Is Bush the worst president ever?

[tubuler]

The worst President in modern times is Probably the Kennedy / Johnson administration. History is only now starting to tell the truth about Kennedy - who almost started World War 3 on two occasions, and who started the Vietnam war.

Actually, none of that is true. Kennedy avoided all out nuclear war with the USSR. And his own Secratary of Defense Robert McNamara said that Kennedy was strongly considering pulling out of Vietnam after the 1964 election. In the film "The Fog of War", not only does McNamara say this, but a tape recording of Lyndon Johnson confirms that Kennedy was planning to withdraw from Vietnam, a position Johnson states he disapproved of.

Additional evidence is Kennedy's National Security Action Memorandum (NSAM) #263 on October 11, 1963 that gave the order for withdrawal of 1,000 military personnel by the end of 1963. Unfortunately, after Kennedy's assassination, new President Lyndon B. Johnson immediately reversed his predecessor's order to withdraw 1,000 military personnel by the end of 1963 with his own NSAM #273 on November 26, 1963. Johnson is responsible for the escalation of the Vietnam war. Not Kennedy.

 

[Galactic]

Truman was worse.



Much worse.

 

[Nester6]

Blame W. for this? Where's Clinton's share?

Clinton is actually the cause of most of our problems today. Bush inherited Clinton's poll watching and lack of action on terrorism.

 

[belgianass]

It can be that perhaps he is the worst, but whom of all the leaders in the world are "good" these days. None, not with us, not in France, Not in Germany,nor in any other country. It's wright now all in control of people who are controlling others, gasprices go up, electricity prices goes up (let's call them rich people)...
I think it's all being controlled by people with money and who wanna have more, they just use a puppet to do it for them. Over here they call it "europe wants this and europe wants that", lets face it, isn't it what the people wants that is inportant ? ask it to everyone in the street what they want, except for the extremist everybody wants to have a decent life,work,car and a bit of saving for when they get old. Who can do so right now ? Nobody can now days. Everybody nags but nobody moves.
Choose wisely ... but who can you trust ? Even if you choose me, who don't say that i'll be corrupt in a few months. It can be with money, women, deathwarnings, ...
Let's say he was an ass, but it was us who let him be it. Who were the biggest asses then ?

 

[Member2019]

I have to disagree ...

Clinton is actually the cause of most of our problems today. Bush inherited Clinton's poll watching and lack of action on terrorism.

I have to disagree.

First off, on conservative boards, I'm the first one to defend Clinton. Yeah, he missed a lot, but a lot can be attributed to "hindsight" that many other leaders didn't have. Clinton also got blindsided by selfish interests of France and Russia as well in the Security Council as well. We are all paying the price for that lack of unification, as we are today. It's hardly the US' fault in those matters, and only the UK seems to care, although France is changing as they see where it's leading to.

Secondly, on the economy, we can't blame Clinton either, in any regard. The .COM boom (and resulting bust) was hardly his doing positively or negatively. Most Americans saw the surplus eradicated and the market dive and new the job cuts would come as a result. Even I did. I mean, it would be so easy for me to blame W. for my losing my jobs in 2001, but I knew what happened before.

Third, Clinton did sign a lot of good legislation, including several portions of the Contract with America. He also cut many social programs, social benefits and other "dead beat" non-sense. On the other hand, as much as I don't like our facist medical system, he at least ****** some laws that improved it for working people.

In reality, there's not much a President can or cannot do outside of war. Clinton flirted with the idea of invading Iraq, and decided not to do it. At the same time, I think people forget how many times Clinton launched cruise missiles and bombed countries, including missing targets and ******* a lot of civilians with the ****-poor human intelligence that was gutted during his administration.

It's why the phrase "Who would Jesus bomb?" got resurrected from the Vietnam war during the Clinton administration. People forget how bad Clinton was scolded internationally at times, especially on Bosnia and in Africa. He bombed and sent cruise missiles on faulty intelligence himself at many turns, including without Congressional approval in a great majority of cases.

But regardless of the intelligence and planning that may have come from the Clinton administration that lead to the Iraq War, W., sold it, undersold its duration and gave the order to go in. Therefore, that falls on W., not Clinton, as Clinton didn't decide to go in.

The thing that bothers me with Clinton over W. is how he "played the game." He signed Kyoto and did not bother to get even a single Senator from his own party to vote for it. He did this with so many things -- from Mexico to the Americas to the Middle East and the like. He'd say one thing, then didn't remotely fight for it. That's a popularist, not a leader.

It would be so easy for W. to sign Kyoto and be done with it. Why? Because he's not going to be in office when it comes down. It's so easy for W. to do many other things. But he doesn't, because he believes in taking responsibility for what he says. Yes, his views are pretty fucked up, and I never voted for him for that reason.

But in reality, I can think of five (5) worse Presidents than Clinton or W. In fact, both Clinton and W. are a victim of the American attitude of the '70s onward. We need to be pointing the fingers at ourselves, especially on the environment.

