NationStates Jolt Archive

We think George W. Bush is bad, but have we even considered how bad other presidents are? Or is Bush really the worst?
Let us find out...

Who was the worst US president?

Bush 43 was the worst, hands down. He set new standards for corruption and ineptitude. First runner up would be either US Grant or Nixon.

I believe there was some guy, in the beginning of the USA. I forgot his name. It was a kind of a lazy duck, liked to play golf and stuff, didn't bother about the people (smells all like bush)and was not reelected.

bush II is obviously only the most embarassing in my lifetime. can't really tell about worsness in former times, except jackson and tylor's indiginous 'ethinic cleansing', even george washington's reputation as 'village burner'. ulyssis grant would probably be the closest parallel. with the corruption of his cabinet and advisors, including his head of the treasury department, schyller colfax, the guy the town i grew up in, in california, was named after (why oh why, are there towns in at least three states that i know of named after him. truelly bizaar!)

nixon was a holdover from marcarthyism paranoia of marxism, just a lot more fanatical, and willing to cross lines of corruption in support of that fanatacism, about it, then say kennidy or even eisenhour. johnson mayhave been just as bad, or near it, on that score, but had other redeaming qualities to off set it somewhat.

that insanity STILL hasn't left american forign policy entirely, probably because of the influence of major economic intrests that see any sort of social responsibility is little other then an annoying to them, inconvenience.

(eisenhour was all about playing golf, presumably, i would guess at least partly, so he could deny supporing mccarthy. that wasn't anywhere near the begining of the country, he was the guy before kennidy, and that was in my lifetime. i was two when eisenhour was elected. i don't know if they even had golf back around the late 1700s, early 1800s, it least in america (i'm sure they probably DID in scotland, but that was scottland, not america). eisenhour did serve, i'm pretty sure it was two terms, from after harry "the buck stops here" truman, to kennidy. i'm not sure who would have been playing golf that much further back.)

Possibly Coolidge in some respects, due to his not joining the League of Nations - other than that, pretty top, mind.

Hoover was bad, Bush was bad, Nixon bad, Carter very weak if not necessarily bad.

It would be easier to ask which president was a good one. :)

Well putting aside the founding fathers and their numerous and horrifying problems I'd say Buchanan. He was utterly and completely ineffective as president and lead us down a path to the Civil War. Everyone else's ineptitude pales in comparison.

This is where you explain why Ronald "10,000 years of debt" Reagan isn't a choice. No, he's not as bad as Dubya, but he's certainly worse than half the chociues you listed.

This is where you explain why Ronald "10,000 years of debt" Reagan isn't a choice. No, he's not as bad as Dubya, but he's certainly worse than half the chociues you listed.Please, Reagan committed treason. That makes him an American hero.
Possibly Coolidge in some respects, due to his not joining the League of Nations - other than that, pretty top, mind.Not entirely his choice. Congress' approval is required, and that wasn't going to happen.
Hoover was bad, Bush was bad, Nixon bad, Carter very weak if not necessarily bad.Carter's biggest problems were that he was a Washington outsider, he followed an imperial President and was thus saddled with a very assertive Congress.

This is where you explain why Ronald "10,000 years of debt" Reagan isn't a choice. No, he's not as bad as Dubya, but he's certainly worse than half the chociues you listed.

Something about presiding over a good economy.

I am sorry I could not get all the presidents you wanted on there. That is why there is "other." We must have some stinky presidents...

George Washington because the originator is always (at least partially) responsible for all that follows

that or Al Gore for conceding the election that was rightfully his!

Emperor Norton, for not running for election.

I've always maintained that US Grant was the worst president ever. He really had no business being a politician.

It would be easier to ask which president was a good one. :)
that's for sure. in my lifetime kennidy on domestic policy mostly, though imperfect, and messed up, mostly on international policy, though not entirely.

carter flip domestic and forign from kennidy.

if one president could have been kennidy on domestic and carter on forign, that would have been one good one. no one even close to that in my life time. (i have hopes for obama along those lines, but we'll just have to see what we shall see)

both the rosevelts, looked at through the dim glass of recorded history seem to have been pretty good ones (although i'm not so sure i would have felt that way personally about teddy if i'd been around then). and supposedly, back near the biginning, one of the adams', i forget which one.

and truman, i think a lot of people all over the spectrum seem to think truman turned out pretty good, and he had kind of a tough row to hoe, from what i understand of it. i mean if he'd have messed up, and it was really a narrow high wire act for him not to have, the postwar prosperity of the 50s, that enabled eisenhour to get away with what he did, would most likely never have happened.

