NationStates Jolt Archive

There, I said it. People seriously need to get over this "Bush is the worst president EVAAAAAAAAR!" shite. He's mediocre at worst. Think his administration was inefficient? There have been far worse; Grant's govt. comes to mind. Don't like the Iraq War? Well you'd better start hating on JFK and Truman as well, because they took the US into Korea and Vietnam, two far more destructive wars. Upset about the economy? It wasn't Bush; it took years of neglect from all around the world to get it to this state, Bush didn't just wave his hand and destroy the world economy.

Sorry, but it had to be said. The Bush bashing was starting to get pathetic.

I'm sure that in the future when a new generation of political analysts take over from their bias forefathers, Bush's presidency will be looked on a lot more favourably.

FeO, where have you been mate?

FeO, where have you been mate?

Around.

He's probably nowhere near the worst (I'm inclined to favor one Woodrow Wilson). Hell racism alone probably puts every 19th century President back somewhat by modern standards. And their are plenty of other politicians today who are scum as well.

That said, he's still pretty fucking bad by the standards of what we have come to expect in a First World democratic leader these days.

He's probably nowhere near the worst (I'm inclined to favor one Woodrow Wilson). Hell racism alone probably puts every 19th century President back somewhat by modern standards. And their are plenty of other politicians today who are scum as well.

That said, he's still pretty fucking bad by the standards of what we have come to expect in a First World democratic leader these days.

Italian leaders make Bush look like a brilliant leader.

There, I said it. People seriously need to get over this "Bush is the worst president EVAAAAAAAAR!" shite. He's mediocre at worst. Think his administration was inefficient? There have been far worse; Grant's govt. comes to mind. Don't like the Iraq War? Well you'd better start hating on JFK and Truman as well, because they took the US into Korea and Vietnam, two far more destructive wars. Upset about the economy? It wasn't Bush; it took years of neglect from all around the world to get it to this state, Bush didn't just wave his hand and destroy the world economy.

Sorry, but it had to be said. The Bush bashing was starting to get pathetic.So which administration has been as inefficient as Grant's, engaged in destructive and costly wars like Kennedy and Truman, the crookedness of Nixon, and the vindictiveness like Jackson all rolled in to one if not this one? Sure, it may not have been as bad as some others if you exclusively look at one single criterion. But Grant didn't engage in costly wars, and neither Kennedy nor Truman were incompetent like Grant was. And that's not counting this administration's lack of a response to Katrina.

Incidentally, I doubt I'm the only one that sees the blatant hypocrisy of you telling people to get over something.

I could deal with it all if he could just speak properly.

So which administration has been as inefficient as Grant's, engaged in destructive and costly wars like Kennedy and Truman, the crookedness of Nixon, and the vindictiveness like Jackson all rolled in to one if not this one? Sure, it may not have been as bad as some others if you exclusively look at one single criterion. But Grant didn't engage in costly wars, and neither Kennedy nor Truman were incompetent like Grant was. And that's not counting this administration's lack of a response to Katrina.

Well, Kennedy did almost destroy the world. Bush is hardly the worst leader the US has ever had.

There, I said it. People seriously need to get over this "Bush is the worst president EVAAAAAAAAR!" shite. He's mediocre at worst. Think his administration was inefficient? There have been far worse; Grant's govt. comes to mind. Don't like the Iraq War? Well you'd better start hating on JFK and Truman as well, because they took the US into Korea and Vietnam, two far more destructive wars. Upset about the economy? It wasn't Bush; it took years of neglect from all around the world to get it to this state, Bush didn't just wave his hand and destroy the world economy.

Sorry, but it had to be said. The Bush bashing was starting to get pathetic.

So, the lax environmental policies? The crony capitalism? The erosion of civil liberties? The blurring of the line between church and state? The incompetent officials installed into nearly every level of government fromt the Treasury to FEMA? The deliberate snubbing of long-time allies and the squandering of international good will that took decades to accumulate?

Sorry, but I have a hell of a lot more reasons to bash Bush than just a war and a recession, and I've yet to see an argument that sways my opinion. There have been bad presidents, but Bush has them beat by a margin so large as to make one's head swim.

I could deal with it all if he could just speak properly.

Really? So it's not about actual ability to govern, it's about how well you can speak?

compared to andrew jackson or ulyssis s grant, bush has been maybe not measurably worse, though certainly on a par, and possibly as, if not more, embarassing.

it is, or seems, somewhat questionable that he really WAS president at all. i'm not entirely convinced he even KNOWS some of the decisions he so enthusiastically (and gullably?) takes credit for.

but i do know there are a lot of people dead today, who very likely would not be, had the ways of looking at things that brought 'him' (his masters and cohorts) to power, not, however how they did, done so.

and the dead ARE only part of it.

Well, Kennedy did almost destroy the world. Bush is hardly the worst leader the US has ever had.Kennedy played a very big part in the world not getting destroyed. Bush is not "hardly" the worst leader the US ever had. It's debateable whether he really was the worst, but he certainly is one of the worst.

So, the lax environmental policies? The crony capitalism? The erosion of civil liberties? The blurring of the line between church and state? The incompetent officials installed into nearly every level of government fromt the Treasury to FEMA? The deliberate snubbing of long-time allies and the squandering of international good will that took decades to accumulate?

Sorry, but I have a hell of a lot more reasons to bash Bush than just a war and a recession, and I've yet to see an argument that sways my opinion. There have been bad presidents, but Bush has them beat by a margin so large as to make one's head swim.

Really? What about Buchanan, who effectively allowed the entire country to schism? What about Harrison, too dumb to put on a coat? What about His Accidency, John Tyler?

Yes, he was.

And commenting on ancient presidencies like you know them is ridiculous.

*troll fed*

Kennedy played a very big part in the world not getting destroyed. Bush is not "hardly" the worst leader the US ever had. It's debateable whether he really was the worst, but he certainly is one of the worst.

He blockaded Cuba and got the US into Vietnam! Kennedy was a HORRIBLE president in terms of foreign policy.

Bush doesn't even come close to being the worst US president if the actual US presidents are lined up. People just have an embarrassingly short memory.

Btw, ferrous oxide? more like this (http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/ferouscranus.htm) :D

He blockaded Cuba and got the US into Vietnam! Kennedy was a HORRIBLE president in terms of foreign policy.This last sentence is a full-fledged lie.
Bush doesn't even come close to being the worst US president if the actual US presidents are lined up. People just have an embarrassingly short memory.Hypocrite.

This last sentence is a full-fledged lie.
Hypocrite.

He BLOCKADED CUBA AND BROUGHT THE US INTO VIETNAM. How is that in any way a foreign policy success?

He BLOCKADED CUBA AND BROUGHT THE US INTO VIETNAM. How is that in any way a foreign policy success?Read up on the Cuban Missile Crisis to see why. Also, regard the "Ich bin ein Berliner" speech and compare it to the reaction Bush gets when he travels abroad.

Yes, he was.

And commenting on ancient presidencies like you know them is ridiculous.

*troll fed*

Not sure what you're trying to say here (no really, I'm not:)), but their's nothing wrong with commenting on things that happened before you were born. Its called history, and people study it so they can understand how we got to where we are today, so they can avoid repeating it, or simply out of curiosity/personal enjoyment. Are you actually saying we shouldn't talk about things that happened before we were born?

If there's some crucial point I missed here, disregard the above.

Around.

Yeah but not on here dude, I was expecting some input from you on my thread about the Australian government.

He blockaded Cuba and got the US into Vietnam! Kennedy was a HORRIBLE president in terms of foreign policy.

Can you elaborate on how blockading Cuba was a bad thing and why letting Cuba have nuclear weapons would have been a good thing?

With Vietnam Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara and Lyndon Johnson both stated that Kennedy was going to withdraw from Vietnam.

Read up on the Cuban Missile Crisis to see why. Also, regard the "Ich bin ein Berliner" speech and compare it to the reaction Bush gets when he travels abroad.

Wow, so he was charismatic. Boy, that made him a foreign policy superhero, didn't it?

Can you elaborate on how blockading Cuba was a bad thing and why letting Cuba have nuclear weapons would have been a good thing?

It brought the world to the brink of nuclear war. And what harm would Cuba be with nukes?

With Vietnam Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara and Lyndon Johnson both stated that Kennedy was going to withdraw from Vietnam.

... Which is why he increased US troop numbers from 800 to ~16000?

Wow, so he was charismatic. Boy, that made him a foreign policy superhero, didn't it?Indeed it did. Convincing countries not your own being the determinant of a functioning foreign policy. In the real world at least.

People just have an embarrassingly short memory.Here's an example of that:
It brought the world to the brink of nuclear war. And what harm would Cuba be with nukes?
The appropriate response is and remains:
Hypocrite.

Not sure what you're trying to say here (no really, I'm not:)), but their's nothing wrong with commenting on things that happened before you were born. Its called history, and people study it so they can understand how we got to where we are today, so they can avoid repeating it, or simply out of curiosity/personal enjoyment. Are you actually saying we shouldn't talk about things that happened before we were born?

If there's some crucial point I missed here, disregard the above.

No, there is nothing wrong with history, it's necessary to know it. But to base an argument around a historic figure as if it was comparable to a present one is ineffectual, at best. The eras are world's apart and the first hand perspective is non-existent in the first, this being a key element in judging how bad a president was. You may judge the consequences of a historic presidency, but that's all you really have, while a present one you have it all. That's all I'm saying.

But more important than all that is that it doesn't matter because this troll is contradicting himself, saying Bush wasn't a bad president, then saying some historic one was worse.

Here's an example of that:

The appropriate response is and remains:

I don't see your point. Probably because you don't have one.

It brought the world to the brink of nuclear war. And what harm would Cuba be with nukes?

Putting nukes within striking distance of the US could not be tolerated in the Cold War envirnnment. It would make the US look week and would have made the US vulnerable to nuclear attacks.

What harm would the Cubans be with nukes? Do I even have to answer that?

.. Which is why he increased US troop numbers from 800 to ~16000?

I forgot how one can't decide that one's initial actions were wrong and therefore should be changed.

He BLOCKADED CUBA AND BROUGHT THE US INTO VIETNAM. How is that in any way a foreign policy success?

Thing is, by the time he left office (tragically) ... Vietnam wasn't recognized as a complete clusterfuck. Johnson got to take the blame ... but we can't know how that war would have gone if Kennedy had lived.

I suspect it would still be seen as a bad idea to get into. Perhaps not as such a complete waste of lives and policy failure.

Now, remember that the US is NOT out of Iraq yet. The occupation has been a lot more successful than I expected ... but twenty years from now, history may judge it a worse mistake than Vietnam.

Bush was crap and I'm glad he's going. But "the worst President ever" probably is overstating it, since we don't have the benefit of seeing how his major initiatives turn out. Twenty years from now, perhaps we can measure him against Kennedy.

But more important than all that is that it doesn't matter because this troll is contradicting himself, saying Bush wasn't a bad president, then saying some historic one was worse.

1) So, I'm a troll just because I disagree with you? Did you ever even CONSIDER that there might be people on this planet who don't consider Bush to be the worst person to ever walk this Earth?

2) Right, so, only BUSH may be be a bad President now, is that it?

Putting nukes within striking distance of the US could not be tolerated in the Cold War envirnnment. It would make the US look week and would have made the US vulnerable to nuclear attacks.

What harm would the Cubans be with nukes? Do I even have to answer that?

A nuke is a nuke, it doesn't matter where. And the US walk out of Vietnam, how much more weak could it look?

I forgot how one can't decide that one's initial actions were wrong and therefore should be changed.

Didn't you know? When a politician learns from their mistakes, its "flip-flopping" and "weak leadership". Because true strength and principles come only through dogmatic inflexibility:headbang:.

1) So, I'm a troll just because I disagree with you? Did you ever even CONSIDER that there might be people on this planet who don't consider Bush to be the worst person to ever walk this Earth?

No, you're a troll because you make a silly topic headline then proceed to thoroughly contradict it.

2) Right, so, only BUSH may be be a bad President now, is that it?

And there you go again. Flail away.

