it.

That's right, he bombed an aspirin factory. Wow, that was probably the best target. He was wagging the dog. Had he actually gone after some terrorists than he would have had some support. But that wasn't what the goal was now was it?

One word: IRAQ.

Man, this is easier than I thought.

What is it about you liberals

Excuse me? Why do you assume that I'm a liberal? Calling you out on unfair, hypocritical criticism of Bill Clinton makes me a Democrat? Interesting.

defending him for lying UNDER OATH?

Technically, as was mentioned repeatedly during the Valarie Plame investigation, Presidents are always under oath, namely the oath of office. Most of us realize that it does not prevent them from lying. Myself, I worry less about when a president lies about where his dick has been than when he lies about, say, the reasons for a war.

Nowhere in that oath does it say you only have to tell the whole truth if its not personal. He said he would tell "the whole truth". He didn't. That is perjury. It is a crime. He should have done time for it.

Do you even know how that whole investigation came about? The fact that Ken Starr was the second republican special prosecuter assigned to Mr. Clinton by his congressional republican enemies? Specifically assigned to investigate whitewhater, as was the first? Some $80 million dollars later, neither prosecuter could find a thing wrong with those business dealings, so when the first one simply said so and left, Mr. Starr started branching out into anything he could ding the President on. I bet if we spent a similar sum investigating our current President, with similar doggedness, we'd get similar results.

We all know that politicians lie. If their lips are moving you know their lying right. But NOT UNDER OATH. If he had just said "yeah, she gave me a blowjob and it was good," then all would be fine. He didn't. He LIED!

Get it?

See above. Presidents are always under oath.

My point was not so much to defend Bill Clinton as a perfect, saintly human being. I don't believe he is, though I will say that we've had far far worse presidents (and have one right now). My point was to point out that your thought process is so obscured by partisan blinders that you cannot see how your arguments apply equally to those on your own side. You're choosing to see the entire situation in a "red vs. blue" context. Politics is not football, and the sooner we the people move away from that sort of attitude, the better for the effectiveness of our government and for ourselves.

Quote from Whateveahh(?)

"My point was not so much to defend Bill Clinton as a perfect, saintly human being. I don't believe he is, though I will say that we've had far far worse presidents (and have one right now). My point was to point out that your thought process is so obscured by partisan blinders that you cannot see how your arguments apply equally to those on your own side. You're choosing to see the entire situation in a "red vs. blue" context. Politics is not football, and the sooner we the people move away from that sort of attitude, the better for the effectiveness of our government and for ourselves."

Very well stated!!

I agree with this past statement. We as americans have gotten too divided, either far-left, far-right, or nothing at all. (My Opinion) Each side has it's pluses and it's minuses, and if we get too far to the right or the left, the results could be disastrous for this society. We really should be working together trying to solve our country's problems, instead of fighting each other tooth and nail over issues that, in reality, don't mean shit.

BALANCE!! That's the message I'm attempting to convey.

Good president? Bad president?

Well, let me say this: Bush never actually DID anything! Oh, he's doing lots of things. No Child Left Behind. The War in Iraq. The War on Terror. But he hasn't finished anything!

Name oe thing Bush has seen through from beginning to end. Just one. *waits*

How about the MONTH long vacation he took previous to 9/11?

Good president? Bad president?

Well, let me say this: Bush never actually DID anything! Oh, he's doing lots of things. No Child Left Behind. The War in Iraq. The War on Terror. But he hasn't finished anything!

Name oe thing Bush has seen through from beginning to end. Just one. *waits*
He probably went to watch F9/11 with Michael Moore at some point. I think he fell asleep though:)

Good president? Bad president?

Well, let me say this: Bush never actually DID anything! Oh, he's doing lots of things. No Child Left Behind. The War in Iraq. The War on Terror. But he hasn't finished anything!

Name oe thing Bush has seen through from beginning to end. Just one. *waits*

He couldn't even finish a pretzel.

Good president? Bad president?

Well, let me say this: Bush never actually DID anything! Oh, he's doing lots of things. No Child Left Behind. The War in Iraq. The War on Terror. But he hasn't finished anything!

Name oe thing Bush has seen through from beginning to end. Just one. *waits*

He raped Alaska pretty well. Sure, some wildlife is still alive and well, but the damage done was extensive.

Worst environmental President ever.

Worst environmental President ever.

Yeah. He also wasted, like, half of that pretzel.

What makes Bush the worst president ever?

His jeans.

Half this list pure personal opinion and malarky "his ignorance" and such rubbish.

The other's are just tripe. Bush is a bad President because a handful of soldiers that were prosecuted and punished humiliated some war prisoners? Are you kidding me?

The President is responsible for the extremism of the Taliban? How? By destroying them?

Are the terrorists pissed? You bet they are. Good. How many times should hundreds and thousands of civilians die before we go after the extremists? Right now we are at about five. Four of which happened on Clinton's watch but he's not being held accountable. No matter.

You people amaze me. And I am frightened for the future of our Republic.

Bush destroyed the taliban?

Making the other chimps look bad
(I know you've seen the pictures with Bush compared to chimps)

What makes Bush the worst President ever?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Personally, I think he's pretty bad, but not the worst.

Do you know what Josh calls him? Grandma-Man.

Permenent brain damage from years of binge drinking.

Let us not forget the drug abuse.

Bush destroyed the taliban?

Considering we never even got the Taliban leader and the fact that our relative inattention to Afghanistan has allowed them to reform, to an extent, I'd have to say no.

James Buchannan was pretty shitty, So was Ulysses S. Grant. If your against big government, then Lincoln isnt your best friend. JFK has us very close to nuclear war with Russia so he wasnt that good, and LBJ was just a prick.

He raped Alaska pretty well. Sure, some wildlife is still alive and well, but the damage done was extensive.

Excuse me? When was his plan to drill for oil in Alaska passed?

Okay, well I'd like to come to an understanding how anyone can think WW2 was unjust, uncalled for, whatever. (I know I'm posting this late, but I just started on Nationstates, so yeah). First off, anyone trying to peddle that Roosevelt purposefully put us in a situation to get attacked is speaking little more than conspiracy theory. The only thing the US did to Japan was cut off their oil supply, which came from us, and it was within reason. We told them "hey stop attacking China", they said "no", we cut off the supplies. They caused their own problems. WW2 was probably the only war that actually HAD to be fought, at least after the Revolutionary War. And the war had adversely good effects on our country, like our Economy. Had we stayed out of the war, the depression would have likely lasted another decade or so.
Anyway, that's basically what I have to say about that. I'm too tired to go into a political rant :P

You people amaze me.

After an Administration that stripped the military, made Intelligence criminally deficient, did nothing to control the growth of global terrorism after being attacked repeatedly in 8 years, and after comitting perjury you claim that Bush is one of our worst Presidents ever. Give me a break!! :headbang:

QUOTE=New Granada]Lets see...

Enron
Invading Iraq
The budget
Lying about the previous two
His cabinet
His ignorance
His supporters
orwellianism
abu ghraib
shameful gutless cowardice
considering himself infallible
taliban religiosity

Half this list pure personal opinion and malarky "his ignorance" and such rubbish.

The other's are just tripe. Bush is a bad President because a handful of soldiers that were prosecuted and punished humiliated some war prisoners? Are you kidding me?

The President is responsible for the extremism of the Taliban? How? By destroying them?

Are the terrorists pissed? You bet they are. Good. How many times should hundreds and thousands of civilians die before we go after the extremists? Right now we are at about five. Four of which happened on Clinton's watch but he's not being held accountable. No matter.