Possibly Coolidge in some respects, due to his not joining the League of Nations - other than that, pretty top, mind.

Uh, Wilson was still President when the League was voted down. Coolidge hadn't even been selected as Harding's running mate yet.

A tie between Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren, on account of orchestrating a fucking genocide.

A tie between Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren, on account of orchestrating a fucking genocide.

Van Buren? Isn't that the Fallout 3 beta made by Black Isle?

Other:The most recent president of the opposing party to mine.

Woodrow Wilson, hands down.

If you think Bush 2.0 is bad, think again. Wilson took everything Bush did, and turned it up to 11. He pushed America into a war that claimed a 100,000 American lives, and presided over the worst crack down on American civil liberties ever.

Warren G. Harding. As much as I loathe Bubba, Harding was far worse as a President. Bubba just had the worst character of any President.

BTW: anyone who picks George W. Bush here is dumb as a bucket of shrimp. :D

Please, Reagan committed treason. That makes him an American hero.

Looks like you're the one who needs rehab, not Ruffy. Put the crack pipe down and get professional help immediately.

BTW: anyone who picks George W. Bush here is dumb as a bucket of shrimp. :D

meh, still be smarter than W...

Looks like you're the one who needs rehab, not Ruffy. Put the crack pipe down and get professional help immediately.

actually, if Reagan was complicit in the Iran contra affair, that means he, as commander in chief, willingly funded the Contras, in direct violation of the Boland Amendment, which he himself signed, which prohibited any funding of the Contra's attempt to overthrow the government.

And when a president directly, intentionally defies federal law, and provides funding to armed militant groups, and weapons to Islamic extremists...yeah, treason is not such an inaccurate description.

Warren G. Harding

None of Bush's cabinet secretaries are likely to go to prison for taking bribes. Two other members of his cabinet were forced to resign (one by Harding's successor Coolidge) for corruption, one for taking bribes from Prohibition violators, one for agreeing to the transfer of oil reserves that saw the first-mentioned imprisoned cabinet secretary go to prison.

Harding himself was no bright spark, and even the official White House biography is forced to admit he was only nominated because he 'looked like a president' rather than any inherent qualities (which he in any case lacked). The official White House biography even concedes the extensive corruption in the Harding administration.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/wh29.html

actually, if Reagan was complicit in the Iran contra affair, that means he, as commander in chief, willingly funded the Contras, in direct violation of the Boland Amendment, which he himself signed, which prohibited any funding of the Contra's attempt to overthrow the government.

And when a president directly, intentionally defies federal law, and provides funding to armed militant groups, and weapons to Islamic extremists...yeah, treason is not such an inaccurate description.

The Boland amendment was attached to a defense appropriations bill.
It only outlawed aid to the contras that went to overthrowing the Nicaraguan government. other aid was allowed. (given what else do Contras do ???)

however being part of a appropriations bill it only affected US tax payer money. This was Iranian Tax payer money, well and inner city people's money they spent on Crack and a few other less then savory places to get funds.

The US government even made a profit,even after aiding the contras, they marked the weapons up so high for the Iranians.

My main concern is more president should not have slush funds they can use for what ever they want. Basically what Nixion got impeached for using a slush fund to carry out anti democrat operations.

Hoover or Bush 2.

BTW: anyone who picks George W. Bush here is dumb as a bucket of shrimp. :D

I'm pretty sure calling someone stupid and then putting a smiley is still flaming.

I've always maintained that US Grant was the worst president ever. He really had no business being a politician.

He was a sleezy, corrupt, lying bastard.



He had every business being a politician :p

BTW: anyone who picks George W. Bush here is dumb as a bucket of shrimp. :D

Youre right, Reagan was worse.


I gotta go with Dubya, Ray Gun, Wilson, or Hoover. I mean, really, theyre all tied.

In my honest opinion, it would be hard for me to name a single worst US President, as each of the following have done despicable acts in my view.

Contender Number One: Herbert Hoover.

His biggest mistake was passing the Smoot Hawley Tariff Act, which more than likely helped turn what would have been a post 1929 recession into the Great Depression. The reason why this makes him bad was that the Depression saw the rise of Keynesian economics, and thus helped create an environment where the Gold Standard was weakened, and thus helped eliminate the only control over inflation.