Read up on the Cuban Missile Crisis to see why. Also, regard the "Ich bin ein Berliner" speech and compare it to the reaction Bush gets when he travels abroad.

yes and the Cuban missiles crisis wouldn't have happened if Kennedy had not half arsed the bay of pigs. He sent Cuban refugees to die under the lie that they would have Air cover and naval support. More over he appeared extremely weak to Khrushchev ,who had just invaded hungry and was willing to regard Cuba as American sphere of influence. But since he looked weak he said why not put missiles there. No bay of pigs then no missiles. Bay of pigs done the way Ike would have done( Even if we lost Vietnam style)it no missiles. Bay of pigs Kennedy's way the missiles.


More concerning about Kennedy is how much he knew about the election fraud in the 1960 election. Kinda funny Nixon is normally shown to be the bad guy but he refused to challenge such blatant cheating because he didn't want Americans to know the election could be cheated on.

A nuke is a nuke, it doesn't matter where.

A nuke that is explodes in the middle of nowhere is very different from one in the middle of a major urban center.

And the US walk out of Vietnam, how much more weak could it look?

It could have looked like it was weak domestically, as in being vulnerable to nuclear strike from next door.

A nuke that is explodes in the middle of nowhere is very different from one in the middle of a major urban center.



It could have looked like it was weak domestically, as in being vulnerable to nuclear strike from next door.

I don't see the problem. A nuclear missile launched from Russia will destroy just as much as one launched from Cuba.

I don't see the problem. A nuclear missile launched from Russia will destroy just as much as one launched from Cuba.

a nuclear missiles from Cuba can be low altitude and possible his us with out us seeing it.
Also now could be solid fuel which means no satellite warning if they are fueling them (which is why the Russians are bitching over Poland).

There, I said it. People seriously need to get over this "Bush is the worst president EVAAAAAAAAR!" shite. He's mediocre at worst. Think his administration was inefficient? There have been far worse; Grant's govt. comes to mind. Don't like the Iraq War? Well you'd better start hating on JFK and Truman as well, because they took the US into Korea and Vietnam, two far more destructive wars. Upset about the economy? It wasn't Bush; it took years of neglect from all around the world to get it to this state, Bush didn't just wave his hand and destroy the world economy.

Sorry, but it had to be said. The Bush bashing was starting to get pathetic.

Right, so stretching the military to the breaking point and costing the nation more in dollars adjusted for inflation than either Korea OR Vietnam makes him just mediocre? No. He isn't the worst, I'll agree to that, but he is in the bottom ten.

I don't see the problem. A nuclear missile launched from Russia will destroy just as much as one launched from Cuba.

At the time a nuke launched from Russia could not hit the US. That's why the fact that Cuba was within striking distance of the US.

There, I said it. People seriously need to get over this "Bush is the worst president EVAAAAAAAAR!" shite. He's mediocre at worst. Think his administration was inefficient? There have been far worse; Grant's govt. comes to mind. Don't like the Iraq War? Well you'd better start hating on JFK and Truman as well, because they took the US into Korea and Vietnam, two far more destructive wars. Upset about the economy? It wasn't Bush; it took years of neglect from all around the world to get it to this state, Bush didn't just wave his hand and destroy the world economy.

Sorry, but it had to be said. The Bush bashing was starting to get pathetic.

Well, he's a lot worse than you're making him out to be. But yes, he will soon make one of the greatest contributions to the well-being of the US than almost any president before him. He will give up its presidency.

And while the US economy was neglected before his arrival, he was the champion of every philosophy that led to that neglect. It's a bit like you've got a nanny who enjoys playing a game in which she holds the baby over the swimming pool, dipping its feet in, and threatening (in a playful voice) "baby gonna take a swim?" Then she hands the baby to a baby sitter who doesn't get the joke, throws the baby into the swimming pool, then goes to eat ice cream and watch TV.

Yes, Korea and Vietnam were bad. But one was fought in the legitimate defense of an ally under threat from a hostile enemy, the other was fought in following a policy that everyone had come to believe as necessary (fight the USSR in all possible places). Yes, it was wrong for LBJ to lie us into that war, just like it was wrong for Bush to lie us into this one. However, Vietnam was the worst think LBJ ever did, and he realized it and had the decency not to run for another term. And pretty much everything else he did right. Bush never did. He just stuck around as long as he could making everything worse.

You can't say that Bush was no worse than any other president just because everything he did, someone else did almost as badly. Bush did everything wrong. Everyone else did something wrong. Even Harding wasn't even half as bad as Bush. Yes, he was almost exactly the same as Bush, but he had the decency to die during his first term, making him equally bad for half as long.

So yes, Bush was the worst.

A nuke is a nuke, it doesn't matter where.

Right, so you should have no objections to your backyard being filled with thermonuclear devices.

He wasn't a bad President, he was a terrible one.

Bush is a bad President. The thread title is false. One does not have to be the worst in order to be bad, Iron Man.

So you all genuinely believe that Bush is the worst president the US has ever had.

John F. Kennedy was not perfect, but under his resume he had the New Frontier social programs, the beginning of the Apollo program, successful management of the Cuban Missile Crisis that lead to a peaceful outcome with American goals met, the signing of the nuclear test ban treaty, and the founding of the Peace Corps.

What have been George W. Bush's great accomplishments so far? No Child Left Behind? The PATRIOT Act? The failure to capture or kill Osama Bin Laden in the invasion of Afghanistan? The overseeing of Afghanistan getting a religious government to rule over some of it, and miscellaneous warlords to rule over the rest? The toppling of Iraq so that Saddam's oppressive regime could be replaced by the current violence and corruption?

I don't know if George W. Bush is the absolute worst US President, but he's been absolutely terrible, and to compare him to men like John F. Kennedy is to compare someone who's time in office has been marked by failure after failure to someone who accomplished very great things while failing at others.

John F. Kennedy was not perfect, but under his resume he had the New Frontier social programs, the beginning of the Apollo program, successful management of the Cuban Missile Crisis that lead to a peaceful outcome with American goals met, the signing of the nuclear test ban treaty, and the founding of the Peace Corps.

What have been George W. Bush's great accomplishments so far? No Child Left Behind? The PATRIOT Act? The failure to capture or kill Osama Bin Laden in the invasion of Afghanistan? The overseeing of Afghanistan getting a religious government to rule over some of it, and miscellaneous warlords to rule over the rest? The toppling of Iraq so that Saddam's oppressive regime could be replaced by the current violence and corruption?

I don't know if George W. Bush is the absolute worst US President, but he's been absolutely terrible, and to compare him to men like John F. Kennedy is to compare someone who's time in office has been marked by failure after failure to someone who accomplished very great things while failing at others.

Surely you haven't forgotten his truly amazing accomplishment of the lowest approval rating of any President in history?

There, I said it. People seriously need to get over this "Bush is the worst president EVAAAAAAAAR!" shite. He's mediocre at worst. Think his administration was inefficient? There have been far worse; Grant's govt. comes to mind. Don't like the Iraq War? Well you'd better start hating on JFK and Truman as well, because they took the US into Korea and Vietnam, two far more destructive wars. Upset about the economy? It wasn't Bush; it took years of neglect from all around the world to get it to this state, Bush didn't just wave his hand and destroy the world economy.

Sorry, but it had to be said. The Bush bashing was starting to get pathetic.
bush bashing will be pathetic when we are still blaming him for everything in 2011. until then, it IS his fault and he IS the worst president ever--and i lived through richard nixon.

bush bashing will be pathetic when we are still blaming him for everything in 2011. until then, it IS his fault and he IS the worst president ever--and i lived through richard nixon.

You Americans. Worst President ever? Come off it. You don't even know what a bad leader is.

Incidentally, you WILL still be blaming him for everything in 2011.

Americans are very aware of what bad leaders look like. We've suffered through one of our worst for the last eight years, and you've continued to fail to make a actual argument to the contrary. Either argue decently, or don't argue at all.

There is also the fact that for his second term he ran on the premise that he would fix social security, and he definitely did that didn’t he?

There is also the fact that for his second term he ran on the premise that he would fix social security, and he definitely did that didn’t he?

Yup, it isn't like he's dumping the issue into the hands of the next President or anything.

Americans are very aware of what bad leaders look like. We've suffered through one of our worst for the last eight years, and you've continued to fail to make a actual argument to the contrary. Either argue decently, or don't argue at all.

I give up. Nothing I'm going to say is going to convince you otherwise.

Yup, it isn't like he's dumping the issue into the hands of the next President or anything.

Making excuses already, I see?

I give up. Nothing I'm going to say is going to convince you otherwise.

Not until you bring in some facts to go with your talking points, no.

Making excuses already, I see?

It's a fact Bush hasn't fixed social security. Dance around it and whine all you want, but that doesn't change reality.

Surely you haven't forgotten his truly amazing accomplishment of the lowest approval rating of any President in history?

Well, yes, that too. Really, it's just the tip of the iceberg - in addition to all of the above we've got the appointment of incompetent cronies like Michael Brown and Harriet Miers, the weakening of the separation of church and state with faith based initiatives, the massively enlarged role of private military companies in American military operations, that whole stupidly irresponsible Plame-gate incident, the abuse of signing statements - it goes on for quite a while.

If George W. Bush had the same great achievements to terrible failures ratio as John F. Kennedy, we'd probably have a cure for cancer, Israeli-Palestinian peace, flying Chevrolets, and GE brand robot butlers by now.

Not until you bring in some facts to go with your talking points, no.

The economy was rotten long before Bush. Afghanistan was necessary. Iraq wasn't, but it's too late to do anything about that now. The US is just a horrible country, and no one leader can do anything to fix it.

I give up. Nothing I'm going to say is going to convince you otherwise.

So, does that mean you'll stop with this tripe?

Yiipee!

Iraq wasn't, but it's too late to do anything about that now.

The US can leave it, admit its mistake, and find a way to raise the people back from the dead, all the while reflecting on how right I was and they weren't.

So you all genuinely believe that Bush is the worst president the US has ever had.

Not me. I specifically said that I favor Woodrow Wilson for that "honor".;)

However, I do think Bush is terrible. I just think their are some who were probably even worse. I don't have to think Bush is the worst to think that his Presidency is a failiure.

Not me. I specifically said that I favor Woodrow Wilson for that "honor".;)

However, I do think Bush is terrible. I just think their are some who were probably even worse. I don't have to think Bush is the worst to think that his Presidency is a failiure.

I was favoring James Buchanan myself.

The US can leave it, admit its mistake, and find a way to raise the people back from the dead, all the while reflecting on how right I was and they weren't.

Goody. I look forward to the chaos.

I was favoring James Buchanan myself.

Too late, you already said Bush was the worst.

Bush is crap! End of story!
And most of the world hates him.
A collective sigh went around the world when America elected Obama (Not that McCain was all that bad). The sigh said two things:
1.
Finally there is someone other than a mifdle aged rich white man - someone who may finally have some sympathy and understanding of the world.
2. Thank God we are seeing off George Bush!

As for comparing him to Buchanan, Grant or whomever - really do you have to go to the Nineteenth Century now? And JFK did a lot of good thinks (The good is oft intered with their bones).
Kery may have been an extremely lacklustre candidate but re-electing BUSH????

The US is just a horrible country, and no one leader can do anything to fix it.

When you're the leader of a country, there's a difference between ushering in some progressive change for a better future, and causing serious harm to both your nation and other nations.

Do we know which one George W. Bush did in this thread?

Goody. I look forward to the chaos.

Does it look like I care about the chaos anymore? I don't. I have an argument to win, an argument I made because, back then, I cared. I want to be proven right, Iraq be damned! It's Bush's fault. It's the fault of the people that were too busy screaming "LA LA LA YOU HATE AMERICA" to listen to ME. It's not my fault.

Bush is crap! End of story!
And most of the world hates him.
A collective sigh went around the world when America elected Obama (Not that McCain was all that bad). The sigh said two things:
1.
Finally there is someone other than a mifdle aged rich white man - someone who may finally have some sympathy and understanding of the world.
2. Thank God we are seeing off George Bush!