 

[titsrock]

In fact, both Clinton and W. are a victim of the American attitude of the '70s onward. We need to be pointing the fingers at ourselves, especially on the environment.

This is the best statement you've made in this thread. It's completely accurate. We are in trouble. The .COM "Bubble" only served as a temporary "solution" to a greater national problem. We have no real "engine" to our economy anymore. We rely on other countries for our basic goods. What will replace the "tech boom"? We had a housing boom but that crashed and burned. My sense is we're looking at a Bio-tech/Pharma "Boom"...Big Corporate interests seem to want us to "believe" in a "pill" to cure us. If not this pill, than the next one we hear about in commercials.

Is Globalization working for America at this point? We know it's working for the Euros and for South America and, in some cases (not all) for 3rd World countries.

We don't have a single, unified vision of our nation. We can't be 50 states doing our own thing...we have to be "One nation." If we believed in a single, national identity, we might begin to turn our country around...can one president really make a difference anymore?:dunno:

 

[Member2019]

We are in trouble. The .COM "Bubble" only served as a temporary "solution" to a greater national problem. We have no real "engine" to our economy anymore.

Yep.
I've noticed as fewer and fewer engineers graduate in this country, the more and more this has become the reality.
And we aren't even allowing foreigners who study at our schools to stay here anymore, especially not engineers.

We're shooting ourselves in our own foot.

After the .COM boom we switched from stocks to real estate.
Now we've switched from real estate to commodities.
Commodities are the final straw, it's what we consume.

We rely on other countries for our basic goods.

It's worse than that.
We've let foreign nations not merely steal our IP, but they are forging our own labellings.

Underwriter Laboratories (UL) found that over 20% of electrical products with their certification at Dollar General were forged.
The US government has not done anything to stop this, and lawsuits are limited in scope to the importers.

Ironic but the organizations with the most lobbying power seem to be the MPAA and RIAA when it comes to complaining about theft of IP.
They are the ones least harmed overseas ironically, and it's the real engineering organizations that seem to be getting ripped bad.

My sense is we're looking at a Bio-tech/Pharma "Boom"...Big Corporate interests seem to want us to "believe" in a "pill" to cure us. If not this pill, than the next one we hear about in commercials.

I've long complained about how Pharmacutical companies are far too under-regulated.
But that seems to be the problem -- the right is into preserving our (actually non-) free enterprise non-sense and the left loves to see it only get worse as people will demand social healthcare, bloating government even more.

In the middle are American Libertarian-Capitalists like myself that just want existing laws on regulation enforced on this industry, and removal of the government non-sense that has been built around it.

To my astonishment, McCain actually surprised me this past week, as he did what I have wanted for a long time.
Give a pre-tax benefit if you buy your own health insurance and take away the pre-tax benefit from employers.
Now the government rewards you for self-reliance and more non-profit organizations offering group coverage will spring up as a result.

I already belong to one, but it is a professional one that only other degreed electrical engineers qualify for.
I have a post-tax, "penalized by the government" group plan that I can never be dropped from.

Is Globalization working for America at this point? We know it's working for the Euros and for South America and, in some cases (not all) for 3rd World countries.

Even as a Libertarian-Capitalist I was against NAFTA because it was a special interest bill that Ross Perot tried to tell people about.
Al Gore went on national TV and lied his ass off and Ross Perot was called "mean" for trying to call Gore on his lies.

I warned people what it would do, causing not only American businesses to close shop and move there, but allowing foreign interests (like the Chinese) to manufacturer there as well, selling to the US.

We don't have a single, unified vision of our nation.

Well, that's not a bad thing actually.
The problem isn't lack of unity, the problem is lack of accountability.

It's not just the corporations, but individuals who don't take responsibility for themselves.
Yes, there were lack of ethics at times, but if people are dumb enough to take a loan they cannot afford, I blame those people themselves!

I got so sick of people crossing me saying, "oh, there's nothing wrong with interest-free loans and subprime loans."
I was so in the minority, often to the point that people though I'm wrong.

I'm so, so, so sick of being right in-the-end -- really sick of it.

We can't be 50 states doing our own thing...we have to be "One nation."

No, I totally disagree.
Our strength comes from our diversity, and the individual right and choice to assemble.
Nationalization does not do anything but breed uniformity and lack of individuality.

Unless, of course, you mean the problem is people being individually selfish.
If that's the case, I utterly agree with you.
We have to choose to work together, but we should choose to work together.

If we believed in a single, national identity, we might begin to turn our country around...

I think you're confusing extensive diversity with radical multi-culturalism.
I'm not against diversity and mixtures of cultures, but radical multi-culturalism that teaches us that the "melting pot" concept is "bad" is wrong.
I agree with you if you meant you were against radical multi-culturalism.

can one president really make a difference anymore?:dunno:

Nope.
It's the individual American that has disappointed as of late.
Especially in the whole real estate non-sense, where everyone wants to blame everyone else.