Contender Number Two: Harry S. Truman

His biggest mistake was not offering decent aid to the Kuomintang early enough, and thus helping the Chinese Communist Party to win the Chinese Civil War. We still face the after effects of this decision, as we still have Communists in control of that country, and we can no longer get rid of them. He could have also utilised the atomic bomb to get rid of Communism in the USSR, but that is a minor thing.

Contender Number Three: Richard Nixon

A Republican in name only. He was a Keynesian, he pandered to Communists
(by speaking to Zedong, and pulling out of Vietnam just as the tide was turning) and he got rid of the Gold Standard. Each of these are in my view enough to make him a candidate for worst President.

Contender Number Two: Harry S. Truman

His biggest mistake was not offering decent aid to the Kuomintang early enough, and thus helping the Chinese Communist Party to win the Chinese Civil War. We still face the after effects of this decision, as we still have Communists in control of that country, and we can no longer get rid of them. He could have also utilised the atomic bomb to get rid of Communism in the USSR, but that is a minor thing.


Despite my numerous disagreements with a very..."interesting" post...

Are you really saying that Truman not nuking another country makes him one of the worst presidents?

Jimmy Carter

Despite my numerous disagreements with a very..."interesting" post...

Are you really saying that Truman not nuking another country makes him one of the worst presidents?

No, that in my view just doesn't help his case. The worst act was not giving aid to the Kuomintang, and thus allowing Communism to take root in China. Had he done that, and ensured that the Kuomintang won in China, the USSR would have probably been much weaker in the early stages of the Cold War anyways.

Nixon is the only one I can think of who I'd call bad, and then only just. He was a phsycotic nutjob, and if he'd been in power longer.... well I doub't China would still be Red. Most of the 'bad' one's were just largely incompotent and corrupt. Carter acheived nothing for example, and Bush Junior has handed over billions of dollars in contracts to his mates. Most of the Presidents have been decent men who simply failed to meat unrealistic expectations.

I've voted Hoover-his post-collapse deflationary policies are probably what made a panic into the Great Depression. Contraction of the money supply? What the hell wer he and his boys at the Fed thinking?

That's not even mentioning his protectionist policies.

I've voted Hoover-his post-collapse deflationary policies are probably what made a panic into the Great Depression. Contraction of the money supply? What the hell wer he and his boys at the Fed thinking?

It was probably along the same line of thinking as the gold standard nutjobs, who somehow think massively contracting the money supply through elimination of fiat currency will somehow make things better.

In my honest opinion, it would be hard for me to name a single worst US President, as each of the following have done despicable acts in my view.

Contender Number One: Herbert Hoover.

His biggest mistake was passing the Smoot Hawley Tariff Act, which more than likely helped turn what would have been a post 1929 recession into the Great Depression. The reason why this makes him bad was that the Depression saw the rise of Keynesian economics, and thus helped create an environment where the Gold Standard was weakened, and thus helped eliminate the only control over inflation.

Contender Number Two: Harry S. Truman

His biggest mistake was not offering decent aid to the Kuomintang early enough, and thus helping the Chinese Communist Party to win the Chinese Civil War. We still face the after effects of this decision, as we still have Communists in control of that country, and we can no longer get rid of them. He could have also utilised the atomic bomb to get rid of Communism in the USSR, but that is a minor thing.

Contender Number Three: Richard Nixon

A Republican in name only. He was a Keynesian, he pandered to Communists
(by speaking to Zedong, and pulling out of Vietnam just as the tide was turning) and he got rid of the Gold Standard. Each of these are in my view enough to make him a candidate for worst President.

Okay, what damn dirty necromancer went and made a zombie out of old Joe McCarthy?

You're supposed to make me believe that the solution to deflationary crises is a massive contraction of the money supply?

Not only that, but you think that the end always justifies the means when fighting communism, even if it means supporting mass murdering psychotic dictators like Chiang Kai-Shek against the masses of their own country, and committing mass genocide with nuclear weapons.

You, sir, would fit right in with Stalin and co. The only difference is the flag that you fly.

Reagan, for making the US a state sponsor of terror.

Lincoln, for anally raping the constitution.

Im going with Jackson, he commited Genocide against an entire group of people...And his policies with regard to the Executive Branch are the root cause of such near unanimous bad policies like those of Bush, and Nixon...