As for comparing him to Buchanan, Grant or whomever - really do you have to go to the Nineteenth Century now? And JFK did a lot of good thinks (The good is oft intered with their bones).
Kery may have been an extremely lacklustre candidate but re-electing BUSH????

You'd know, you voted for Rudd, Captain Waste All Our Surplus and Censor Our Internet.

Does it look like I care about the chaos anymore? I don't. I have an argument to win, an argument I made because, back then, I cared. I want to be proven right, Iraq be damned! It's Bush's fault. It's the fault of the people that were too busy screaming "LA LA LA YOU HATE AMERICA" to listen to ME. It's not my fault.

I look forward to the same shit coming from you for the next eight years.

I look forward to the same shit coming from you for the next eight years.

It won't, unless Obama decides to invade a random country out of a liking for seeing dead and orphaned children.

So you all genuinely believe that Bush is the worst president the US has ever had.

It's like you can't even read. We "all" do not believe he is the WORST president. We "all" seem to agree, however, that he is a BAD president.

It won't, unless Obama decides to invade a random country out of a liking for seeing dead and orphaned children.

If Obama started a nuclear war, you wouldn't admit that he was a bad president.

It won't, unless Obama decides to invade a random country out of a liking for seeing dead and orphaned children.

Ok, that's just stupid. I really doubt Bush likes seeing images of the dead.

Most likely he just ignores them, or tells himself it was for the greater good.

It's like you can't even read. We "all" do not believe he is the WORST president. We "all" seem to agree, however, that he is a BAD president.

And you believe that Obama is the greatest president the US has ever had?

If Obama started a nuclear war, you wouldn't admit that he was a bad president.

If Bush made Iraq nuclear and started raping toddlers on live television, you wouldn't admit he is one.

There.

Now argue decently, or don't at all.

And you believe that Obama is the greatest president the US has ever had?

Did I say that? How could anyone believe Obama is the greatest president ever when he's not even the fucking president yet? Stop trolling.

And you believe that Obama is the greatest president the US has ever had?

I believe he agreed with me on the issue I was proven right about. I don't know if he'll be good or bad, and I only care about the issue I was proven right about.

And you believe that Obama is the greatest president the US has ever had?

A McDonald's double cheeseburger looks like a feast if you've been fed feces long enough. :p

How do you know whom I voted for ferrous you rusty old troll?
Actually, when I do vote I'm a Green.
There stick that in your label collection and smoke it!

But I really enyed seeing Howard lose his seat as well as the election. And I loved seeing the Democrats trounce the Republicans in Congress as well as the Presidency. Why? Becuase the voters were totally fed up with Bush - dammit, even two Confederate states voted for a black man! Now that's some swing!

A McDonald's double cheeseburger looks like a feast if you've been fed feces long enough. :p

^This.

Jesus Christ. Their are options besides thinking Bush is pure evil and Obama is perfect, or vice versa.

And yeah, Obama's only President ellect.

Did I say that? How could anyone believe Obama is the greatest president ever when he's not even the fucking president yet? Stop trolling.

I know what you're saying, even when you don't say it. Don't lie.

How do you know whom I voted for ferrous you rusty old troll?
Actually, when I do vote I'm a Green.
There stick that in your label collection and smoke it!

But I really enyed seeing Howard lose his seat as well as the election. And I loved seeing the Democrats trounce the Republicans in Congress as well as the Presidency. Why? Becuase the voters were totally fed up with Bush - dammit, even two Confederate states voted for a black man! Now that's some swing!

Hehehe. Now I know who to blame, Rudd boy.

I know what you're saying, even when you don't say it. Don't lie.

So, that means you would support a child rapist to be the eternal dictator of Australia and America?

I know what you're saying, even when you don't say it. Don't lie.

hating Truman because he took the US into Korea

funny ,the US were there after WW2 and got attacked when the north made their play for the south

So why Hate him?

So, that means you would support a child rapist to be the eternal dictator of Australia and America?

Couldn't hurt. Besides, we're halfway there with Kevin Rudd.

funny ,the US were there after WW2 and got attacked when the north made their play for the south

So why Hate him?

Still could have pulled out. The US didn't have to fight North Korea.

You Americans. Worst President ever? Come off it. You don't even know what a bad leader is.

Incidentally, you WILL still be blaming him for everything in 2011.
im sure we will be. but THEN it will be pathetic.

im sure we will be. but THEN it will be pathetic.

Hell, Republicans blame Bill Clinton for Bush's antics EIGHT YEARS IN!

You know what, I do believe that as of this moment Obama is the greatest President ever!

Obama is going to turn the national debt into a national PARTY FUND with a positive balance, make the Stargate program public, unveil the time travel machine that was found back in Roswell, get me a date with Jessica Biel, and buy everyone talking 1982 Pontiac Firebirds, like in classic Knight Rider (David Hasselhoff not included)!

This is what I honestly believe. My beliefs are based on the same evidence and political analysis that Ferrous Oxide's are - in fact, he agrees with me. Ferrous Oxide, "I know what you're saying, even when you don't say it. Don't lie."

Hell, Republicans blame Bill Clinton for Bush's antics EIGHT YEARS IN!
exactly.

and while bush's disastrous presidency will have reprocussions for many years to come, there will come a time when its pathetic to keep blaming him for whatever the current problems will be.

I know he wasn't the worse, but these people are just calling on their primal
nature. They like to pawn off their own problems onto one central person instead
of taking responsibility for their own lives. These people swear to God they are
so powerless to control their own futures, as long as it parallels their political
views.

I voted for Barack Obama like a good Irish boy, but anyone who has a basic under-
standing of the history of U.S. Presidency knows that Bush wasn't the worst, did
he suck? Kind of. Bush was elected during a crucial point in American history, and
he responded; but it just didn't really work out. Anyone who thinks Bush purposefully
screwed up needs to castrate themselves so not to poison the genetic pool, yes I
am a Darwinist, bite me.

I think Bush would have made a better president than the douche bags Al Gore and
John Kerry, thank God we had a good Democrat to choose from this time. I am never
a huge fan of Republicans, and the fact that the Donkey party forced my hand to the
gay-bashing rightist pigs really pisses me off; but thankfully that part of history is over.


Dimesa, you failed to provide any sort of informed rebuttal so I am going to go ahead
and ask the jury to dismiss those statements.

You know what, I do believe that as of this moment Obama is the greatest President ever!

Obama is going to turn the national debt into a national PARTY FUND with a positive balance, make the Stargate program public, unveil the time travel machine that was found back in Roswell, get me a date with Jessica Biel, and buy everyone talking 1982 Pontiac Firebirds, like in classic Knight Rider (David Hasselhoff not included)!

This is what I honestly believe. My beliefs are based on the same evidence and political analysis that Ferrous Oxide's are - in fact, he agrees with me. Ferrous Oxide, "I know what you're saying, even when you don't say it. Don't lie."

>.>

<.<

Psst! Think Obama will get me Ranma's curse and Morrigan as a bride?

You know what, I do believe that as of this moment Obama is the greatest President ever!

Obama is going to turn the national debt into a national PARTY FUND with a positive balance, make the Stargate program public, unveil the time travel machine that was found back in Roswell, get me a date with Jessica Biel, and buy everyone talking 1982 Pontiac Firebirds, like in classic Knight Rider (David Hasselhoff not included)!

This is what I honestly believe. My beliefs are based on the same evidence and political analysis that Ferrous Oxide's are - in fact, he agrees with me. Ferrous Oxide, "I know what you're saying, even when you don't say it. Don't lie."

You even admitted it.

Still could have pulled out. The US didn't have to fight North Korea.

No still don't get your point why he should be hated,

I know what you're saying, even when you don't say it. Don't lie.

No, you've demonstrated quite clearly that you never know what anyone is saying about anything ever.

No still don't get your point why he should be hated,

He fought in a war that he could have quit. Makes sense to me.

Snip.

Bush started Iraq II. That alone makes him horrible.

He fought in a war that he could have quit. Makes sense to me.

The option wasn't to "quit" on Iraq. It shouldn't have been started.

NOW I hope the US quits so I can get to gloat on another chatroom about how right I was.

I'm going to bed - tired of feeding the troll (Paricularly when he calls me rudd boy)
Isa don't expect a straight answer from Ferrous. He bullshitted himself into a corner and you called him on it.

And you Australians ought to toddle off to bed! It's 2 bloody a.m. here in Melbourne!

The option wasn't to "quit" on Iraq. It shouldn't have been started.

NOW I hope the US quits so I can get to gloat on another chatroom about how right I was.

It's a pity, it sounds like we'd be good friends, if you weren't a liberal.

It's a pity, it sounds like we'd be good friends, if you weren't a liberal.

Indeed we would, if you were a completely different person.

And you Australians ought to toddle off to bed! It's 2 bloody a.m. here in Melbourne!

I would but I don't have to be up in the morning, though I do have to be up by lunchtime for a quick 9 holes down at the course.

>.>

<.<

Psst! Think Obama will get me Ranma's curse and Morrigan as a bride?

I think we can get you a date with Ranma's curse, but remember, it's not our fault if it goes badly!


You even admitted it.

Well, yeah, B-Rock is buying me a talking car and taking Stargate public! Lookit all the evidence I've presented in the thread! No way anyone could refute all that well thought out stuff!

I'm just so excited for President Obama. This is even better than that time Clinton secretly signed over the US to United Nations control for when the reptilians call on the New World Order to strike!

There, I said it. People seriously need to get over this "Bush is the worst president EVAAAAAAAAR!" shite. He's mediocre at worst. Think his administration was inefficient? There have been far worse; Grant's govt. comes to mind. Don't like the Iraq War? Well you'd better start hating on JFK and Truman as well, because they took the US into Korea and Vietnam, two far more destructive wars. Upset about the economy? It wasn't Bush; it took years of neglect from all around the world to get it to this state, Bush didn't just wave his hand and destroy the world economy.

Sorry, but it had to be said. The Bush bashing was starting to get pathetic.
Constant Bush-bashing is very dull, but then his presidency was pretty terrible. Extremely expensive wars, authoritarian internal policies as regards 'terrorism' and generally being belligerant towards everyone = sad times.

It's a pity, it sounds like we'd be good friends, if you weren't a liberal.

Indeed we would, if you were a completely different person.

Aww why can't you two just learn to put your political differences aside and be friends :p

Go on shake hands and make up.

II'm just so excited for President Obama. This is even better than that time Clinton secretly signed over the US to United Nations control for when the reptilians call on the New World Order to strike!

>.>

<.<

You know.

*Erases DC*

Aww why can't you two just learn to put your political differences aside and be friends :p

Go on shake hands and make up.

I'm good friends with conservatives I can stand.

Well, yeah, B-Rock is buying me a talking car and taking Stargate public! Lookit all the evidence I've presented in the thread! No way anyone could refute all that well thought out stuff!

I'm just so excited for President Obama. This is even better than that time Clinton secretly signed over the US to United Nations control for when the reptilians call on the New World Order to strike!

I'm not entirely sure that you don't believe that.

I'm good friends with conservatives I can stand.

What, conservatives like Carter and Castro?

I'm not entirely sure that you don't believe that.

That says more about you than it does about him.

What, conservatives like Carter and Castro?

:rolleyes:

I'm good friends with conservatives I can stand.

Oh and I can understand that, same I am good friends with people who are on the opposite end of the spectrum, my post was more of a joke mate.

I'm not entirely sure that you don't believe that.

I'm trying to teach you something, through the only way I know how, references to cheesy sci-fi. When you make statements like:

"If Obama started a nuclear war, you wouldn't admit that he was a bad president."

or ask pointed questions like:

"And you believe that Obama is the greatest president the US has ever had?" in response to a statement totally unrelated to Obama, you should have some form of supporting evidence or logical explanation. Your saying that "If Obama started a nuclear war, you wouldn't admit that he was a bad president," without any supporting evidence or logical explanation holds about as much weight as me going "B-Rock is going to win the war on terror by signing a treaty with the Autobots. OMG have you seen the new Bumblebee, dude's a Camaro now."