You people amaze me. And I am frightened for the future of our Republic.[/QUOTE]

Bush is a bad president because he has mishandled his supposed "war on terrorism" which has pretty much turned into a Crusade more than anything else. He's created more enemies, alienated more allies, and pretty much put the US in a position where nobody is going to trust us again. What sort of world is that to live in? Everybody who sort kinda hated you, now wants you dead, and all your friends don't want to hang out with you any more.
And name a thing that Bush has done to improve the economy? Clinton left a booming economy, Bush killed it. But I'm not going to blame Bush for any problems left over when he is replaced. I won't, because that is a stupid way to look at politics, and that is how so many right wing Bush supporters are looking at things. Instead of looking at how their President is failing to fix problems, they blame it on Clinton as an excuse. That's absurd. If Bush can't handle it, then why is he our President? It's like that thing that little kids do all the time, "it wasn't me" or "I didn't do it" or whatever. Afghanistan is actually in no better shape since we waltzed in, there is no real evidence to support a war in Iraq, "REAL" evidence people, "REAL". There's talk, there's babble, there's supposed "video" evidence, but I have yet to see it, I have yet to be shown it by anyone stating it, everyone remembers CBS right?
And if you're going to go off on Clinton about terrorism, then you might as well look at every other President in the last 40 years. It happens in every Presidency, in some way shape or form. A lot of things never get done about it.
Okay, this is enough for now, but I'll come back to it when I'm off work :).

well you have all made very valid points but your forgetting the one reason everyone hates bush, BECAUSE HE IS A GOD DAMN AMERICAN AND AMERICANS ARE THE SCUM OF THE EARTH

Attention All You Idiots!!!!!!! Bush Had To Go To War He Couldnt Let Those Terrorist Get Away He Had To Nfind Those Responsible For 9/11 And Punish Them, Plus Iraq Was A Open House For Terrorist And We Went In And Stopped It. If You Look At Polls At 9/11 Everyone Wanted To Go To War Then Liberal Newscasters Published Lies About Bush Which Made Alot Of People Angry. Which Caused Alot Of Finger Pointing At Bush Which Really The Finger Should Have Been Pointed At Them. Bush Has Been A Great President He Is My Favorite Out Of All We've Had And If You Want Some Life Saving Advice Vote Bush This November 2

Attention All You Idiots!!!!!!! Bush Had To Go To War He Couldnt Let Those Terrorist Get Away He Had To Nfind Those Responsible For 9/11 And Punish Them, Plus Iraq Was A Open House For Terrorist And We Went In And Stopped It. If You Look At Polls At 9/11 Everyone Wanted To Go To War Then Liberal Newscasters Published Lies About Bush Which Made Alot Of People Angry. Which Caused Alot Of Finger Pointing At Bush Which Really The Finger Should Have Been Pointed At Them. Bush Has Been A Great President He Is My Favorite Out Of All We've Had And If You Want Some Life Saving Advice Vote Bush This November 2

Easy there junior. No need to shout and get all spitty.

Repeat after me: Iraq had no collaborative relationship to Al Qaida.

Source? The Bipartisan 9/11 report

As a secular Dictatorship, Iraq probably was just about the least hospitable country in the Middle East to Fundamental Islamists. Saddam had been grinding the Shi'ites (fundamental Islamists) under his heel for decades.

By invading Iraq under false pretenses and using faulty intelligence, we have proven the fanatic's accusations of us, enlisting a lot of support for attacking the US amongst those that were not previously bent on killing us.

Simultaneously, we have de-emphasized Afghanistan, allowing it to drift back into the hands of the Warlords and, yes, even the Taliban. This, of course, makes Afghanistan fertile grounds for Al Qaida again (remember Osama!!!!)

Bush is a disaster, and I am disappointed in anyone who chooses to vote for him. I honestly would like my state (California) to secede from the Union if he is elected to another term.

He couldn't even finish a pretzel.

C'mon he did find the time to finish "My Pet Goat" while the USA was under attack. :D

Wilson and Roosevelt both repeatedly promised they wouldn't get us involved in foreign wars; both of them secretly did everything in their power to piss off the Germans (and, in Roosevelt's case, the Germans and the Japanese) so we would be attacked and they would have an excuse to get us into wars that were none of our business. Ford Sumter was in Confederate territory. Of course the South attacked it. Which was, as they had no way of knowing, all a part of Lincoln's plan.

I'm gonna have to take issue with you on Fort Sumter. Major Anderson was in charge of the Federal troops in the Charleston harbor. There were actually several forts protecting the Charleston harbor and his job was to shore up their defensive capabilities. His troops were assigned to Fort Moultrie, with a smaller group in an artillery battery closer to the city.

When South Carolina seceeded, it became an independent country. It wasn't until other states followed suit did it become a part of the Confederate States of America. Most South Carolina residents didn't appreciate their lesser role in the CSA and many believed that Charleston should be the capital and not Richmond. There were calls for South Carolina to secede from the CSA as well. But what's important is that when they were the first state to secede, no one really understood what to do with the defenses of the Charleston harbor.

Major Anderson understood that should the political sentiment of the area become more hostile, his troops were in a poor position at Fort Moultrie. The fort, while more prepped for naval warfare, was extremely weak against land foes. The ground outside the fort in many neighborhoods was actually higher than the walls of the fort. Snipers could target nearly the entire inside of the fort from these neighborhoods. Anderson realized that he needed to move his troops to the better fortified, yet incomplete, Fort Sumter. The Fort was designed to be a stalwart that could withstand most any attacks. And being in the middle of the harbor, it was not vulnerable to sniper fire or a land-based assault.

Anderson snuck his troops out to Fort Sumter in the middle of the night, avoiding the patrols of the harbor that the Charleston residents completed each night. In the morning, the people of Charleston were surprised and angered about his move and demanded his return to Fort Moultrie. Anderson refused. He had already sent his men into Charleston in the days leading up to this move to stock up on supplies. The fort was very well supplied, if not well defended considering it wasn't complete and didn't have a full battery or detail.

Anderson repeatedly sent pleas to the north for reinforcements for the fort. When South Carolina became a part of the CSA, soldiers under Beauregard began to fill up the batteries surrounding Fort Sumter and requested again that Anderson surrender the fort. Lincoln had no involvement in Anderson occupying Sumter, but once it became occupied, it became a source of northern pride that it remain in Federal hands. Naval warships were in the process of being sent to Charleston harbor with reinforcements, albeit way too late to be of assistance. A strategic key also lay in place that if the Federals were able to hold and reinforce Sumter, the Charleston harbor would be closed off for the entire war.

By this time, there was already a gathering of opposing forces in Phillippi, Virginia (now West Virginia). While no shots had been fired, it seemed inevitable that war would erupt soon. Beauregard gave the order to open fire upon Sumter and the bombardment that followed became the first shots of the Civil War.

The Confederates in Charleston had more guns and ammunition than the outnumbered Federals in Sumter, yet Anderson ordered his guns fired with consistency to show that the fight would continue. After several hours, the Confederates began to cheer with each round that Sumter returned to them. One must remember that the beginning of the war was much more civil on the battlefield than the later years. When Sumter exhausted its ammunition, Anderson surrendered the fort. His entire troop compliment was allowed to leave the fort and board the Union ships that had finally entered the harbor. The American flag was also allowed to be taken. Anderson returned to the north as a hero and Sumter fell into the hands of the Confederates. Shortly thereafter, fighting erupted in Phillippi as the first ground battle of the war had begun. In 1864, Sumter was nearly levelled by a Union bombardment of Charleston's defenses.

Lincoln had little involvement with the decision to occupy Sumter. However, once it became occupied, it would have been a disastrous mistake for him to order it surrendered. The north used Sumter as a rallying cry to get people to sign up. Even had Lincoln decided to abandon the fort, it is likely that the order would have been too late to have made a difference. And the ground war still would have erupted in western Virginia, meaning the war would proceed despite what Lincoln's desires were.