Lincoln, for anally raping the constitution.
Does the president have to be in perfect coordination with the constitution to be great? If he still managed to be a beneficial leader, wouldn't that absolve him of him constitutionally questionable activities?

Does the president have to be in perfect coordination with the constitution to be great? If he still managed to be a beneficial leader, wouldn't that absolve him of him constitutionally questionable activities?

Idk...Ironically, Im actually a fan of Lincoln...the real fault I think goes to Johnson, and of course Boothe, Ive always been of the opinion that Lincoln wouldve been one of the few leaders in history to let go of his "emergency powers" had he lived...

Okay, what damn dirty necromancer went and made a zombie out of old Joe McCarthy?

No-one did. I just despise Communism because of all the harm that it has caused over the years. By my estimate, 150 to 200 million people have been killed as a direct result of Communism; including 70 million in the PRC, and 50 million in the USSR.

You're supposed to make me believe that the solution to deflationary crises is a massive contraction of the money supply?

Things were getting better in 1930; you had the Wall Street Crash, a recession had begun, but nothing major was going down the gurglar - indeed, the Dow Jones had started climbing again. With the passing of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, global trade ground to a halt and turned a recession into the Great Depression.

Not only that, but you think that the end always justifies the means when fighting communism, even if it means supporting mass murdering psychotic dictators like Chiang Kai-Shek against the masses of their own country, and committing mass genocide with nuclear weapons.

Well, Chiang Kai-Shek would have been far less of a mass murderer than Mao Zedong, who, let us not forget, was behind the slaughter of seventy million in his lifetime. In terms of nuclear weapons, I never said that we should have flattened the USSR with them, but you could have taken that advantage and used it to help in an invasion of the USSR.

The end always justifies the means when it comes to fighting the political system that killed the most people in the 20th Century.

You, sir, would fit right in with Stalin and co. The only difference is the flag that you fly.

Actually, not. What I advocate is getting rid of problems before they become to big to handle. I would have rather seen the Western Powers get more involved in the Russian Civil War than they did.

Does the president have to be in perfect coordination with the constitution to be great? If he still managed to be a beneficial leader, wouldn't that absolve him of him constitutionally questionable activities?

What's the point of a Constitution, if you're going to argue the country can be governed better without it?

Could a benign dictator be a good - even great - leader? I believe it's possible. Could he be a good PRESIDENT? I'm not so sure.

Rutherford B. Hayes with Ulysses S. Grant a close second.

Does the president have to be in perfect coordination with the constitution to be great?

Yes.

If he still managed to be a beneficial leader, wouldn't that absolve him of him constitutionally questionable activities?

No.

Ronald Reagan, without doubt. He sponsored terrorism in Afghanistan and Nicaragua, and if his Alzheimer's was so advanced that he did not know what was going on, he should have resigned. AP, if it wasn't for Communism, people would be still fighting on the Somme. Unfortunately, because western countries, particularly France, were too greedy to heed Lenin's call for peace without indemnities, and mistakes by the German Communists, we were saddled with Hitler, and indeed Stalin.

Barack Obama is the worst president ever, just ask fox news.

Barack Obama is the worst president ever, just ask fox news.

According to Conservapedia, he's only Allegedly going to be President, :p

Ronald Reagan, without doubt. He sponsored terrorism in Afghanistan and Nicaragua, and if his Alzheimer's was so advanced that he did not know what was going on, he should have resigned. AP, if it wasn't for Communism, people would be still fighting on the Somme. Unfortunately, because western countries, particularly France, were too greedy to heed Lenin's call for peace without indemnities, and mistakes by the German Communists, we were saddled with Hitler, and indeed Stalin.

Not to be a pest, but Wilson called for a "peace among equals" well before Lenin...

What's the point of a Constitution, if you're going to argue the country can be governed better without it?
Plenty of countries govern without the US Constitution, and some of their leaders have been better than some of the United States' presidents. Now, in all normal and even most extraordinary circumstances I think it should be followed to a tee, because it seems to work. But I'm sure there are circumstances where following it is worse than not. I wasn't around during the Civil War, but I can imagine that being such a circumstance.
Could a benign dictator be a good - even great - leader? I believe it's possible. Could he be a good PRESIDENT? I'm not so sure.
Okay, that makes sense. I still think Lincoln was a great leader, but you're right in that he didn't do his job as outlined in the Constitution, and so I can see that disqualifying him from being a great President.