See how neither of sentences have any real meaning because they lack any backing to them and are based on absolutely nothing with no evidence behind them, and therefore add up to absolutely nothing of substance? Don't do that. Instead of doing that, say things like "I don't like Barack because..." If you're not willing to do that, than you might as well just run around posting about Klingons and cats that talk funny but want hamburgers.

What's the point? You wouldn't even consider my argument unless it was "Obama's perfect and conservatism sucks!".

I think the very methodology of the OP inadvertantly proved the very opposite point he was trying to make. Sure, Bush may not have been the worst president at everything, but that's not the question. Sure some president may have handled the economy worse, another foreign policy worse, yet another domestic issues were not his forte, but by having ot pick each failure of Bush's, each flundering, blundering fuck up, and piecemeal say "well he didn't do THIS one as bad as . . . "you've already sort of lost by showing us all that Bush shares the worst aspects of every bad president we've had.

so, the lax environmental policies? The crony capitalism? The erosion of civil liberties? The blurring of the line between church and state? The incompetent officials installed into nearly every level of government fromt the treasury to fema? The deliberate snubbing of long-time allies and the squandering of international good will that took decades to accumulate?

Sorry, but i have a hell of a lot more reasons to bash bush than just a war and a recession, and i've yet to see an argument that sways my opinion. There have been bad presidents, but bush has them beat by a margin so large as to make one's head swim.

Amen brotha!

(before reading the below, bear in mind that I ALWAYS hold Congress to blame before the President, as he really has little power)

Now, there is only one president whom I believe is comparably just as bad if not possibly worse. That would be Woodrow Wilson. Talk about erosion of civil liberties, how about the Sedition Act which he signed into law, or the Federal Reserve? How about getting us into the Great War despite coming into office on an isolationism ticket? His economic policies directly corrolate to the economic collapse in the latter twenties (Not that the Hoover administration and Congress weren't to blame as well, but I've always felt that they more inherited the problem rather than caused it).

Just my take. *shrug*

or ask pointed questions like:

"And you believe that Obama is the greatest president the US has ever had?" in response to a statement totally unrelated to Obama, you should have some form of supporting evidence or logical explanation. Your saying that "If Obama started a nuclear war, you wouldn't admit that he was a bad president," without any supporting evidence or logical explanation holds about as much weight as me going "B-Rock is going to win the war on terror by signing a treaty with the Autobots. OMG have you seen the new Bumblebee, dude's a Camaro now."

in fairness, given his past posting history, I'm not 100% sure FO knows that Obama isn't president.

What's the point? You wouldn't even consider my argument unless it was "Obama's perfect and conservatism sucks!".

Yup, that's right. Poor you.

in fairness, given his past posting history, I'm not 100% sure FO knows that Obama isn't president.

Does it MATTER? He's President-elect. It's the same basic thing.

I think the very methodology of the OP inadvertantly proved the very opposite point he was trying to make. Sure, Bush may not have been the worst president at everything, but that's not the question. Sure some president may have handled the economy worse, another foreign policy worse, yet another domestic issues were not his forte, but by having ot pick each failure of Bush's, each flundering, blundering fuck up, and piecemeal say "well he didn't do THIS one as bad as . . . "you've already sort of lost by showing us all that Bush shares the worst aspects of every bad president we've had.
yeah that is what makes bush the worst.

he was terrible in so very many ways. nixon's disaster was mitigated by detente with china. reagan's disaster was mitigated by him coming off as a nice grandfatherly man. carter's disaster was mitigated by his stance on human rights.

bush's disaster is in almost every area and the only thing i can think of that mitigates it is his increased funding to fight aids in africa. that isnt enough to offset the enormous list of things he did wrong.

Does it MATTER?

Yes.

He's President-elect. It's the same basic thing.

No. It's not "the same basic thing", not in the slightest. Right now, he is Barack "regular citizen" Obama.

Does it MATTER? He's President-elect. It's the same basic thing.

No it isn't. He hasn't been sworn in yet, so he cannot sign legislation into law. A President-elect has NO power. At all. He has to wait until January until they go through the whole ceremony and such. THEN he is president, and matters.

What's the point? You wouldn't even consider my argument unless it was "Obama's perfect and conservatism sucks!".

Well, that depends on who "you" is. To be fair, people are much more likely to just shut you out online than in real life, but it all depends on who you're talking to, what you're saying, and how you're saying it.

When you think about how you're going to say things, think about your overall message and what you want to communicate, what you want to get across. For instance, look at this thread title:

"Bush isn't a bad President."

Now, is that the message you wanted to communicate to us? I don't think so, because in your opening post you talk about how maybe Bush isn't the worst President, and how the Bush-bashing is kind of excessive. Your message wasn't clear though, and your initial message to us through the topic title, "Bush isn't a bad President," got us all off on the wrong foot to start with because some of us, at least, thought you were saying that Bush was a good President until we actually read your opening post. And then when we refuted elements of your opening post, you changed your primary point to about how we think too highly of Obama. You had three messages going at once, none of which were properly backed up by anything, so a lot of people didn't take you seriously, and so just shut you out.

Now, that's not to say that if you do buttloads of writing and have what you think is a logically sound argument that people won't refuse to listen anyways, but... eh. That's why I usually don't debate politics online. In fact, I just got into this one because I thought that you were saying that George W. Bush was a good president, based on your thread title, and then I started posting because you compared him to John F. Kennedy, who I, among others, admire greatly. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallup%27s_List_of_Widely_Admired_People)

Which takes me to another point, don't say things that you know will probably irritate people, like "I know what you're saying, even when you don't say it. Don't lie." That doesn't help in the being taken seriously department, online or in real life.

Which I guess leads me to the last point of this post, don't try to get into giant arguments about politics with people you kinda-but-aren't-really-close-with in real life. It leads to more trouble than any satisfaction you will get (probably little to none) will be worth. I would hope that you already know this, but it's worth mentioning anyways.

No it isn't. He hasn't been sworn in yet, so he cannot sign legislation into law. A President-elect has NO power. At all. He has to wait until January until they go through the whole ceremony and such. THEN he is president, and matters.

Bush is President, and he has about as much power as Obama. Less, actually, since Obama has influence.

In fact, I just got into this one because I thought that you were saying that George W. Bush was a good president, based on your thread title, and then I started posting because you compared him to John F. Kennedy, who I, among others, admire greatly. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallup%27s_List_of_Widely_Admired_People)

I admire Varg Vikernes. What's your point?

Wow, this thread cheered me up before class. Thank you, Ferrous Oxide, I didn't think someone could know less about US history.

Also, while there is truth that Bush wasn't the worst president ever(due to his inability to specialize his horrible), and he certainly isn't as bad as most everyone who's tried to run Italy, he's pretty much just bad.

Paying Iraqis billions to stop fighting? Al-Sadr only stopped fighting because the US government paid him very, very good money to stop, instead of finding a diplomatic solution. When the US leaves, no matter if we "won" the war in the end, everything will go to hell because the Iraqi government will not have enough money to spend stupid amounts of money keeping those guys happy.

I don't think JFK or Truman had that terrible of a Vietnam policy.

Turning his back on capitalism and the fair bidding process for companies like Haliburton? (Yes, boys and girls, Bushyboy likes capitalism unless it interferes with the profits of his favorites.) Ask most everyone who exists outside of Bush's corporate cabal about getting access to all the available civil engineering bids. CH2M Hill's Iraq section can't access all the bids, even though they've been pretty consistent in doing things under budget and under time, even though nothing has changed for work site safety.

>.> The only real reason why Vietnam was worse is due to the fact that the draft was employed, massively increasing its unpopularity and death toll on US troops.

I admire Varg Vikernes. What's your point?

a murdering arsonist skinhead?

Meh, you would.

No. It's not "the same basic thing", not in the slightest. Right now, he is Barack "regular citizen" Obama.

Technically, right now, he is Senator Barack Obama.

Bush is President, and he has about as much power as Obama. Less, actually, since Obama has influence.

This, like every single word you have ever typed on this forum, is a complete and utter lie. You could not possibly know less about American politics if you tried. What sort of perverse pleasure do you derive from showcasing your total ignorance?

This, like every single word you have ever typed on this forum, is a complete and utter lie. You could not possibly know less about American politics if you tried. What sort of perverse pleasure do you derive from showcasing your total ignorance?

What can Bush do, apart from pardon people? Nothing. The Democrats have the government.

Technically, right now, he is Senator Barack Obama.

no, he's not (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/19/politics/politico/thecrypt/main4616907.shtml). Obama resigned from the Senate November 16th. Right now he holds NO government position.

I admire Varg Vikernes. What's your point?

I don't know who that is, but that's okay. Let's say that we're having a conversation about Varg Vikernes, who you want to talk about. Let's also say that I know that you don't like Barack Obama, and that you do like Varg Vikernes.

Now, what is it that we're trying to discuss? If you're trying to convince me that Varg Vikernes is an okay guy, and I randomly start comparing him to Barack Obama (who again, I know you don't like), what's going to happen to the discussion? It's going to get derailed as you, distracted by my comparison of someone you like and someone you don't, tries to prove that they aren't alike, right? That's what's likely to occur. Now, does this help the discussion, or hurt it, because we're not on the topic you wanted to discuss in the first place anymore? You were trying to convince me that Varg Vikernes is an okay guy, not that Varg Vikernes is not like Barack Obama and how Barack Obama is bad, remember?

While it is sometimes useful to frame discussions in certain ways to provide structure, it is better when the manner in which it is framed isn't blatantly irritating - ie, if I know that you don't like Barack Obama, and there is someone else who would serve as just as good of a comparison model (in your opening post for this thread, this would be Grant or someone instead of Kennedy) I should chose that someone.

Now I know this isn't a perfect analogy to this thread, but I hope you get the point. Focus on what you want to communicate and discuss - don't get sidetracked into random side issues that have nothing to do with what you want to discuss!

What can Bush do, apart from pardon people? Nothing. The Democrats have the government.


He can sign legislation into law for starters. Or, alternately, veto legislation he doesn't find favourable. He can still commit troops as well should he choose to (though Congress can tell him to piss off and not pay for it, since they have the power of the purse)

I don't know who that is, but that's okay. Let's say that we're having a conversation about Varg Vikernes, who you want to talk about. Let's also say that I know that you don't like Barack Obama, and that you do like Varg Vikernes.

Now, what is it that we're trying to discuss? If you're trying to convince me that Varg Vikernes is an okay guy, and I randomly start comparing him to Barack Obama (who again, I know you don't like), what's going to happen to the discussion? It's going to get derailed as you, distracted by my comparison of someone you like and someone you don't, tries to prove that they aren't alike, right? That's what's likely to occur. Now, does this help the discussion, or hurt it, because we're not on the topic you wanted to discuss in the first place anymore? You were trying to convince me that Varg Vikernes is an okay guy, not that Varg Vikernes is not like Barack Obama and how Barack Obama is bad, remember?

While it is sometimes useful to frame discussions in certain ways to provide structure, it is better when the manner in which it is framed isn't blatantly irritating - ie, if I know that you don't like Barack Obama, and there is someone else who would serve as just as good of a comparison model (in your opening post for this thread, this would be Grant or someone instead of Kennedy) I should chose that someone.

Now I know this isn't a perfect analogy to this thread, but I hope you get the point. Focus on what you want to communicate and discuss - don't get sidetracked into random side issues that have nothing to do with what you want to discuss!

Some rough edges but a generally good analogy. I give you thumbs up. *nod*

He can sign legislation into law for starters. Or, alternately, veto legislation he doesn't find favourable. He can still commit troops as well should he choose to (though Congress can tell him to piss off and not pay for it, since they have the power of the purse)

So basically, he can just make the Democrats slightly less comfortable? Yeah, he's a superhero.

So basically, he can just make the Democrats slightly less comfortable? Yeah, he's a superhero.

Its more than Obama can do, yet. Obama cannot sign or veto legislation, commit troops, or basically do anything government related at this point. HOWEVER! You demonstrate again your lack of knowledge of the US Governmental System by insisting at any rate that the president can do anything against Congress, where the power lies. The Executive branch, though equal to the legislature in theory, is purposely somewhat weaker in that it cannot create legislation.