So Roach, I think your comments on Lincoln may be incorrect. Can you provide an alternative reason for why you think Lincoln was deceptive in pushing the country into the Civil War?

Personally, I think he's pretty bad, but not the worst.

Do you know what Josh calls him? Grandma-Man.

He's not the worst by a long shot. U.S. Grant, Herbert Hoover, Grover Cleveland, and a handful of others are vying for that slot.

Hrmm, I'm not sure I have them ranked, but here's my list of the 6 worst presidents:

James Buchanan

U.S. Grant

Woodrow Wilson

George W. Bush

Jimmy Carter (side note, while a horrid president, he's been a fantastic ex-president)

Richard Nixon (tough call....while essentially a decent president, he did more to harm American belief in its political system than anyone else could have dreamed doing)

Attention All You Idiots!!!!!!! Bush Had To Go To War He Couldnt Let Those Terrorist Get Away He Had To Nfind Those Responsible For 9/11 And Punish Them, Plus Iraq Was A Open House For Terrorist And We Went In And Stopped It. If You Look At Polls At 9/11 Everyone Wanted To Go To War Then Liberal Newscasters Published Lies About Bush Which Made Alot Of People Angry. Which Caused Alot Of Finger Pointing At Bush Which Really The Finger Should Have Been Pointed At Them. Bush Has Been A Great President He Is My Favorite Out Of All We've Had And If You Want Some Life Saving Advice Vote Bush This November 2

Yeah... what are these lies you speak of? And what the hell are you talking about with Iraq, we caught Saddam but the guy is still waiting for a damn trial. Yet another instance of Bush not finishing anything. Did you see Saddam in court? The man looks way to good on camera, his speech got interuppted by "Medical Room Miracles" in the middle apparently because Bush didn't think the rest of what he had to say was important... :mp5:

He might not be the worst, he's not my president and i couldn't say. But he's one of the worst person on earth. It's that kind of person that values money over life (of course, others life).

No reason to start Irak's war, no right to take the "judgement" on his own."I`m gonna give you freedom from Sadam!!" I didn't now dead was a sinonimous of freedom. He's not God, but he acts like if he was.

Hope USA citizens would punish him in the elections. We punish our goverment for getting us in a war that was not our, a war that brought us the islamic terrorism and killed almost lots of our people in a train on 11th March. :mp5:

People like him should never have the position he has. I fear he can continue 4 more years there. Ans I pray that if he results elected, God help us. :sniper:

well you have all made very valid points but your forgetting the one reason everyone hates bush, BECAUSE HE IS A GOD DAMN AMERICAN AND AMERICANS ARE THE SCUM OF THE EARTH

Well I'm an American, and I hate Bush, so your theory pretty much falls short :P

Attention All You Idiots!!!!!!! Bush Had To Go To War He Couldnt Let Those Terrorist Get Away He Had To Nfind Those Responsible For 9/11 And Punish Them, Plus Iraq Was A Open House For Terrorist And We Went In And Stopped It. If You Look At Polls At 9/11 Everyone Wanted To Go To War Then Liberal Newscasters Published Lies About Bush Which Made Alot Of People Angry. Which Caused Alot Of Finger Pointing At Bush Which Really The Finger Should Have Been Pointed At Them. Bush Has Been A Great President He Is My Favorite Out Of All We've Had And If You Want Some Life Saving Advice Vote Bush This November 2



Attention you idiot. Can't you see this is for the money??? Open your eyes!!!! Where are your feelings?? It's only dead of Americans that worth?? What about all the people dying because of this war? I thought his revenge was Afghanistan, but apparently there was not good business there. The best president??? Please, don't scare me.

Well I'm an American, and I hate Bush, so your theory pretty much falls short :P

Good point. Btw, I know a lot of great Americans, and I don't dislike them, cause they're good people, I just dislike Bush for obvious reasons. :)

In case anyone cares, he's my 'worst Presidents' list. And, please, no flaming if you disagree:

1)Franklin Roosevelt
2)Abraham Lincoln
3)Woodrow Wilson
4)Lyndon Johnson
5)Richard Nixon
6)Jimmy Carter
7)Harry Truman
8)Dwight Eisenhower
9)JFK
10)George W. Bush
11)Herbert Hoover
12)Gerald Ford
13)George H.W. Bush
14)Bill Clinton
15)Ulysses Grant
16)Ronald Reagan
How is John Adams 1 not in the top 5? He enacted laws far worse than the PATRIOT Act. Why does Reagan get off so lightly? Why, of all the shit presidents, do you put FDR at the top? I know putting those Japanese inconcentration camps was evil, but he saved Europe and East Asia by getting into WW2! Didn't he also help save the US and hence the global economy in the 1930s?

Lets see...

Enron
Invading Iraq
The budget
Lying about the previous two
His cabinet
His ignorance
His supporters
orwellianism
abu ghraib
shameful gutless cowardice
considering himself infallible
taliban religiosity

The damage to the international community and international law
Guantanamo
Alcoholic
Failed Businessman (several times over)
Dick Cheney (corrupt businessman)
The environment (Alaskan oil, Kyoto)
Cheating on elections
Linking Iraq to 9/11
Dirty, negative campaigning

Attention All You Idiots!!!!!!! Bush Had To Go To War He Couldnt Let Those Terrorist Get Away He Had To Nfind Those Responsible For 9/11 And Punish Them, Plus Iraq Was A Open House For Terrorist And We Went In And Stopped It.

Wrong.

Bush did not have to go to war to fight terrorism. Iraq did not harbour terrorists. The only terrorist the GWB people alleged was in Iraq turned out to have a camp in the Kurdish zone which exists because of... American enforced no-fly zones.

Terrorists were anathema to Saddam Hussein, whose power was based on keeping control over the populace - in effect a Stalinist style of government. He would have been scared to have terrorists in case they turned on him

And Al-Quaeda had threatened him (and allegedly attempted assassination).

If You Look At Polls At 9/11 Everyone Wanted To Go To War Then Liberal Newscasters Published Lies About Bush Which Made Alot Of People Angry. Which Caused Alot Of Finger Pointing At Bush Which Really The Finger Should Have Been Pointed At Them.

Everyone wanted to go to war because Bush and his administration lied, and the propoganda machine backed him. The population were led to believe Bush lies not the other way around (eg. Powell's UN presentation)

There were NO Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. Period.

This is not people making lies about Bush. This is from people appointed by Bush to find them, but could not, because they did not exist.


Bush Has Been A Great President He Is My Favorite Out Of All We've Had

Really?

What has worked out for him?

The War on Terror (is there more or less terrorism because of his policies? before you answer ask someone in Bali, Madrid or Bagdhad)

The War in Iraq (which is quite separate)

The Economy

The Environment

And If You Want Some Life Saving Advice Vote Bush This November 2[/QUOTE]

The life saving vote would surely go the other way...

Does having a wife that murdered someith while driving under the influence of alcohol a good enough reason? Laura ran over a guy in high school while speeed, running a red light, and DUI.
She got off by a settlement with family.
I don't think she has shown remorse so I take it that is a okay reason :)

Attention All You Idiots!!!!!!! Bush Had To Go To War He Couldnt Let Those Terrorist Get Away He Had To Nfind Those Responsible For 9/11 And Punish Them, Plus Iraq Was A Open House For Terrorist And We Went In And Stopped It. If You Look At Polls At 9/11 Everyone Wanted To Go To War Then Liberal Newscasters Published Lies About Bush Which Made Alot Of People Angry. Which Caused Alot Of Finger Pointing At Bush Which Really The Finger Should Have Been Pointed At Them. Bush Has Been A Great President He Is My Favorite Out Of All We've Had And If You Want Some Life Saving Advice Vote Bush This November 2

Attention all you idiots!!! could you possibly explain me the link between Iraq and 9/11??? If you look at polls (sorry I feel lazy to find a link but this is for sure) something like 2 thirds of Americans think there IS a link - but you can't be that stupid,... or can you?