According to Conservapedia, he's only Allegedly going to be President, :p

just like bill clinton allegedly got blown by lewinski.

just like bill clinton allegedly got blown by lewinski.

Or Nixon Allegedly entering the Watergate, lol

The Boland amendment was attached to a defense appropriations bill.
It only outlawed aid to the contras that went to overthrowing the Nicaraguan government. other aid was allowed. (given what else do Contras do ???)

however being part of a appropriations bill it only affected US tax payer money. This was Iranian Tax payer money, well and inner city people's money they spent on Crack and a few other less then savory places to get funds.

The US government even made a profit,even after aiding the contras, they marked the weapons up so high for the Iranians.

My main concern is more president should not have slush funds they can use for what ever they want. Basically what Nixion got impeached for using a slush fund to carry out anti democrat operations.

Um. Not that I agree that Reagan committed treason, but your sanitized version of the Iran-Contra Affair is ridiculous. See, e.g., Walsh Report (http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/):

Independent Counsel concluded that:

-- the sales of arms to Iran contravened United States Government policy and may have violated the Arms Export Control Act1

1 Independent Counsel is aware that the Reagan Administration Justice Department took the position, after the November 1986 revelations, that the 1985 shipments of United States weapons to Iran did not violate the law. This post hoc position does not correspond with the contemporaneous advice given the President. As detailed within this report, Secretary of Defense Caspar W. Weinberger (a lawyer with an extensive record in private practice and the former general counsel of the Bechtel Corporation) advised President Reagan in 1985 that the shipments were illegal. Moreover, Weinberger's opinion was shared by attorneys within the Department of Defense and the White House counsel's office once they became aware of the 1985 shipments. Finally, when Attorney General Meese conducted his initial inquiry into the Iran arms sales, he expressed concern that the shipments may have been illegal.
-- the provision and coordination of support to the contras violated the Boland Amendment ban on aid to military activities in Nicaragua;

-- the policies behind both the Iran and contra operations were fully reviewed and developed at the highest levels of the Reagan Administration;

-- although there was little evidence of National Security Council level knowledge of most of the actual contra-support operations, there was no evidence that any NSC member dissented from the underlying policy -- keeping the contras alive despite congressional limitations on contra support;

-- the Iran operations were carried out with the knowledge of, among others, President Ronald Reagan, Vice President George Bush, Secretary of State George P. Shultz, Secretary of Defense Caspar W. Weinberger, Director of Central Intelligence William J. Casey, and national security advisers Robert C. McFarlane and John M. Poindexter; of these officials, only Weinberger and Shultz dissented from the policy decision, and Weinberger eventually acquiesced by ordering the Department of Defense to provide the necessary arms; and

-- large volumes of highly relevant, contemporaneously created documents were systematically and willfully withheld from investigators by several Reagan Administration officials.

-- following the revelation of these operations in October and November 1986, Reagan Administration officials deliberately deceived the Congress and the public about the level and extent of official knowledge of and support for these operations.

In addition, Independent Counsel concluded that the off-the-books nature of the Iran and contra operations gave line-level personnel the opportunity to commit money crimes.

Or Nixon Allegedly entering the Watergate, lol

or John McCain allegedly crashed two planes while in service...

We've been discussing best and worst Presidents (and general Presidential trivia!) the United States Presidency Centre in London, and some of the general comments have included:
- Buchanan as the worst
- Pierce, Benjamin Harrison, Harding and George W. Bush as being pretty terrible
- the only one for whom there is almost no revisionist interpretation is Harding: the only ameliorating factor is that he died before serving a full term
- Nixon's reputation has been rehabilitated to some extent by Joan Hoff Wilson and (the Director of the USPC) Iwan Morgan

So I voted 'other' in the poll. I have to admit I know little about Pierce so I can't compare his demerits to Buchanan's that well.

Edit: Not trying to do an appeal to authority: just relaying what some academics/postgrads have said to me. Most of them are fairly liberal in their politics, with the exception of our foreign policy lecturer (Britain's other neocon), so an accusation of bias is reasonable.

Barack Obama is the worst president ever, just ask fox news.

Barack Obama is the best president ever, just ask the New Barack Channel. :p


I would say Harrisson is the worst, because he died a month in office. Worst President ever automaticly because he didn't do anything at all.