What can Bush do, apart from pardon people? Nothing. The Democrats have the government.
well back in december of '92 his dad sent US troops to somalia.

one month before bill clinton took the oath of office.

its quite scary to know that bush could lead us into one more gigantic disaster before he leaves office.

Its more than Obama can do, yet. Obama cannot sign or veto legislation, commit troops, or basically do anything government related at this point. HOWEVER! You demonstrate again your lack of knowledge of the US Governmental System by insisting at any rate that the president can do anything against Congress, where the power lies. The Executive branch, though equal to the legislature in theory, is purposely somewhat weaker in that it cannot create legislation.

Obama is the president-elect and the Democrats' god. If he tells the govt. to jump, they will.

well back in december of '92 his dad sent US troops to somalia.

one month before bill clinton took the oath of office.

its quite scary to know that bush could lead us into one more gigantic disaster before he leaves office.

With a bit of luck...

Bush can still make Executive Orders, which are law-like and usually do terrible things, like the interment of Japanese-Americans in WW2.

Some rough edges but a generally good analogy. I give you thumbs up. *nod*

Thank you. I am on the tail end of an all nighter fueled by energy drinks and tea, so I am feeling particularly wordy this morning, but not really up to polishing anything that I write.

Also, I think I might throw up. I think I'm going to go take care of that, among other real life things now...

Obama is the president-elect and the Democrats' god. If he tells the govt. to jump, they will.

He doesn't have the authority to do that.

Bush can still make Executive Orders, which are law-like and usually do terrible things, like the interment of Japanese-Americans in WW2.

I really hope he does, to be honest. As a conservative, I like the idea of a final kick in the guts to the US before we're subjected to liberal shite for at least eight years.

Bush can still make Executive Orders, which are law-like and usually do terrible things, like the interment of Japanese-Americans in WW2.

Very true. But if he does anything that stupid he's liable to be assassinated. lol

He doesn't have the authority to do that.

Does he need it? He can do it de facto.

I really hope he does, to be honest. As a conservative, I like the idea of a final kick in the guts to the US before we're subjected to liberal shite for at least eight years.

...So you'd enjoy seeing the country pitted into more shit just because a liberal is controlling the government? As an ultra-conservative myself I find that attitude disgusting. But hell, what do I know...I guess Nationalism is dead in favour of Partisan politics.

I knew this was a troll baiting thread when I saw the topic and then saw the author. pff...

I am sure there have been some bad presidents in America's past. But...history will record Bush's merits or lack of them just as any of them. The start of a war made on faulty intellegence, and don't tell me Bush didn't know. He knew.

The errosion of civil liberties. The huge amounts of debt that he has led America into. Not to mention his lassize-faire idea with the houseing crises, the credit crises, and now the automobile crises. Bush sure is not going to be making any Olympic records for World's best leader anytime soon.

...So you'd enjoy seeing the country pitted into more shit just because a liberal is controlling the government? As an ultra-conservative myself I find that attitude disgusting. But hell, what do I know...I guess Nationalism is dead in favour of Partisan politics.

I'm not from the US, so I especially like the idea. Your country's going to project Democratic liberal shit onto Earth for the next eight years, I might as well feel good about it.

Italian leaders make Bush look like a brilliant leader.

What leaders dude? They are just pupets man! I'm from Slovenia and Mafia influence is felt even here, just chek what is happening in Croatia the last few months...infamous judges daughter got killed, severel days later the reporters who claimd who did it, one got shot in the midle of the bright day in the CENTER of the city, the other is in critical conditon! Car bombs are found regulary...The politicians dont know what to do, even president Sanader just dissmised the minister of police(guess why? no, he was efficient eneugh, especialy at taking bribery like half of the cops)

P.S so dont give me no politic crap in south Europe...politicians dont run thing around here.

no, he's not (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/19/politics/politico/thecrypt/main4616907.shtml). Obama resigned from the Senate November 16th. Right now he holds NO government position.

Oh hey, I didn't realize he'd already resigned from the Senate. Isn't that a little bit earlier than usual?

I'm not from the US, so I especially like the idea. Your country's going to project Democratic liberal shit onto Earth for the next eight years, I might as well feel good about it.

It could hardly be worse than the Republican conservative shit that's been going on for the last 8 years.

What leaders dude? They are just pupets man! I'm from Slovenia and Mafia influence is felt even here, just chek what is happening in Croatia the last few months...infamous judges daughter got killed, severel days later the reporters who claimd who did it, one got shot in the midle of the bright day in the CENTER of the city, the other is in critical conditon! Car bombs are found regulary...The politicians dont know what to do, even president Sanader just dissmised the minister of police(guess why? no, he was efficient eneugh, especialy at taking bribery like half of the cops)

P.S so dont give me no politic crap in south Europe...politicians dont run thing around here.

That was a least partly my point.

It could hardly be worse than the Republican conservative shit that's been going on for the last 8 years.

What... a strong economy and civil liberties? We had those when we had our conservative govt., and since we voted in the left-wingers... gone. I look forward to seeing what your Democrats can force on us all.

What can Bush do, apart from pardon people? Nothing. The Democrats have the government.

What can Obama do, apart from absolutely nothing?

Just admit your knowledge of American politics is non-existant and that you'd have a greater chance of saying something correct if you started reading words randomly from a dictionary.

What can Obama do, apart from absolutely nothing?

He leads the Dems, and the Dems have the govt. RIGHT NOW. He can make phone calls and TELL them what to do.

So wait, you are trying to apply the politics of Australia to the United States?

You do know that the current American conservative regime has taken many civil liberties with many different acts, which is listed as a complaint you have against your current regime?

So wait, you are trying to apply the politics of Australia to the United States?

You do know that the current American conservative regime has taken many civil liberties with many different acts, which is listed as a complaint you have against your current regime?

Meh. Liberals are all the same. If I can't trust ours, why should I trust yours?

Why people actually indulge Potato Boy's "I miss the days of Bush, Blair and Howard" emo whine is beyond me.

He leads the Dems, and the Dems have the govt. RIGHT NOW. He can make phone calls and TELL them what to do.

No.

He.

Can.

Not.

Why do you have such a hard time wrapping your intellect around this? There are other power players in Washington besides Barack Obama. Some of them have power currently, so they don't have to ply their future power. Do you, honestly, truly, seriously, believe that Ted Kennedy or Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid are going to allow themselves to be actually swayed by a mere Obama phone call? Bush couldn't do that with HIS party when he actually WAS president.

Your total ignorance in all things American politics is dismaying.

Why people actually indulge Potato Boy's "I miss the days of Bush, Blair and Howard" emo whine is beyond me.

I've come to the realization that, for whatever absolutely inconceivable reason, the Mods refuse to punish him in the way that everyone acknowledges he deserves. Understanding that he is not going anywhere, despite a nearly infinite supply of warnings, I have decided to indulge myself.

I really hope he does, to be honest. As a conservative, I like the idea of a final kick in the guts to the US before we're subjected to liberal shite for at least eight years.

So, you implicitly admit that Bush's (conservative) policies would be a "kick in the guts" to the country. So...
Conservativism doesn't work? Interesting that a conservative would think that.

He leads the Dems, and the Dems have the govt. RIGHT NOW. He can make phone calls and TELL them what to do.

Right. Because the Democrats have a sufficient majority to override a veto. :rolleyes:

No.

He.

Can.

Not.

Why do you have such a hard time wrapping your intellect around this? There are other power players in Washington besides Barack Obama. Some of them have power currently, so they don't have to ply their future power. Do you, honestly, truly, seriously, believe that Ted Kennedy or Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid are going to allow themselves to be actually swayed by a mere Obama phone call? Bush couldn't do that with HIS party when he actually WAS president.

Bush is a loser. Obama's charismatic. Charisma is enough.

No.

He.

Can.

Not.

Why do you have such a hard time wrapping your intellect around this? There are other power players in Washington besides Barack Obama. Some of them have power currently, so they don't have to ply their future power. Do you, honestly, truly, seriously, believe that Ted Kennedy or Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid are going to allow themselves to be actually swayed by a mere Obama phone call? Bush couldn't do that with HIS party when he actually WAS president.

Your total ignorance in all things American politics is dismaying.

But, but... he is a Democrat. They are Democrats. Therefore he has REAL ULTIMATE POWER!

So, you implicitly admit that Bush's (conservative) policies would be a "kick in the guts" to the country. So...
Conservativism doesn't work? Interesting that a conservative would think that.

I just meant that I hope he does something horrible, politics aside.

Right. Because the Democrats have a sufficient majority to override a veto. :rolleyes:

Even so, worst case scenario, it's a stalemate.

I've come to the realization that, for whatever absolutely inconceivable reason, the Mods refuse to punish him in the way that everyone acknowledges he deserves. Understanding that he is not going anywhere, despite a nearly infinite supply of warnings, I have decided to indulge myself.

Yes, but that only encourages him to be even more emo.

I just meant that I hope he does something horrible, politics aside.

Well, I hope it involves Australia and fucks you over. Not other Australians, mind, but you specifically.


Even so, worst case scenario, it's a stalemate.

Ooooh, so much power. Obama has the power to get locked into a stalemate and do absolutely nothing.

Yes, but that only encourages him to be even more emo.

Yeah, but his whining is funny.

Well, I hope it involves Australia and fucks you over. Not other Australians, mind, but you specifically.

I doubt god could find something else to make my life suck.

Ooooh, so much power. Obama has the power to get locked into a stalemate and do absolutely nothing.

It's still power. Power of influence.

Yeah, but his whining is funny.

It's not his actual high-pitched emo whine that annoys me so much as people replying to him as if there's a snowball's chance in Hell of debating with him logically.

I dunno, this makes me happy. There's a degree of "Australia matters" and "Australia's politics can be applied to anything!" to this.

I dunno, this makes me happy. There's a degree of "Australia matters" and "Australia's politics can be applied to anything!" to this.

I don't care about Australia.

I've come to the realization that, for whatever absolutely inconceivable reason, the Mods refuse to punish him in the way that everyone acknowledges he deserves. Understanding that he is not going anywhere, despite a nearly infinite supply of warnings, I have decided to indulge myself.

He's lost an account already, been slapped around a few times since. It's only a matter of time.

I don't care about Australia.

Yet you whine about Rudd constantly. Gee, hypocrisy much?

Yet you whine about Rudd constantly. Gee, hypocrisy much?

I have to live here. I don't care about the rest of the saps here.

I doubt god could find something else to make my life suck.
You're actually daring God? I'm sure something can be arranged...

You're actually daring God? I'm sure something can be arranged...

For starters, Rudd could be re-elected in a landslide.

:D

I doubt god could find something else to make my life suck.

If this "god" character exists, I'm damn well sure he can.



It's still power. Power of influence.

Inherent in power is the ability to do something with it. Obama can... get the Dems to pass a bill that will only be vetoed. Wow.

But of course, you're absolutely right. The President-elect is just as powerful as the president. It's like Article I, Section VII of the US Constitution says: "And the President-Elect shall have powers equal to that of the president."

For starters, Rudd could be re-elected in a landslide.

:D

*donates to Rudd's next campaign*

I don't see your point. Probably because you don't have one.Well, if you're too dense for it to make it through to you, here it is bluntly put:
You haven't done basic research necessary to make any sort of valid claim that Kennedy was in fact worse at being President than Bush.

Here's an example:
I don't see the problem. A nuclear missile launched from Russia will destroy just as much as one launched from Cuba.This showcases your extreme ignorance on the issue. A nuclear missile launched from Russia wouldn't have done jack shit to America, seeing as during the Cuban missile crisis, they didn't have that kind of range.
So you all genuinely believe that Bush is the worst president the US has ever had.Strawman and lie.
You Americans. Worst President ever? Come off it. You don't even know what a bad leader is.Then again, this isn't a discussion about the worst leaders in the world, its a discussion about the worst leader us Americans have had.
I give up. Nothing I'm going to say is going to convince you otherwise.I'd love to believe this, but I don't doubt you'll continue posting.