Attention all you idiots!!! could you possibly explain me the link between Iraq and 9/11??? If you look at polls (sorry I feel lazy to find a link but this is for sure) something like 2 thirds of Americans think there IS a link - but you can't be that stupid,... or can you?
Yes America can too be stupid. You give us too much credit. But don't worry mostly its just the ones who watch Fox news. CNN viewers as poll know they aren't connected.

This particular post has a lot of interesting dialogue... I find it very amusing to read these threads, as a large majority of BOTH sides of the argument provide emotional and opinionated viewpoints that are not largely backed by facts. Sounds like we are all part of the recent journalistic dilemma, doesn't it? I applaud those of you who are posting intelligent, documented, and logical arguments... regardless of whether they support my beliefs or not. That is respectable debate. :D

One comment to BonnyBridge and her comment about Bush and "Dirty, negative campaigning." Wow... what a gutsy and foolish thing to say. BOTH sides of this campaign have been involved in deception, lying, and exaggerating. This election is one of the largest smut campaigns of all time.

I am an American. We are not all stupid, foolish, and scorned. I am damn proud of who I am and what I have done in life. I simply urge people to think before they speak (or write in this case) and vote with your heads... not the badge on your chest.

Duffer

One comment to BonnyBridge and her comment about Bush and "Dirty, negative campaigning." Wow... what a gutsy and foolish thing to say. BOTH sides of this campaign have been involved in deception, lying, and exaggerating. This election is one of the largest smut campaigns of all time.

I stand by my comment

The thread is "What makes Bush the worst President ever?" rather than a comparison between Bush and his opponent. Kerry is not (yet), and has not been, president, so is positively excluded.

Bush is certainly guilty of dirty, negative campaigning which seems somewhat beneath the purported job description of "leader of the free world".

Oh, and I'm a "he"! :)

Bush's actions make him a crappy politician and a man of low moral fiber, but that's not rare these days. i honestly wouldn't be bothered by there being yet another bad politician because i have been so numbed by modern politics. what annoys me about Bush is that he is putting political satirists (such as myself) out of a job...he's a lump of walking satire, and that makes it pointless to try to embellish any further.

or, as my friend put it,

"Bush's mind is like one of those spinning cages where you pull out the winning lottery numbers, but there's only four goddamn little balls in his cage: "Freedom," "Democracy," "Terror," and "Stay the Course." He opens his mouth, one of the balls drops out. That's not conversation, that's Keno."

I still have to wonder who these undecided voters are. I mean really--how large a rock do you have to live under to have been in the US for the last four years and not have made your mind up yet?

for those of you who are completely retarded (and i know there are a lot of you out there)

let me end this discussion as simply as possible.

the worst president in the history of the United States was Jimmy Carter.

no one is even close.

this is not even up for discussion.

anyone worth their salt in American History knows this is as true a statement as it is simple.

thank you.

This particular post has a lot of interesting dialogue... I find it very amusing to read these threads, as a large majority of BOTH sides of the argument provide emotional and opinionated viewpoints that are not largely backed by facts. Sounds like we are all part of the recent journalistic dilemma, doesn't it? I applaud those of you who are posting intelligent, documented, and logical arguments... regardless of whether they support my beliefs or not. That is respectable debate. :D

One comment to BonnyBridge and her comment about Bush and "Dirty, negative campaigning." Wow... what a gutsy and foolish thing to say. BOTH sides of this campaign have been involved in deception, lying, and exaggerating. This election is one of the largest smut campaigns of all time.

I am an American. We are not all stupid, foolish, and scorned. I am damn proud of who I am and what I have done in life. I simply urge people to think before they speak (or write in this case) and vote with your heads... not the badge on your chest.

Duffer


just to prove the point duffer makes here....

if bush is such a dirty mudslinging politician, and kerry is not, please explain the following:

a) the phony ANG letter that will eventually cost Dan rather his job

and

b) the fact that the Dme party has outspent the repubs 6 to 1 on 527s (or basically, slander machines exempt from political financial campaign reporting)

and if you think that kerry and the Dems have nothing to do with either, i have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

for those of you who are completely retarded (and i know there are a lot of you out there)

let me end this discussion as simply as possible.

the worst president in the history of the United States was Jimmy Carter.

no one is even close.

this is not even up for discussion.

anyone worth their salt in American History knows this is as true a statement as it is simple.

thank you.I keep trying to find a way to reply to this without calling you the greatest moron on the face of the earth, but somehow, my command of language is lacking.

Historians disagree with you. Last I saw, Harding was still considered the all-time worst, with Hoover, Andrew Johnson, Buchanan and George H. W. Bush all trailing behind. Carter was no prize as executive, but he wasn't far and away the worst, no matter how much you try to claim he was.

And I still say, no matter what he accomplished as Chief Executive, Nixon was the worst because of his utter contempt for the law and the lack of respect he showed for the office he held.

for those of you who are completely retarded (and i know there are a lot of you out there)

let me end this discussion as simply as possible.

the worst president in the history of the United States was Jimmy Carter.

no one is even close.

this is not even up for discussion.

anyone worth their salt in American History knows this is as true a statement as it is simple.

thank you.

Since you've make an ironclad statement, would you care to back up your assertion with reasoning? What makes Carter the worst?

When you make such an aggressive statement without evidence, it seems like you're the one who isn't sure of what the truth is.

just to prove the point duffer makes here....

if bush is such a dirty mudslinging politician, and kerry is not, please explain the following:

a) the phony ANG letter that will eventually cost Dan rather his job
Question--has anyone proven who it actually was who forged the documents in question? Have you any proof whatsoever that it wasn't done by a Republican committee in an attempt to discredit CBS as a news source?

and

b) the fact that the Dme party has outspent the repubs 6 to 1 on 527s (or basically, slander machines exempt from political financial campaign reporting)

and if you think that kerry and the Dems have nothing to do with either, i have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
Don't blame the Dems for working within the law signed by President Bush that created the 527s. He signed the law--we just made it work better than you guys have. Kerry's campaign has had nothing to do with the 527s (although Bush won't answer the question as to whether Karl Rove had anything to do with the Swift Vets 527) as it's against the law. If you can prove he has, then report him to the FEC. If not, then come back when you have proof.

Attention All You Idiots!!!!!!! Bush Had To Go To War He Couldnt Let Those Terrorist Get Away He Had To Nfind Those Responsible For 9/11 And Punish Them, Plus Iraq Was A Open House For Terrorist And We Went In And Stopped It. If You Look At Polls At 9/11 Everyone Wanted To Go To War Then Liberal Newscasters Published Lies About Bush Which Made Alot Of People Angry. Which Caused Alot Of Finger Pointing At Bush Which Really The Finger Should Have Been Pointed At Them. Bush Has Been A Great President He Is My Favorite Out Of All We've Had And If You Want Some Life Saving Advice Vote Bush This November 2

There was no al-queda presence in Iraq before the war...Now there is.

Name other Presidents who didn't apologize after misleading nation into war?

Nanme other Presidents who endorsed Outsourcing.

Name other presidents who gave tax cuts and didn't give tax increases. (Reagon gave a tax cut then a tax increase so poo to Reagonites)

Name another President who had a name who claims to be a uniter and was a divider?

Claim another President who helped pollutters when making Environment laws? Then made it laughable with Ironic names? Heathly Forest allows peopl;e to clear cut forests. Clean Air Act raises amount of pollution allowed by companies to produce.