And I have to say, Regan may have racked up the bill, or have "commited treason", but Carter in the longrun was worse. Don't get me wrong, he was a terrific human rights activist; however, he didn't exaclty do anything good with the economy back in the 70's, double digit inflation, double digit interest rates, ect. And his administration found resulting in an increase in payroll taxes caused the federal government to go into a deficit. The Community Reinvestment act was also a total failure, as it was a major factor in causing the financial crisis of today. Sure, everyone got a home, but now in 2008...could they pay for it?

Barack Obama is the best president ever, just ask the News Barack Channel. :p


I would say Harrisson is the worst, because he died a month in office. Worst President ever automaticly because he didn't do anything at all.



I dont know if you could count harrison, because it wasnt his fault he only lasted a month as president.

I dont know if you could count harrison, because it wasnt his fault he only lasted a month as president.

True, the Common Cold doesn't suddenly say "Oh! Lets go out and kill a random president! But wait, Harrison is the only one on the planet at the moment, oh well, we'll just take him."

However, he was still technically in office, so I guess that that could count, we didn't say how long the presidency was, just how bad it was.

True, the Common Cold doesn't suddenly say "Oh! Lets go out and kill a random president! But wait, Harrison is the only one on the planet at the moment, oh well, we'll just take him."

However, he was still technically in office, so I guess that that could count, we didn't say how long the presidency was, just how bad it was.

but what bad thing did he do? besides die in office. if dying in office counts as being a bad president then add jfk and lincoln to that mix.

Please, Reagan committed treason. That makes him an American hero.

Personally I'd like too see something more reliable than soviet documents making the person who referred to them as "The Evil Empire" look bad.

What's the point of a Constitution, if you're going to argue the country can be governed better without it?

Could a benign dictator be a good - even great - leader? I believe it's possible. Could he be a good PRESIDENT? I'm not so sure.

Meh. Following the Constitution would have lead to the break up of this country. Hard choices when you have a civil war.

I would say if he hadn't have died it would have been better for the South.

*snip*

You see the recent documents where he looked the other way while Sadaam was gassing the Kurds and well basically commiting genocide?

Worst president in U.S. history:

Warren G. Harding. Hands down. He may not have been the worst person who held the office, but he was the worst in the role of the office.

His first problem, and probably his greatest sin as president, was bringing in the 'Ohio Gang.' Good presidents have, as a general rule, had cabinet members that came from differing backgrounds and opinions to ensure that the president didn't have just a bunch of 'yes-men' (like Skippy [what we call Bush #43]) or, as Harding did, a bunch of guys that actively hid their activities from the public in a manner that easily allowed them to commit despicable felony acts at the expense of the American public.

Then, of course, you had the fact that Harding was an active drinker during Prohibition, allowing the previous thing to develop.

Honestly, in the two years that Harding was in office, he managed to accomplish a level of general 'screwing-everything-up' on par with all of Skippy's decisions since he was told that a plane had hit the Twin Towers.

To anyone who's saying U.S. Grant is the worst president ever, I disagree. Was he cut out for politics? No. He was far too trusting, surrounded himself with corrupt scoundrels, and they screwed him over. He, himself was not a bad guy. He just made quite a few bad choices. And hell, with all the WORSE choices made by some of our other presidents, and on purpose too, i think we can excuse this poor fellow. *Tips hat, runs off*

Barack Obama is the best president ever, just ask the New Barack Channel. :p

Or indeed, he will solve all the world's problems if CNN, ABC and others are to be believed.

Fox may be biased, but so are all the others.

BTW: anyone who picks George W. Bush here is dumb as a bucket of shrimp. :D

Just did. Now will you fess up to this and SAY THAT TO MY FACE?

Heikoku, I've seen both Khadgar's comment and KoL's complaint in Moderation about that line, but I have doubts about whether that's a straight-out insult. If this had been said with a grin (and a smilie's a grin) round a barbie in Oz, it'd be an invitation to a silly game, eg:

Anyone who picks George Bush is dumb as a bucket of shrimp (except we'd say "prawns").

Oh yeah? Anyone who doesn't pick George Bush is dumb as a box of hair.

Yeah. Anyone who picks George Bush is dumb as a packet of wet mice.

And so on, with the comparisons getting deliberately sillier and sillier.

SO: if it is a game, please don't get lured into it, it's off-topic. New Mitanni, no more please.

If it was just a joking comment, NM, no more please.

As for this one (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14277605&postcount=22), a flame is no way to refute an argument. NM, cut it out.