There, I said it. People seriously need to get over this "Bush is the worst president EVAAAAAAAAR!" shite.

I think people like you need to get over the "Bush is the greatest president EVAAAAR!" shite. Hey look, I can burn strawmen too.

You said he "isn't a bad President" in the title but immediately are pounding on how he's apparently 'not the worst president.

"not the worst" =/= "isn't bad"

Then the rest of your argument seems bent on pointing out how there are, in your views, worse presidents. Again this ignores your own point. I declare your argument failed on account of how completely unsupported it is.

I think people like you need to get over the "Bush is the greatest president EVAAAAR!" shite. Hey look, I can burn strawmen too.

You said he "isn't a bad President" in the title but immediately are pounding on how he's apparently 'not the worst president.

"not the worst" =/= "isn't bad"

Then the rest of your argument seems bent on pointing out how there are, in your views, worse presidents. Again this ignores your own point. I declare your argument failed on account of how completely unsupported it is.

Well said. I think it's best to let the historians write how they think Bush's presidency turned out. Not saying History is unbiased. But history, along with the people who lived during the Bush era will judge his Presidency, such as all have done with every other president that have been in office.

Really? What about Buchanan, who effectively allowed the entire country to schism?

I don't know if you can blame him entirely for that. The whole sectional issue was building up since 1776 and finally blew up under Buchanan. Would you blame Hoover for the Great Depression? No. The problem grew in the '20s and came to a head in his first year.

He's going to be a definite contender for worst after all the damages are calculated...

... in 2050.

However, there are other legitimate contenders for the title.

He's going to be a definite contender for worst after all the damages are calculated...

... in 2050.

However, there are other legitimate contenders for the title.
yes there are but he is hard to beat. his list of good points is so short and his list of bad points so very long.

Well...let's see:

Bush managed to squander a Republican lead so badly he's likely put the Democrats in charge of the country for the next twenty years. Take that how you will folks-GW did more than Howie Dean, Hillary Clinton, Obama, Biden, or Pelosi to get rid of a Republican Congress and create a single-party control over the Federal Government. They'll be blaming him for everything gone wrong for the next twenty years, he's created a useful scapegoat in himself, and worse, he signed an act that is effectively a writ of impirium for anyone coming into the office after him.

So you all genuinely believe that Bush is the worst president the US has ever had.

He very well could be, but I'm not 100% sure. He's up there, though. Or down, as it were...

Bad President? Undoubtedly. His foreign policy stinks, for a start. The worst? History will judge. I don't think we have enough historical distance to make a statement that big yet.

For starters, Rudd could be re-elected in a landslide.

:D

Don't even joke about stuff like that. :p

OK. How about we take a centrist position and try to compromise in here. Bush is not the worse president ever....

just the worse president so far. deal?

I think we're too temporally close to the Bush administration to really judge the 'badness' of the administration. Give it a few years and if we're lucky the situation will have improved enough that we'll have forgot him, and he'll go down in history as more akin to a Benjamin Harrison for our day and age.

If Obama started a nuclear war, you wouldn't admit that he was a bad president.

If Bush's current and past policies cause a nuclear war in the future you would still insist that he wasn't the worst

And you believe that Obama is the greatest president the US has ever had?

Obama is not president yet.

I doubt god could find something else to make my life suck.

I just invented a new game!

He could do this. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AndIMustScream)

Let's make up all the nice kinds of stuff doable! :p

Well, Kennedy did almost destroy the world. Bush is hardly the worst leader the US has ever had.

But JFK was a kick-ass android (http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=w_lcNAqNfos)

But JFK was a kick-ass android (http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=w_lcNAqNfos)

YESSSSS. I was about to post that. :)

Also, George Washington was the best president ever (http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=foqOtlrPCN4).

There, I said it. People seriously need to get over this "Bush is the worst president EVAAAAAAAAR!" shite. He's mediocre at worst. Think his administration was inefficient? There have been far worse; Grant's govt. comes to mind. Don't like the Iraq War? Well you'd better start hating on JFK and Truman as well, because they took the US into Korea and Vietnam, two far more destructive wars. Upset about the economy? It wasn't Bush; it took years of neglect from all around the world to get it to this state, Bush didn't just wave his hand and destroy the world economy.

Sorry, but it had to be said. The Bush bashing was starting to get pathetic.

And youve shown youre such an expert on US politics and history, we really all should believe you.


You make me laugh rusty.

And that's not counting this administration's lack of a response to Katrina.



FeO, I'm not a fan of Laerod, but I'd have to agree here. For Bush, Katrina would be the final nail on the coffin. I could also point out the US "Election" in 2000, where US Supreme Court elected the Bush, not the people, certainly not the popular vote.

FeO, I'm not a fan of Laerod, but I'd have to agree here. For Bush, Katrina would be the final nail on the coffin. I could also point out the US "Election" in 2000, where US Supreme Court elected the Bush, not the people, certainly not the popular vote.

well, we're not a "by popular vote" country, never have been. In the end, the SCOTUS decision was probably the correct one.

well, we're not a "by popular vote" country, never have been. In the end, the SCOTUS decision was probably the correct one.

From the US Constitution:

"The electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves. And they shall make a list of all the persons voted for, and of the number of votes for each; which list they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted. The person having the greatest number of votes shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such majority, and have an equal number of votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately choose by ballot one of them for President; and if no person have a majority, then from the five highest on the list the said House shall in like manner choose the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by States, the representation from each state having one vote; A quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. In every case, after the choice of the President, the person having the greatest number of votes of the electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal votes, the Senate shall choose from them by ballot the Vice President. "

Translation: a disputed election shall be thrown into the House of Congress, not the Supreme Court!

So you all genuinely believe that Bush is the worst president the US has ever had.

One of the bottom five or so. I don't think ranking beyond that really matters much. Why is that so hard to believe? You haven't really been providing us with worse to consid...wait...*looks at name of quoted post*...that's right.



Never mind.

From the US Constitution:

-snip-

Translation: a disputed election shall be thrown into the House of Congress, not the Supreme Court!


um.

no.

That's not how it works, not at all. I suggest reading your own passage. Trust me, I know how the constitution works. They teach it in lawyer school.

um.

no.

That's not how it works, not at all. I suggest reading your own passage. Trust me, I know how the constitution works. They teach it in lawyer school.

Care to explain it for the rest of us?

Bush is not the worst president ever, in the past fifty years maybe, but not ever. He seems to waiver a lot on the issues and he doesn't think about the future and the consequences of his actions.

As far as the Iraq war goes, I think that has been the worst political action in the past fifty years if not this century. I can understand the whole 9/11 thing but we had Osama Bin Ladin trapped in the Mountains in Afghanistan and we just left him for the local war lords. And if we really needed to get Saddam out of power we could have just sent in a small strike team to take him out, WE HAVE DONE IT BEFORE, GET USED TO IT.

Care to explain it for the rest of us?

if you insist....

The section of the Constitution you quoted, regarding the decision by the House (Amendment 12, for what it's worth) deals with what happens if, after the electors vote, no one person has a majority of the electoral votes. Then and only then does the House determine the victor. That's what the section you quoted deals with. It describes what is to happen if there is no one ticket that received a majority of the votes.

However in Bush v. Gore, the electors had not voted yet. The case was about determining the results of the Florida election, to determine how the Florida Electors WOULD VOTE. The House couldn't decide that election because it never met the criteria for it. Bush received the majority of the electoral votes, therefore the House had no power over the results.

And the decision of Bush v. Gore was probably the correct one.

Really? What about Buchanan, who effectively allowed the entire country to schism? What about Harrison, too dumb to put on a coat? What about His Accidency, John Tyler?

Oh man, don't even get me STARTED on Tyler. Fuck that guy. My social security is worth less than a sack of bottlecaps because of that guy! :rolleyes:

Oh man, don't even get me STARTED on Tyler. Fuck that guy. My social security is worth less than a sack of bottlecaps because of that guy! :rolleyes:

yeah, and what about Taft? Lose some weight, you fat fuck!

I think the whole Bush sucks thing has made him the least popular president in history because we live in the Information Age. Other presidents could probably have fared worse in our time, but we're talking about a president who's done more harm than any other in history.

Oh man, don't even get me STARTED on Tyler. Fuck that guy. My social security is worth less than a sack of bottlecaps because of that guy! :rolleyes:

<---- is related to Tyler

<---- is related to Tyler

well then fuck you, too

well, we're not a "by popular vote" country, never have been. In the end, the SCOTUS decision was probably the correct one.It had no legal basis whatsoever, and permanently injured our foundational institutions.

It had no legal basis whatsoever

I happen to disagree, I think the fundamental decision was legally sound.

well then fuck you, too

Is that a promise?:p

The section of the Constitution you quoted, regarding the decision by the House (Amendment 12, for what it's worth) deals with what happens if, after the electors vote, no one person has a majority of the electoral votes. Then and only then does the House determine the victor.
The role of the joint session of Congress in counting the electoral votes has always been held to imply that the Congress determines any dispute as to which electoral votes are to be received. The Constitutional Convention did consider, and explicitly reject, any role for the Supreme Court in adjudicating such disputes: "It would be unthinkable," Madison wrote, "for the court to have any role in the decision, being the body most removed from the popular will." (Breyer noted this explicit anticipation and rejection of the Supreme Court's claimed jurisdiction in his dissent.)
The case was about determining the results of the Florida election, to determine how the Florida Electors WOULD VOTE.
The Florida election ought to have been decided by the voters of Florida. To decide on any other basis than the will of the voters de-legitimizes the Constitution itself, which rests on no other legal basis.
Bush received the majority of the electoral votes
He did not.

I happen to disagree, I think the fundamental decision was legally sound.I will listen. Personally, I cannot find even a shred of legal excuse for it.

bush has been an idiot, indecisive over key issues such as climate change, engaging in costly wars, racist, eroded many civil liberties, destroyed America's positive world image, promoted the scary American right-wing religious fanatics to positions of power (not meant as an insult to any sane christians, but evangelism scares me), the gap between rich and poor is increasing, the us is currently in a hole of bush's making.

no bush did an awesome job lets have 8 more years of him

how did he ever beat Kerry or Gore

at least he did one thing right, he is hilarious and so easy to take the piss out of he even looks kind of like a chimp with narrow set eyes and a kind of gormless expression

That's not how it works, not at all. I suggest reading your own passage. Trust me, I know how the constitution works. They teach it in lawyer school.

What would a lawyer know about the law?

Thanks for telling us about it Neo, I too wasn't to sure on what the whole hulla-baloo was about.

The role of the joint session of Congress in counting the electoral votes has always been held to imply that the Congress determines any dispute as to which electoral votes are to be received. The Constitutional Convention did consider, and explicitly reject, any role for the Supreme Court in adjudicating such disputes: "It would be unthinkable," Madison wrote, "for the court to have any role in the decision, being the body most removed from the popular will." (Breyer noted this explicit anticipation and rejection of the Supreme Court's claimed jurisdiction in his dissent.)

A dissent, one I disagree with. mainly because of the specific provisions of the 12th amendment

The Florida election ought to have been decided by the voters of Florida. To decide on any other basis than the will of the voters de-legitimizes the Constitution itself, which rests on no other legal basis.

What OUGHT to have been on a moral basis is not always what exists on a legal basis. The constitution clearly delineates the power to determine how each state's electors shall vote to the state legislatures. It is the power of each state to determine, on its own, how that state will determine how the electors vote.

There is no part of the constitution that requires any presidential election, in any state. No part of the constitution creates a national, or state, right to vote. Florida could have, if it chose, to determine its electoral vote by a coin toss, or to require its electors to always vote for the republican, or the democrat, and it would be perfectly constitutional. no part of the constitution mandates that any state determine its electoral votes by a state popular vote.

And because Harris was empowered by state law to make her decision, she made it. It was in her power to certify the election, and she did so. Now, we may disagree with her choice, we may think it's the wrong one, we may rant and rave about how, god damn it, the constitution SHOULD give everyone the right to vote, guaranteed.