I can go on and on... should I?

PLEASE go on I am enjoying this throughly, really I would like to hear more. I agree with what you have said so far.

I find it absolutely mind boggling that both sides (anti-bush, and Bush butt kissers) do exactly what they blame eachother of doing. I was at work and these two guys, who are by the far the most right wing Bush butt lovers ever, came up to me babbling out all this supposed evidence they had "heard" and then blamed me for receiving my evidence from what they call "hear say" (spelling on that), which is crap. Most of my information I actually go and read, and I could likely pull up links, newspapers, etc etc to support it. The interesting thing about this is that those same two guys only listen to Rush Limbaugh and Tom Sullivan, Rush being the most opinionated talk show radio person there is. Both are these right wingers, so really they don't learn anything. You have to hit the middle ground zone. I've seen the Michael Moore films, and I can clearly see that yes they are straight anti-Bush (well at least 9/11, the other is anti-gun). I also have noticed there are falacies in the piece, I've looked up a lot of things, found them to either be a little off, skewed, or just embelished (sp?). But also, a lot of right wingers attack him for his supposed "lack of proof", which is pretty interesting. Most everything he has been attacked on intensely he posts on his website with his sources. It's interesting for sure. I've also come to the conclusion that a lot of right wingers (not all of you) are impossible to argue with. Here are some good examples for you, (and I am sure this works for straight lefters too). Those same two guys at work asked me to bring in my evidence to prove what I was talking about (the particular subject was Bush's grades at Yale and Harvard, because they had heard from Rush that he aced and all this crap, wrong wrong wrong, you could look up the Yale Daily News and see right through that in two seconds..). Anywho, getting off topic, but I said "fine I'll bring some in" you know thinking that I'd prove them wrong, well with right wingers this doesn't work in any sense. I start to bring evidence and immediately, without looking at it, without glancing at what they knew would prove them wrong, they instantly pulled out this "oh, well it's probalby falsified like Dan Rather"...so what I do now is completely ignore any of their pathetic political rants. They have their heads so far up their cracks they can't see the truth is sitting before them. They think they know so much about the country, but they really don't. In fact, they tried to argue WW2 with me for a good period of time, and I'm a WW2 nut, I've read a lot, written a historicall fiction novel and short stories, I've done my research. I've never met two more uneducated people in my life. I have yet to really meet any straight left liberals though, so that will be a new interesting experience for me, that's sure.
I think the point of this rant is, don't argue with right wing Bush lovers, or lefty liberals. And if you are going to argue, bring your evidence, and be prepared to have it shot down for no apparent reason whatsoever. It's ridiculous, I know, but yeah, that is unfortunately how things are. sigh...

Good point. Btw, I know a lot of great Americans, and I don't dislike them, cause they're good people, I just dislike Bush for obvious reasons. :)

Oh I totally understand. I don't like him either and I'm ashamed sometimes to call myself an American knowing he's our President. He's degraded what it is to be American, we had a glimpse of patriotism, of being united, and he killed it. 9/11 was horrible and I completely understand going to war with Afghanistan, even some other countries out there, but Iraq? Why? Korea was more of a security threat than Iraq by far. But anyway, I just hope there is some serious changes in policy in America, because things are not looking good for us. Every day we do something somebody doesn't like, we loose brownie points..so yeah.

I am a Bush Supporter, but I am niether Democratic or Republican, just vote whom I think i best at the time.

First, most people attack what Bush SAYS. Is it not what a president Says, but what He does? He does have many errors in his speeches "Terrorists will never stop hurting America, and niether will we" but his intentions are good. I am more trusting of him then Kerry.

As for Kerry, I have heard nothing but attacks on Bush, not reasons why Kerry should be in. Kerry also seems unreliable, by constantly flip flopping, and possibly could resume where Bush left off for all people know.

I really don't like either, but I do lean more towards Bush.

Oh, and to let you all know, Bush knew just as much about 9/11 as all of you did. Clueless. Does that make us bad people?

I am a Bush Supporter, but I am niether Democratic or Republican, just vote whom I think i best at the time.

First, most people attack what Bush SAYS. Is it not what a president Says, but what He does? He does have many errors in his speeches "Terrorists will never stop hurting America, and niether will we" but his intentions are good. I am more trusting of him then Kerry.

As for Kerry, I have heard nothing but attacks on Bush, not reasons why Kerry should be in. Kerry also seems unreliable, by constantly flip flopping, and possibly could resume where Bush left off for all people know.

I really don't like either, but I do lean more towards Bush.

Oh, and to let you all know, Bush knew just as much about 9/11 as all of you did. Clueless. Does that make us bad people?
Reread your words that I bolded, and then go back and look at damn near every argument made against Bush on this forum. Every complaint against him is for what he has done as President, not for some silly malapropism. I think Bush needs to be defeated precisely because of the job he's done as President, because he's led us into a quagmire in Iraq and lied to us to do it, because he's run us deeper into debt than any President in history and his future plans mean more of the same, and because he's done more environmental damage to this globe than anyone previously, simply because he refuses to acknowledge that science should trump ideology. Bush could speak utterly proper English, and I would still say he needs to go, because he's been the most incompetent President since Warren G. Harding.

Speaking of the environment, let me go pull up a list of things Bush has done (not all on the environment, but a good portion at least are things he did against it)...

1. Significantly eased field-testing controls of genetically engineered crops.

2. Cut federal spending on libraries by $39 million.

3. Cut $35 million in funding for doctors to get advanced pediatric training.

4. Cut by 50% funding for research into renewable energy sources.

5. Revoked rules that reduced the acceptable levels of arsenic in drinking water.

6. Blocked rules that would require federal agencies to offer bilingual assistance to non-English speaking persons. This, from a candidate who would readily fire-up his Spanish-speaking skills in front of would-be Hispanic voters.

7. Proposed to eliminate new marine protections for the Channel Islands and the coral reefs of northwest Hawaii (San Francisco Chronicle, April 6, 2001).

8. Cut funding by 28% for research into cleaner, more efficient cars and trucks.

9. Suspended rules that would have strengthened the government's ability to deny contracts to companies that violated workplace safety, environmental and other federal laws.

10. OK'd Interior Department appointee Gale Norton to send out letters to state officials soliciting suggestions for opening up national monuments for oil and gas drilling, coal mining, and foresting.

11. Appointed John Negroponte - an un-indicted high-level Iran Contra figure to the post of United Nations Ambassador.

12. Abandoned a campaign pledge to invest $100 million for rain forest conservation.

13. Reduced by 86% the Community Access Program for public hospitals, clinics and providers of care for people without insurance.

14. Rescinded a proposal to increase public access to information about the potential consequences resulting from chemical plant accidents.

15. Suspended rules that would require hardrock miners to clean up sites on Western public lands.

16. Cut $60 million from a Boy's and Girl's Clubs of America program for public housing.

17. Proposed to eliminate a federal program, designed and successfully used in Seattle, to help communities prepare for natural disasters.

18. Pulled out of the 1997 Kyoto Treaty global warming agreement.

19. Cut $200 million of work force training for dislocated workers.

20. Eliminated funding for the Wetlands Reserve Program, which encourages farmers to maintain wetlands habitat on their property.

21. Cut program to provide childcare to low-income families as they move from welfare to work.

22. Cut a program that provided prescription contraceptive coverage to federal employees (though it still pays for Viagra).

23. Cut $700 million in capital funds for repairs in public housing.

24. Appointed Otto Reich - an un-indicted high-level Iran Contra figure - to Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs.

25. Cut Environmental Protection Agency budget by $500 million.

26. Proposed to curtail the ability of groups to sue in order to get an animal placed on the Endangered Species List.

27. Rescinded the rule that mandated increased energy-saving efficiency regulations for central air conditioners and heat pumps.

28. Repealed workplace ergonomic rules designed to improve worker health and safety.

29. Abandoned campaign pledge to regulate carbon dioxide, the waste gas that contributes to global warming.

30. Banned federal aid to international family planning programs that offer abortion counseling with other independent funds.

31. Closed White House Office for Women's Health Initiatives and Outreach.

32. Nominated David Lauriski - ex-mining company executive - to post of Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety and Health.

And if he becomes President again, say goodbye to a lot of your National Parks. He recently opened up (I think Yellowstone, but I forget the name of the park, but it was big) a park to oil drillers. I don't know about all of you, but when I go to a National Park, I expect a lack of civilization, unless it is National Park designed to have them, say a Western Ghost Town or something. Those are just some of the things Bush has done. Some. There are at least a few hundred others.

And there are reports that Bush had knowledge of an attack on 9/11, he didn't know to what extent, what type of attack, but he did know that it would be a large attack. He was told by several of his officials. I'd have to dig that up again, but I could show it. It was on the radio a while back, and on TV, History or some crazy channel like that. Makes you think about things when the one state (Florida) where most of the voting issues were at, is the one state where Bush's brother was Governor. Hmm, gee that doesn't seem suspicious at all. I don't like Kerry that much either, in fact he was not even near the top of my list for democratic candidates, but I'll vote for him over Bush because there's a great possibility that things will change for the better with Kerry than with Bush. Bush has stated nothing that I can see to improve our economy, to improve our standing in the world. Since Bush has come in, sent us to war, etc etc, we've probably doubled the national security threat. Might have even tripled. There are more threats to the US now than there were before 9/11...anyway...

Reread your words that I bolded, and then go back and look at damn near every argument made against Bush on this forum. Every complaint against him is for what he has done as President, not for some silly malapropism. I think Bush needs to be defeated precisely because of the job he's done as President, because he's led us into a quagmire in Iraq and lied to us to do it, because he's run us deeper into debt than any President in history and his future plans mean more of the same, and because he's done more environmental damage to this globe than anyone previously, simply because he refuses to acknowledge that science should trump ideology. Bush could speak utterly proper English, and I would still say he needs to go, because he's been the most incompetent President since Warren G. Harding.

Most people I know have attacked Bush for what he has said. I know not many people in this discussion (if any) have assulted him for what he has said.

But, he still did a decent job, and under the conditions he had, he did not do very bad at all. If he wanted revengefor Saddam Housaine, is he really the type that would think somthing like that through? People tend to attack him for his intellegence, and he would not be nearly intellegent if what people attack him is true. Also, what would happen if Gore was in? Would Gore just sit back and take it, or fight back? Bush atleast fought back, and he did not fight in Vietnam, but is he going to be there commanding an army, or being here?

What you say is that he lied to us. Kerry has lied on multiple occasions, and when he was not running for president, he actually supported the war. Now that he is running for presidential office he is suddenly against it. He has flipped on several occasions, and I do not trust him.

I would laugh if he continues where Bush left off

This is not all that you were talking about, but what I am trying to do is present some points.

Also, people, you will not change somebody's mind just by posting it on the internet, so stop trying. I always like a good debate though. :)

Hey roachbuster! do you seriously think that all the 20th century US presidents are heaps worse than the 19th century ones?

Indeed.

He's not the worst by a long shot. U.S. Grant, Herbert Hoover, Grover Cleveland, and a handful of others are vying for that slot.

Why Cleveland?

For all of the people that say Bush cut funding, remember that it is congress that controls the country's purse strings. The president has the power to veto spending, but guess what? Bush hasn't used the veto once. Not a single time. That is my biggest gripe with him, he spends money like a drunken sailor on his first shore leave in two years.

Worst president? That is an easy one.

Jimmy Carter, completely ineffective, created the worst economy ever, the biggest deficit (as a % of GNP) ever. Anyone remember the 20% mortgage rates under Carter?

GWB is no winner, but if you remove all of the Michael Moore type of lies that are still being passed off as fact, he isn't as bad as the far left sheep try to make him out to be.

bump

For all of the people that say Bush cut funding, remember that it is congress that controls the country's purse strings. The president has the power to veto spending, but guess what? Bush hasn't used the veto once. Not a single time. That is my biggest gripe with him, he spends money like a drunken sailor on his first shore leave in two years.

Worst president? That is an easy one.

Jimmy Carter, completely ineffective, created the worst economy ever, the biggest deficit (as a % of GNP) ever. Anyone remember the 20% mortgage rates under Carter?

GWB is no winner, but if you remove all of the Michael Moore type of lies that are still being passed off as fact, he isn't as bad as the far left sheep try to make him out to be.

Exactly.

I support him more then Kerry, but personally, I really don't care for him.

For all of the people that say Bush cut funding, remember that it is congress that controls the country's purse strings. The president has the power to veto spending, but guess what? Bush hasn't used the veto once. Not a single time. That is my biggest gripe with him, he spends money like a drunken sailor on his first shore leave in two years.

Worst president? That is an easy one.

Jimmy Carter, completely ineffective, created the worst economy ever, the biggest deficit (as a % of GNP) ever. Anyone remember the 20% mortgage rates under Carter?

GWB is no winner, but if you remove all of the Michael Moore type of lies that are still being passed off as fact, he isn't as bad as the far left sheep try to make him out to be.

I have plenty of other reasons Carter sucks, but because I don't want to be flamed to a crisp by a certain jerk on here who I won't name, I'll keep my mouth shut (and no, that "jerk" isn't any of you).

Exactly.

I support him more then Kerry, but personally, I really don't care for him.
Thats what I think too...

bump

Enron-bush went after them
Invading Iraq-so? why do liberals always value peace before justice?
The budget-debatable, there have been gains
Lying about the previous two- as to iraq if he had said the truth, the liberals would be even angrier and he hasnt lied about the economy
His cabinet-im sorry, i respect rumsfeld
His ignorance-thats bullshit, hes smarter than you think. why do you think hes ahead in the polls? are you calling americans stupid or gullible?
His supporters-yeah attack the supporters, thats a high move
orwellianism-im sorry iraq was much more like 1984, dont use hyperbole that often
abu ghraib-how is this bushs fault?
shameful gutless cowardice-by endangering his political career to follow his conviction? i dont get it
considering himself infallible- hes not and he doesnt
taliban religiosity-once again, how is this his fault? he dealt with the taliban (who were NOT funded by the US, they came later, learn your history.

Enron-bush went after them
Invading Iraq-so? why do liberals always value peace before justice?
The budget-debatable, there have been gains
Lying about the previous two- as to iraq if he had said the truth, the liberals would be even angrier and he hasnt lied about the economy
His cabinet-im sorry, i respect rumsfeld
His ignorance-thats bullshit, hes smarter than you think. why do you think hes ahead in the polls? are you calling americans stupid or gullible?
His supporters-yeah attack the supporters, thats a high move
orwellianism-im sorry iraq was much more like 1984, dont use hyperbole that often
abu ghraib-how is this bushs fault?
shameful gutless cowardice-by endangering his political career to follow his conviction? i dont get it
considering himself infallible- hes not and he doesnt
taliban religiosity-once again, how is this his fault? he dealt with the taliban (who were NOT funded by the US, they came later, learn your history.