But it does not.

He did not.

electoral votes? he most certainly did. The electoral college showed up, and they voted. you can argue whether or not he SHOULD HAVE received a majority of the electoral votes, but to deny the fact that he did is to deny history. The majority of the electoral college voted for him, that's simple fact.

In the years since terrorists attacked America, President Bush has lead the United States of America to liberate two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libia, Iran, and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered over 300,000 of his own people. And people complain that he's the worst president in history?

Let's compare the Iraq war (Bushes War) to some other US wars...

FDR (Democrat) led us into WWII. Germany never attacked us; Japan did. We lost 450,000 lives, an average of 112,500 per year.

Truman (Dem) finished that war and started one in Korea. North Korea never attacked us. We lost 55,000 lives, an average of 18,334 per year.

JFK (Dem) got America involved in the Vietnam conflict. Vietnam never attacked us. Johnson (Dem) turned the war into a quagmire. We lost 58,000 lives, an average of 5,800 per year. Nixon (Republican) got us out of the war.

Clinton (Dem) went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent. Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us many times.

George W. Bush is the first president to appoint 2 African Americans as Secretary of State.

He has provided more tax relief for American families than any other president in history. He has preserved Social Security and lead reform of our education system, medicare and medicaid programs.

He has provided our military with the funding needed to win in Iraq and defeat terrorism in Afghanistan.

He has worked hard to end partial-birth abortion and shelved the unconstitutional Clinton-era gun-control laws. He has appointed Supreme Court Justices that actually respect our founding father's beliefs about the Constitution. He has brought dignity to the presidency by being a faithful family man and setting a high moral standard for Americans.

Is President Bush perfect? No. Has he met everyone's expectations? No. Is he loved by the media? No. Do the French have pictures of him tacked up in their garages? I highly doubt it. Is he the worst president ever? Are you crazy? He's one of my top 10.

George Washington
James Madison
Abraham Lincoln
Thomas Jefferson
Teddy Roosevelt
James K. Polk
Ronald Reagan
George W. Bush
Harry S. Truman
Dwight D. Eisenhower

bush has been an idiot, indecisive over key issues such as climate change, engaging in costly wars, racist, eroded many civil liberties, destroyed America's positive world image, promoted the scary American right-wing religious fanatics to positions of power (not meant as an insult to any sane christians, but evangelism scares me), the gap between rich and poor is increasing, the us is currently in a hole of bush's making.

no bush did an awesome job lets have 8 more years of him

how did he ever beat Kerry or Gore

at least he did one thing right, he is hilarious and so easy to take the piss out of he even looks kind of like a chimp with narrow set eyes and a kind of gormless expression

He beat Kerry because Kerry was a blithering idiot. As for Gore, there's debate over whether he actually did.

Harry S. Truman

why the fuck do people insist on doing this?

why the fuck do people insist on doing this?

Because they haven't read up on their historical trivia, presumably.

Have I ever mentioned that my mother actually met Harry S Truman on a couple of occasions when she was a kid? He lived just a few streets over from her for a while. She thought he was kind of a weird old guy. :p

Oh Gods. The stupid. It Burns.

In the years since terrorists attacked America, President Bush has lead the United States of America to liberate two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libia, Iran, and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered over 300,000 of his own people. And people complain that he's the worst president in history?

Yes. Why? Because we wouldnt have had to do any of that if he had actually listened to the reports Clinton left him. Also, there were already nuclear inspectors in all of those countries.

Let's compare the Iraq war (Bushes War) to some other US wars...

Lets.

FDR (Democrat) led us into WWII. Germany never attacked us; Japan did. We lost 450,000 lives, an average of 112,500 per year.

Germany declared war on us. Because they were Japan's allies.

Truman (Dem) finished that war and started one in Korea. North Korea never attacked us. We lost 55,000 lives, an average of 18,334 per year.

It was a UN action to aid South Korea. You know, back when the US was part of the international community.

Besides, youre all pro-Iraq war because Saddam was "teh ebil", but anti-helping South Korea? Even though Kim Il-Sung was not a nice guy either?

Or are you only pro-attacking dictators and preserving freedom when it a Republican president doing it, you little partisan?

JFK (Dem) got America involved in the Vietnam conflict. Vietnam never attacked us. Johnson (Dem) turned the war into a quagmire. We lost 58,000 lives, an average of 5,800 per year. Nixon (Republican) got us out of the war.

1. Kennedy put military advisors in Vietnam. Not troops.
2. Nixon only got us out after he escalated it and made it even more unpopular.

Clinton (Dem) went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent. Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us many times.

You say we were right to invade Iraq because of the human rights abuses, yet then QQ about Bosnia?

You really dont know anything about US history. Youre just being partisan, and trying (and failing) to pretend like all the democrat presidents failed when it came to war. Stop reading Coulter.

Should I post the body count of the coups Reagan and his administration sponsored and orchistrated?

George W. Bush is the first president to appoint 2 African Americans as Secretary of State.

So?

He has provided more tax relief for American families than any other president in history.

No. He just gave rich Americans more tax relief.

He has preserved Social Security

No.

and lead reform of our education system,

He didnt reform it. He boned it.

medicare and medicaid programs.

Only if by "reform" you mean stripped funding and made them worse.

He has provided our military with the funding needed to win in Iraq and defeat terrorism in Afghanistan.

They already had that funding.

He has worked hard to end partial-birth abortion and shelved the unconstitutional Clinton-era gun-control laws. He has appointed Supreme Court Justices that actually respect our founding father's beliefs about the Constitution.

No. The judges he appointed are stooges. Nothing more. Nothing less.

He has brought dignity to the presidency by being a faithful family man and setting a high moral standard for Americans.

:rolleyes:

Yeah, he really brought dignity to America by making everyone hate us, destroying our alliances, and utterly crushing our credibility to lie to start two wars, violating the Geneva convention, violating our own constitution, and bringing us down to the terrorists level.

Is President Bush perfect? No. Has he met everyone's expectations? No. Is he loved by the media? No. Do the French have pictures of him tacked up in their garages? I highly doubt it. Is he the worst president ever? Are you crazy? He's one of my top 10.

Thats because you dont know anything.

George Washington
James Madison
Abraham Lincoln
Thomas Jefferson
Teddy Roosevelt
James K. Polk
Ronald Reagan
George W. Bush
Harry S. Truman
Dwight D. Eisenhower

L. O. Fucking. L.


Put down the Coulter, turn off Hanity and Limbaugh, and actually do some thinking.

Oh i read the OP and i got confused with the lying thread.

Gee double ya was an amazing president to people who agree and understand with statements like:

"We spent a lot of time talking about Africa, as we should. Africa is a nation that suffers from incredible disease."

"My plan reduces the national debt, and fast. So fast, in fact, that economists worry that we're going to run out of debt to retire."

"I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully."

"For every fatal shooting, there were roughly three non-fatal shootings. And, folks, this is unacceptable in America. It's just unacceptable. And we're going to do something about it."

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."

"'I think people attack me because they are fearful that I will then say that you're not equally as patriotic if you're not a religious person,' Mr. Bush said. 'I've never said that. I've never acted like that. I think that's just the way it is.'"

"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."

If any of this makes sense to you...Bush gets an A+...but then if you agree with it you probably weren't a very bright student anyway and the A+ doesn't matter.

Bush was a bad president, if the country was headed down a dark path he didn't do anything to light the way or change course, if you blame previous administrations for the issues then you are wrong in saying he brought dignity to the position, because blaming others takes away from your own credibility, lowers the position to nothing but a figure head, and shows that you are incompetent.

The only way he might be a great president is if you look at him in a way that makes him a catalyst for logical, rational, and practical people to wake-up and pull ourselves out of this dark age we have let ourselves be a part of.

in the years since terrorists attacked america, president bush has lead the united states of america to liberate two countries, crushed the taliban, crippled al-qaida, put nuclear inspectors in libia, iran, and north korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered over 300,000 of his own people. And people complain that he's the worst president in history?

Let's compare the iraq war (bushes war) to some other us wars...

Fdr (democrat) led us into wwii. Germany never attacked us; japan did. We lost 450,000 lives, an average of 112,500 per year.

Truman (dem) finished that war and started one in korea. North korea never attacked us. We lost 55,000 lives, an average of 18,334 per year.

Jfk (dem) got america involved in the vietnam conflict. Vietnam never attacked us. Johnson (dem) turned the war into a quagmire. We lost 58,000 lives, an average of 5,800 per year. Nixon (republican) got us out of the war.

Clinton (dem) went to war in bosnia without un or french consent. Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered osama bin laden's head on a platter three times by sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us many times.

George w. Bush is the first president to appoint 2 african americans as secretary of state.

He has provided more tax relief for american families than any other president in history. He has preserved social security and lead reform of our education system, medicare and medicaid programs.

He has provided our military with the funding needed to win in iraq and defeat terrorism in afghanistan.

He has worked hard to end partial-birth abortion and shelved the unconstitutional clinton-era gun-control laws. He has appointed supreme court justices that actually respect our founding father's beliefs about the constitution. He has brought dignity to the presidency by being a faithful family man and setting a high moral standard for americans.

Is president bush perfect? No. Has he met everyone's expectations? No. Is he loved by the media? No. Do the french have pictures of him tacked up in their garages? I highly doubt it. Is he the worst president ever? Are you crazy? He's one of my top 10.

George washington
james madison
abraham lincoln
thomas jefferson
teddy roosevelt
james k. Polk
ronald reagan
george w. Bush
harry s. Truman
dwight d. Eisenhower

it would take me way too much time to correct all these statements. Quite a funny read though, i would like to see more of them.

George Washington
James Madison
Abraham Lincoln
Thomas Jefferson
Teddy Roosevelt
James K. Polk
Ronald Reagan
George W. Bush
Harry S. Truman
Dwight D. Eisenhower
While there are plenty of falsehoods in your earlier post, it is interesting to see that you consider treason and hatred of democracy (respectively) as nothing that should bar someone from being one of the top ten presidents. Under those circumstances, it is quite understandable that gross incompetence would not prevent GWB from making the list.

While there are plenty of falsehoods in your earlier post, it is interesting to see that you consider treason and hatred of democracy (respectively) as nothing that should bar someone from being one of the top ten presidents. Under those circumstances, it is quite understandable that gross incompetence would not prevent GWB from making the list.

Yeah, really, the only president he missed who was more interested in getting his way then democracy was Wilson.


But he was a dirty democrat so we cant name him, can we?

Yeah, really, the only president he missed who was more interested in getting his way then democracy was Wilson.


But he was a dirty democrat so we cant name him, can we?


Actually he did have Polk and Truman on the list.

Actually he did have Polk and Truman on the list.

Fair enough.


Naming those two though doesnt really change how saddly and transparently partisan the poster in question is.

Fair enough.


Naming those two though doesnt really change how saddly and transparently partisan the poster in question is.

Although I agree with Polk and Truman being there, I couldn't help but notice one of them nuked Japan and fought the Korean War, and the other greatly expanded US territory with the Mexican War. Coincidence not?

Yeah, really, the only president he missed who was more interested in getting his way then democracy was Wilson.


But he was a dirty democrat so we cant name him, can we?How so? Ike's hatred for democracy was showcased by his support for or failure to prevent the overthrow of democratically elected right-wingers in Iran and Guatemala at the behest of American companies.
What comparable things did Wilson do?

No.

He.

Can.

Not.

Why do you have such a hard time wrapping your intellect around this? There are other power players in Washington besides Barack Obama. Some of them have power currently, so they don't have to ply their future power. Do you, honestly, truly, seriously, believe that Ted Kennedy or Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid are going to allow themselves to be actually swayed by a mere Obama phone call? Bush couldn't do that with HIS party when he actually WAS president.

Your total ignorance in all things American politics is dismaying.