Iraq had absolutely NOTHING to do with 9/11. You show me some evidence to prove it did and I'll believe you, but there has been nothing concrete, maybe little more than hear-say. Therefore, it was an uncalled for war. As far as Afghanistan and Terrorists in general, I say by all means war over it, but for God sake get everyone in the world involved, it costs less on all sides. We're fighting alone pretty much, which is absurd. And there is no end to Terrorism, you can't defeat it. So in turn we're fighting a war that really will never end unless we give up.
As for polls. If you actually listen to polls, you prove you're dumber than the President. Polls are taken between small groups of people by small organizations, often times polls aren't even taken outside the workplace. You could have a News place go "hey everyone, who likes this guy" count up who does and doesn't, run the numbers, and you end up with basic bull. And if you pay attention to the polls, you'll notice some say Bush is ahead, some say Kerry, some say Kerry will win more electoral, some say Bush will win altogether. So really, the polls are pointless dribble.
The budget is ridiculous. He wants money to fun war, but he gives tax cuts...does that make any sense to anyone? You don't go to war and issue tax cuts at the same time, it's absurd. That and he has been cutting away from programs we need. I don't know about you, but cutting some massive billions from allowing doctors to get advanced pediatric degrees seems stupid. I mean, if you were at the doctors, would you rather have Joe Shmoe who went to Bubba's College? Or would you rather have Fred the guy who went to Harvard, graduated top of his class, etc etc etc? Seems simple.

And Bush is not as smart as people try to make him seem. I don't know about most of you, but if someone can mispronounce the word "nuclear" repeatedly as "nucular", that fails to show your intelligence. He also was not a high standing student at Yale or Harvard, on of his Harvard professors has been quoted as saying he was a middle mark student, C average. He did no better at Yale, the only classes he was good at was history, but obviously he didn't learn much from that, as he's repeating stupid things in history again. His government coursework classes were mid to low C's, his SAT scores were not that impressive, in fact the only reason he got into Harvard Business School was because he was the son of Bush Senior who was a senator or something at the time. Harvard and the other Ivy League schools love having students who are kids of political figures, etc who succeed.

Correct on the Taliban, Osama Bin Laden was funded by the US during the Soviet Occupation of Afghanistan. He received a hefty sum, but I would have to find out that dollar amount, and I'm sure Bin Laden didn't spend it all. He was funded to train soldiers to attack the Soviets basically, Americans follow the philosophy "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", and it backfires on us all the time. It sucks, but that's stupid politics for you.
And Bush didn't really deal with the Taliban. We uprooted them in Afghanistan, we moved them, we pissed them off, but we didn't get rid of them. He waltzed right on out in false victory and on to Iraq, which is still no better than it was before, the only difference, instead of harsh rulers, they have elections and street terrorism. Afghanistan is still the same slum it was before, it's still a troubled country.
And to the comment about Michael Moore, if you actually researched some of the things he said instead of instantly believing the trash you hear from Right Wing Conservatives or Left Wing Liberals, you'd realize most of it is true. He presents his facts in a way to invoke emotion and not always good emotion. He did his job well. He even has a section on his website where he quotes the sources he used for his facts, so yeah. I hear that BS about "oh Michael Moore is all lies" every single day, and every single time those same people have no facts other than Rush Limbaugh or Tom Sullivan to back it up.

Anyway...if someone could show me some legit things Bush has done that is actually "GOOD" for this country, that would be nice, because I have yet to see anything.

Enron-bush went after them

Not really. He was flying around in the Enron jet for parts of his campaign, and now Ken Lay's in a minimum security resort.

Invading Iraq-so? why do liberals always value peace before justice?

It was not just. And I'm not liberal, I'm just not right-wing conservative. But that's the same thing to most of you, isn't it? No offense intended.

The budget-debatable, there have been gains

Not much compared to the loss, no matter how far they fudge the numbers.

Lying about the previous two- as to iraq if he had said the truth, the liberals would be even angrier and he hasnt lied about the economy

*shrug* all politicians lie, but bush takes it to a new level. I for one would at least respect him more if he were honest, even if about the bad things.

His cabinet-im sorry, i respect rumsfeld

To each their own, but I think he's borderline militant psycho. The rest that I know of are either from Bush 1's cabinet, Nixon administration cronies, or just plain dubious characters. And of course there's Ashcroft (though I don't know if he's really considered cabinet).

His ignorance-thats bullshit, hes smarter than you think. why do you think hes ahead in the polls? are you calling americans stupid or gullible?

I hate to say it, but I am... He's not smart, though does have some cunning to him. He gets by through having smart advisors at his shoulder every second.

His supporters-yeah attack the supporters, thats a high move

*shrug* true. but there's some militant idiot ones out there that draw it. Most of the Dem idiots are actually in the party, so they avoid most of the flak that way.

orwellianism-im sorry iraq was much more like 1984, dont use hyperbole that often

We're America, we're supposed to have better standards...

abu ghraib-how is this bushs fault?

One of the higher-ups likely encouraged it, probably not Bush though. He does, however, stand by the Guantanemo(sp) Bay camps, and that's likely far worse.

shameful gutless cowardice-by endangering his political career to follow his conviction? i dont get it

I think he was referring to when he went AWOL for a year during his Air National Guard service when it looked like he had a slight chance of going to Nam. And no, this wasn't one of the allegedly forged docs, I read about this years ago.

As for what you said, I highly doubt his conviction. *points downward on his post* His "tactics" are his only method of salvaging his actions.

considering himself infallible- hes not and he doesnt

I agree, but he sure puts out that appearance when he refuses to ever admit wrong or apologize for anything, ever.

taliban religiosity-once again, how is this his fault? he dealt with the taliban (who were NOT funded by the US, they came later, learn your history.

I'm not sure, but I think that might have been intended to be some sort of comparison between the taliban's oppressive religious fanaticism, and Bush's invoking God's backup on all his decisions and such. I don't think it's true if that's what he meant, but he does erode at separation of church and state somewhat. meh.

Hw might be right up there with the worst presidents ever because i have never seen a president declare war without the full support of his nation.

Yup he is pretty bad and in time he might surpass the Harding administration.

Talk about blown opportunities....

9/11 he has 98% of the country behind him.

Afghanistan: only a tiny amount of people say hey that is wrong. Leaves them in a lurch to prepare the attack for Iraq.

A reasonable amount of troops and some bullying of the Pakistanis probably would have captured most of Bin Ladens command and even the old boy himself if he is alive....


Attacks Iraq.

Now where he really blows it is the opportunity to correct some foreign affairs that just aren't working.

1) Isreal and the Palistineans. What would the Muslim world say about Iraq if he turned around and started cuffing Sharon on the head and scream "You will make a deal now!"

2) The Saudis. Ok we get oil but everybody hates the Royals. Will the Saudi people stop giving us oil if we say "f you" to the royals?

At the very least, get the troops out of Saudi!.

Hmmm would Catholics take kindly to a garrison of Muslims at the Vatican?

3) Ahhh helll. That's enough and I am really tired. Kid is sick so it was the wakeup call every hour last night....

He is now. so were they all.

*lost in the now*

GWB is no winner, but if you remove all of the Michael Moore type of lies that are still being passed off as fact, he isn't as bad as the far left sheep try to make him out to be.

The problem isn't that people are passing them on, it's that people believe them without researching, or disregard them because they heard from someone else they aren't true. If you actually research the facts in Fahrenheit 9/11, as I have, you'll realize that he tells a lot of truth. He expresses opinion, and he shows only one side. I would like to see a film of the other side of Bush so I can actually see the good, and I mean good as in not bad twisted to be good, I mean something he did that was good from the start, just plain pure good.
So don't automatically assume that just because someone like Rush Limbaugh or Tom Sullivan told you so, it is true. I'm not pointing fingers, just making a general statement here from what I have seen of people who don't see the facts in Michael Moore. Don't get me wrong, I don't really like Michael Moore, actually I personally think he was jerk when he went up after winning an award and bashed the President. That really angered me because of the whole 9/11 deal and everything. It was just a bad time. Thing is, there are facts there, if you are willing to look and not make assumptions and accusations.

. . .

Hmmm would Catholics take kindly to a garrison of Muslims at the Vatican?

. . .



Probably not. Nor would Muslims take kindly to a garrison of Jews in Meccah.

But a more appropaux (sp?) comparison would be this: would Germans take kindly to large numbers of Jews living in central Europe? I guess we know the answers to that one, huh?

The Jews' "garrison" lived in "Palestine" under the Turks for centuries, and then under the British. They also lived all over the Middle East until independence to the various islamic states allowed their neighbours to run them out with violence and to nationalize their properties. Also note that Judaism is at the very root of Islam.

Finally, if Skirak had started smacking Bush in the head demanding that he "make a deal" with Al Qeiada, or with the previous taliban government of Afghanistan, how would that go over with you?

he is just an itiot. point-blank. :sniper: :mp5: :gundge: :headbang:

Lets see...

Enron
Invading Iraq
The budget
Lying about the previous two
His cabinet
His ignorance
His supporters
orwellianism
abu ghraib
shameful gutless cowardice
considering himself infallible
taliban religiosity


Yes, let's blame Bush for Enron. It's obviously his fault. I mean come on, being President of the United States how could he not know that some corporation was colluding with their accounting firm to defraud thousands of people.

It's also his fault 9/11 happened, because he was in office when it happened, even though almost all the planning and infiltration happened during Clinton's administration.

While we're at it why not blame Bush for Vietnam, the Korean War, WW2, hell, it's his fault the White House got burned down in the War of 1812.

If you haven't realized it yet this is sarcasm. Unfortunately many people seem to blame Bush for everything bad that has happened in the past four years. I'd agree he has not been a good President, but everything is not his fault.

Hw might be right up there with the worst presidents ever because i have never seen a president declare war without the full support of his nation.

Bush didn't declare any wars. And he's not the first President to get us into a war without the full support of the nation- and, sadly, he will not be the last.

Bush is bad, but I don't know if I'd say he's the worst US president ever.

If he wasnt who was?

If he wasnt who was?

I'd say either Lincoln or Franklin Roosevelt.

*Puts on fireproof armor*

Yes America can too be stupid. You give us too much credit. But don't worry mostly its just the ones who watch Fox news. CNN viewers as poll know they aren't connected.

Yeah people who watch fox are idiots, once Bill O' Reilly said that anyone who watches John Stewart are Stoners and slackers but a poll showed that Stewart fans are smarter and better informed than O'Reilly watchers. SO THERE!

Attention All You Idiots!!!!!!! Bush Had To Go To War He Couldnt Let Those Terrorist Get Away He Had To Nfind Those Responsible For 9/11 And Punish Them, Plus Iraq Was A Open House For Terrorist And We Went In And Stopped It. If You Look At Polls At 9/11 Everyone Wanted To Go To War Then Liberal Newscasters Published Lies About Bush Which Made Alot Of People Angry. Which Caused Alot Of Finger Pointing At Bush Which Really The Finger Should Have Been Pointed At Them. Bush Has Been A Great President He Is My Favorite Out Of All We've Had And If You Want Some Life Saving Advice Vote Bush This November 2

YOU ARE THE IDIOT!!! Iraq had no ties with Al-Queda what so ever, all the people who attacked on 9/11 were from Saudi and Egypt, maybe Bush would crack down on them if he wasnt good friends with the Saudi royal family! And when you said everyone wanted to go to war, it was 98% but that was Afghanistan, the RIGHT war, which Bush did wrong also, he didnt find the cornered Bin-Laden and he didnt get rid of all the terrorism there. But Iraq, HAH! And the only liars are Fox News, the real idiots. Your favorite president?? WHY!?!?! Cause hes as dumb as you are?

Yes, let's blame Bush for Enron. It's obviously his fault. I mean come on, being President of the United States how could he not know that some corporation was colluding with their accounting firm to defraud thousands of people.

It's also his fault 9/11 happened, because he was in office when it happened, even though almost all the planning and infiltration happened during Clinton's administration.

While we're at it why not blame Bush for Vietnam, the Korean War, WW2, hell, it's his fault the White House got burned down in the War of 1812.

If you haven't realized it yet this is sarcasm. Unfortunately many people seem to blame Bush for everything bad that has happened in the past four years. I'd agree he has not been a good President, but everything is not his fault.

9/11 wasn't his fault thought he could have taken steps to prevent it had his cabinet looked at the documents presented to him I believe entitled "Bin Laden determined to attack in the US". There was information in there, but 9/11 still wouldn't have been his fault anyway (given the evidence we have).
I see where you are coming from. I attack Bush for what he has done and if I made a mistake and attacked him for something else, oops on my part. The thing that sort of gets me mad on this subject is when people try to explain Bush's failures by saying "oh it was left over by the Clinton administration". Personally I could care less if Clinton left it for Bush, if Bush can't handle the problem and has to blame someone else, then why is he our President?
But anyywho.
Mostly when it comes to Enron and 9/11 being Bush's fault, it's all opinion or theory, unless someone can present evidence to prove it is, which I would like to see.

I'd say either Lincoln or Franklin Roosevelt.

*Puts on fireproof armor*

*Blows off your arms and legs for mentioning Roosevelt then lets you have them back for saying Lincoln, then blows them off again just for fun*

I'd say either Lincoln or Franklin Roosevelt.

*Puts on fireproof armor*

I have to agree with you on Lincoln, but Roosevelt? Are you mad? He pulled us out of the depression and led us through WWII which we fought for two reasons, Hitler was attacking our allies, and if he conquered Europe he couldve easily taken Asia, and VERY easily the rest of the Eastern Hemisphere than America, but yeah Lincoln blows, yet he didnt destroy America forever, like Bush has.

All of the conservatives have something wrong with their arguments as do all of the liberals. Just go to factcheck.org (http://www.factcheck.org/) to get the truth (and not just other people's opinions).

Bush may not be the worst president but he must be the most stupid one america has ever had; his staff should know better and keep him in a sound proof padded box so we don't have to be subjected to his drivel

Well now, I would say that G.W. Bush is not the best president we have had, but he is far from the worst(JFK). All the pro Clinton talk sickens me, he was almost as bad as JFK. Many people think that the national debt went down during the Clinton years, they would be wrong (see http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm ) if you check the history the last time the national debt went down was 1960. As for the Ken Starr bashing, what Ken Starr did to Clinton is the same thing he did to Bob Packwood, only the Democrats loved Starr when he did it to Packwood. That is the way Ken Starr treated everyone he investigated.

I think that any lawyer who commits perjury should be disbarred, Clinton was removed from the Supreme Court bar, but that is not enough for me. He stole the constitutional rights of an American citzen, while he was president, in an attempt to prevent a judgement against him that would have cost him money. That is why he lied, nothing nobel about it. He should be in jail right now, but at least he was impeached and you can't take that away from him.

Perjury? Every word Bush says is a damned lie.

"I support small business."- He made deep cuts in the SBA bedget, so that the agency can't survive! Small business associations support Kerry! (They're no fools)


"I support our troops"- but he ignores, does not support, one month leave between tours of duty, he provides no flak jacketes for mps, no decent health care, he makes cutbacks in VA hospitals and veterans medical benefits, the list goes on, but he "supports" the troops. How? By thinking nice thoughts about them?

"I am creating jobs." Of course we know he's bad at math, that's why he thinks this huge deficit is a sign of prosperity. Maybe that's why he thinks the greatest net loss in jobs for any presidency is somehow "creating" jobs. See, he brings in 20 hamburger flippers with the right hand but outsources (offshore) 40 computer programmers with the left hand. So when he wants to feel good he just thinks about the right hand and calls the left hand the inevitable progress of globalization.