Actually, if he goes ahead and makes the call, he can. President Reagan personally called Congressmen fairly regularly to ensure his policies went through, and Obama is a Chicago politician, who fully realizes the importance of sub rosa dealings.
Bush couldn't be bothered to do such, and his usual dealings with matters outside his expertise, which turns out to be everything, was just to throw money at it and hope it went away.
Outside of the war in the Middle East, Bush has mismanaged everything greatly, but Carter was worse. I think he'll be relegated to "caretaker" as soon as the hoopla dies down, but there's no political legacy here, much as his father left no real legacy beyond being "Reagan Lite".
As far as Obama-well, Chester A. Arthur was a machine politician, and he was fairly good. The nice thing about machine politicians is how fast they revert to pragmatism as the fit hits the Shan-so to speak.
Washington, DC is a clusterf*ck that needs a social lion as well as a determined leader with clearcut goals to move it in any direction. Since Obama has nothing clearcut about him, I'll watch patiently from Galashiels as the country dies or prospers.

A dissent, one I disagree with. mainly because of the specific provisions of the 12th amendment.
??? What in the 12th amendment justifies the Supreme Court adjudicating Presidential election disputes?
What OUGHT to have been on a moral basis is not always what exists on a legal basis. The constitution clearly delineates the power to determine how each state's electors shall vote to the state legislatures. It is the power of each state to determine, on its own, how that state will determine how the electors vote.
You seem to be unaware that the Constitution was amended after the Civil War, significantly reducing the discretion left to the states on many subjects, including the conduct of elections.

There is no part of the constitution that requires any presidential election, in any state.
Not outright "requiring" it, no. But Amend. XIV specifies a forfeiture of Congressional representation as a penalty if certain offices are not filled by elections with near-universal suffrage: the states were only allowed to withhold (with no penalty) the vote from females (overridden by Amend. XIX), those under 21 (changed to 18 by Amend. XXVI), or felons (still allowed); "Presidential electors" are on that list, along with Representatives (but not Senators until Amend. XVII), state legislators, the Governor and any other executive or judicial state officials chosen by election rather than appointment (the states were still left with discretion about how many such offices, aside from the specified legislature and Governor, those should be).
No part of the constitution creates a national, or state, right to vote. Florida could have, if it chose, to determine its electoral vote by a coin toss, or to require its electors to always vote for the republican, or the democrat, and it would be perfectly constitutional.
Florida would then be entitled to ZERO seats in the House of Representatives (the clause in Amend. XIV specifying that seats are to be taken away in proportion to the number of the disenfranchises does not even reserve a state's right to keep at least one seat).
And because Harris was empowered by state law to make her decision, she made it.
NO. State law does not grant the Secretary's certification any conclusive finality: it provides for challenging the results, either pre-certification (called a "protest") or post-certification (a "contest"). It further provides procedures for resolving such challenges, which were being carried out until Scalia ordered it stopped, on grounds that if it became known who had won, that would cast doubt on the legitimacy of awarding the election the other way (look up his injunction: I am by no means exaggerating what he said).
EDIT: I should add that even the SCOTUS opinion in Bore v. Gush did not make this bogus argument that Katherine Harris' certification had some kind of finality. I am very disappointed in you, Neo, that you are giving this kind of response, evidently without looking at election law OR even the text of the opinion you undertook to defend.
the constitution SHOULD give everyone the right to vote, guaranteed.
You have it bass-ackwards. The right to vote is PRE-constitutional: it is the bedrock on which everything, INCLUDING THE LEGITIMACY OF THE US CONSTITUTION ITSELF, rests on. If we abandon the principle that the will of "We the People" controls, whenever the personal preferences of incumbent officials runs otherwise, then: the US Constitution is not law; we remain, legally, subjects of the British crown.
electoral votes? he most certainly did. The electoral college showed up, and they voted.
SOMEBODY showed up, and voted: in 49 states and DC, they were the electors. In Florida, however, they were appointees of the Supreme Court, no more qualified to be "electors" (since the Supreme Court has no role in choosing electors) than any group of people whom *I* might appoint, and call "the rightful electors".

What comparable things did Wilson do?

I dont know if we'd call this comparable, but jailing political enemies, for no valid reason other than they were Wilosn's political and ideological enemies, does show ones contempt for democracy.


That and he and his wife were rather outspoken white supremacists.

Bush was NOT a bad president. Sure he made some mistakes, but he kept the American people safe, He liberated an entire people from the opressive rule of a madman. Katrina was not his fault, It was the fault of the thousands of stubborn people who refused to leave, and the mayor took to long to apply for Federal Aid. The Iraq war was a sucess. Saddam is out, Violence is down, Elections are in place, and US troops will leave within a year I heard(which Obama will naturally be given credit for). The Economic recession was not Bush's fault either(ok some of it) It all began in the Clinton era. Once he is no longer on the national stage, and out of the media spotlight, people will be able to analize his presidency, and find that he was a scapegoat for other people's mistakes, He was infact not a bad president, and show that the media was disgustingly biased.

Bush was NOT a bad president. Sure he made some mistakes, but he kept the American people safe, He liberated an entire people from the opressive rule of a madman. Katrina was not his fault, It was the fault of the thousands of stubborn people who refused to leave, and the mayor took to long to apply for Federal Aid. The Iraq war was a sucess. Saddam is out, Violence is down, Elections are in place, and US troops will leave within a year I heard(which Obama will naturally be given credit for). The Economic recession was not Bush's fault either(ok some of it) It all began in the Clinton era. Once he is no longer on the national stage, and out of the media spotlight, people will be able to analize his presidency, and find that he was a scapegoat for other people's mistakes, He was infact not a bad president, and show that the media was disgustingly biased.

No, he pretty much was an awful president. But not for (many) of the reasons you list.

There is also the fact that for his second term he ran on the premise that he would fix social security, and he definitely did that didn’t he?

No he didn't. He ran on No Child Left Behind and the fact that he did a bad job because Presidentin' is hard work.

He didn't mention Social Security deform until after he got elected.

well then fuck you, too

Could we have a smilie with that please?
You and KoL know it's a joke, I know it's a joke. But others might miss it, and think "fuck you" is acceptable debate.

=================

*snip*
Or are you only pro-attacking dictators and preserving freedom when it a Republican president doing it, you little partisan worm?
Don't.
You really dont know anything about US history. Youre just being partisan, and trying (and failing) to pretend like all the democrat presidents failed when it came to war. Stop reading Coulter dipshit.
Don't call names.

Whether it's a noob you reply to or not, whether they're partisan or not, you will just make the whole forum worse with that kind of personal attack. It's saying to the lurkers: look, you'll get attacked and flamed for a strong, well-written post so you might as well just come in flaming. Do we really want that?

===========

*snip*Once he is no longer on the national stage, and out of the media spotlight, people will be able to analize his presidency*snip*

You can analize his presidency if you want, but it's not coming anywhere near MY anus.

You mean "analyze" in US English. :)

Don't.

Don't call names.

Whether it's a noob you reply to or not, whether they're partisan or not, you will just make the whole forum worse with that kind of personal attack. It's saying to the lurkers: look, you'll get attacked and flamed for a strong, well-written post so you might as well just come in flaming. Do we really want that?


Ill fill you in on a secret. I dont take well to being lectured. Especially when its by someone I dont know on an internet forum. Esepcially when that person in question is not a MOD.

Ill fill you in on a secret. I dont take well to being lectured. Especially when its by someone I dont know on an internet forum. Esepcially when that person in question is not a MOD.

OK. Moderation it is then.

OK. Moderation it is then.

:rolleyes:


Whatever helps you sleep at night.

Could we have a smilie with that please?
You and KoL know it's a joke, I know it's a joke. But others might miss it, and think "fuck you" is acceptable debate.

=================


Don't.

Don't call names.

Whether it's a noob you reply to or not, whether they're partisan or not, you will just make the whole forum worse with that kind of personal attack. It's saying to the lurkers: look, you'll get attacked and flamed for a strong, well-written post so you might as well just come in flaming. Do we really want that?

===========



You can analize his presidency if you want, but it's not coming anywhere near MY anus.

You mean "analyze" in US English. :)

Typo....sorry I was on a rant

sorry I was on a rant

An incorrect one at that.

An incorrect one at that.

How so?

How so?

Because you fundamentally misunderstand why he was such an awful president.


Sure, he invaded a country that didnt need to be invaded under false pretenses.


Sure, he totally botched the Katrina thing.


Sure, his total disregard for the internatonal community has probably helped terrorism more than hurt it.

Sure, the economy has been a disaster for the vast majority of his presidency.


But, what makes him so bad, is that he views the Constitution as "suggestions" rather than what it is, the law of the land.

But, what makes him so bad, is that he views the Constitution as "suggestions" rather than what it is, the law of the land.
I would go even further. He is a profound enemy of the 1776 revolution and every principle this country used to stand for. He usurped the office in the first place, and has behaved as a traitor ever since.

Because you fundamentally misunderstand why he was such an awful president.


Sure, he invaded a country that didnt need to be invaded under false pretenses.


Sure, he totally botched the Katrina thing.


Sure, his total disregard for the internatonal community has probably helped terrorism more than hurt it.

Sure, the economy has been a disaster for the vast majority of his presidency.


But, what makes him so bad, is that he views the Constitution as "suggestions" rather than what it is, the law of the land.


I See your point...No he was not a Good President, but since when has America cared about what the International community thinks? America did not become the greatest economic, military, and cultural entity that ever existed, based on what other nations thought we should do. Terrorism has not been helped, America has not been attacked since 2001, Terrorist actions are down all over the world, Al-Quaeda is hanging by a thread, and Iraq is under control. The economy has been worse, no it is not in shambles. I do agree, The constitution is the law of the land, and no one is above it. It is however, meant to be improved upon, and updated for a more modern era.

I See your point...No he was not a Good President, but since when has America cared about what the International community thinks? America did not become the greatest economic, military, and cultural entity that ever existed, based on what other nations thought we should do.

Well, considering the French won our Revolution for us, and the conflicts that directly catapulted us to superpowerdom were conflicts that the world ha been asking us to enter since the beigning.

Terrorism has not been helped, America has not been attacked since 2001,

Because they dont need to attack our homeland. They can kill us in theirs now.

Terrorist actions are down all over the world, Al-Quaeda is hanging by a thread,

Im sure you can back this up.

and Iraq is under control.

Debatable.

The economy has been worse, no it is not in shambles.

Actually no it hasnt and yes it is.

I do agree, The constitution is the law of the land, and no one is above it. It is however, meant to be improved upon, and updated for a more modern era.

Great. Not only does the current president disagree with "updating" it (unless its to ban gay marriage) because he supports "strict constructionist judges", he also regularally violates it.

Typo....sorry I was on a rant

I didn't expect an apology, from any of the quoted posters!

Just having some fun with your typo. ;)

Bush was NOT a bad president. Sure he made some mistakes, but he kept the American people safe,
Not the four thousand of them who died fighting in Iraq he didn't.

He liberated an entire people from the opressive rule of a madman.
They weren't US citizens. If you're going to count them, count the Iraqis killed by US forces too.

Katrina was not his fault, It was the fault of the thousands of stubborn people who refused to leave, and the mayor took to long to apply for Federal Aid.
What? You don't think Bush's handling of a national emergency counts AT ALL?

The Economic recession was not Bush's fault either(ok some of it)
Some of it sounds like too much to me. I'm on the other side of the world, but crikey -- it's not a "small problem" it's the biggest issue worldwide just now. It's going to be with us for years.

Once he is no longer on the national stage, and out of the media spotlight, people will be able to analyze his presidency, and find that he was a scapegoat for other people's mistakes, He was in fact not a bad president, and show that the media was disgustingly biased.
I agree with the "other peoples mistakes" part. He had some bad influences, but that points up the exact danger of electing an idiot.

And ... "blame the media." Honestly, I believe the media always tries to pick popular opinion and accentuates it ... they'd have been biased the other way in his second term except that he increasingly looked like a loser by his own actions.

I also believe half the reason people hate him, is that people don't understand him. He is an awful public speaker, and cannot convey his motives fully, into understandable statements

I also believe half the reason people hate him, is that people don't understand him. He is an awful public speaker, and cannot convey his motives fully, into understandable statements

Oh please. He was elected because he was "folksy". His inability to speak most people find endearing.