If you were too stupid to do the math and got a loan you couldn't afford --
yeah, the unethical people involved were "wrong" and they "got away with it" --
but you were still too stupid to see it.
In fact, a lot corporations -- including investment banks -- underwriting this stuff were definitely not involved with that stupidity.
It was the system they relied on that failed them as well -- individual professionals that were not doing their job.

In any case, both corporate and individual responsibility are the biggest things lack in this world -- equally.
I don't have any pity for over half of the people who are in these loans, they should have done the fucking math.

 

[titsrock]

In today's bailout news--Freddie and Fannie Mac are getting their bailout. Up next will be several more medium-sized banks (maybe even Washington Mutual:eek

Prof--your rant about personal responsibility is correct, but is it practical and fair when Corporations both STUPIDLY AND GREEDLY offer useless, reckless loans for which THEY TOO KNOW that loan signees have no chance to fulfill the obligation. Why don't you assail Corporations equally? What is a better tax-payer investment--bailing out a person/****** or a Company? Which is more important to the nation?

In today's President Bush is the Worst President Ever News--the dumbass President has gone ahead and done it. He's shredded the executive order prohibiting oil drilling on U.S. coasts which his ****** created in 1990. Now, he has the gall/dare/alcoholic stupor to blame Congress for $4 oil if they don't follow him and lift their ban?? Is this man morally or mentally competent to be president anymore? Seriously.:dunno:

Bush lifts executive ban on offshore drilling


By BEN FELLER, Associated Press Writer 4 minutes ago

Putting pressure on congressional Democrats to back more exploration for oil, President Bush on Monday lifted an executive ban on offshore drilling that has stood since his ****** was president. But the move, by itself, will do nothing unless Congress acts as well.

There are two prohibitions on offshore drilling, one imposed by Congress and another by executive order signed by the first President Bush in 1990. The current president, trying to ease market tensions and boost supply, called last month for Congress to lift its prohibition before he did so himself.

"The only thing standing between the American people and these vast oil resources is action from the U.S. Congress," Bush said in a statement in the Rose Garden. "Now the ball is squarely in Congress' court."

Bush criticized Congress for failing to lift its own ban on offshore drilling.

"For years, my administration has been calling on Congress to expand domestic oil production," Bush said. "Unfortunately, Democrats on Capitol Hill have rejected virtually every proposal. And now Americans are paying at the pump."

Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, called Bush's move "a very important signal" and said his Democratic rival, Sen. Barack Obama, should drop his opposition to offshore drilling.

Congressional Democrats, joined by some GOP lawmakers from coastal states, have opposed lifting the prohibition that has barred energy companies from waters along both the East and West coasts and in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. A succession of presidents, from Bush's ****** — George H.W. Bush — to Bill Clinton, have sided against drilling in these waters, as has Congress each year for 27 years. Their goal has to been to protect beaches and coastal states' tourism economies.

"Once again, the oilman in the White House is echoing the demands of Big Oil," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. "The Bush plan is a hoax. It will neither reduce gas prices nor increase energy independence. It just gives millions more acres to the same companies that are sitting on nearly 68 million acres of public lands and coastal areas."

"This proposal is something you'd expect from an oil company CEO, not the president of the United States," said Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., chairwoman of the Senate Environment Committee. "The president is taking special-interest government to a new level and threatening our thriving coastal economy."

Environmental groups, too, blasted Bush's move.

"President Bush has once again ignored the wise precedent set by his ****** and taken reckless action that has neither hope of reducing gas prices nor concern for long-term consequences," said Gene Karpinski, president of The League of Conservation Voters.
For the rest of the story...click here

 

[devlinvelez]

.....I wasn't born when Truman was president but I am here now with this waste of human space running our country into the ground......F*** Bush!!!

 

[titsrock]

I assume the ceos of Chevron, BP, Exxon were standing around President Bush in the Rose Garden when he made this historic announcement?

 

[titsrock]

The interesting thing is where would the price of Oil be today if we didn't invade Iraq? Would it be the same or less?

We, the consumers, assumed the invasion of Iraq would lead to more oil coming to the marketplace, but maybe it was actually for the opposite reason...to drive up the price and value of existing oil?

 

[chrisuncleahmad]

Perhaps these reasons are why the Dixie Chicks said what they said a few years ago.

 

[tubuler]

Once again all the myopic right-wingers (not talking about people on this thread) can do is blame the Democrats for inaction while they pretend to take action. The article clearly states that the Presidential ban was put in place by ***** Bush. Congressional ban for 27 years. G.W. Bush and his Republican congress had 6 years to change that. Yet did nothing. And yet they still blame the Dems for not implementing an energy policy now.

Neither side has done anything to reduce our dependancy on foreign oil since the energy crises of the ’70’s. Our cars get the same fuel milage now as they did 30 years ago!!:wtf:

So Bush lift's a ban. So fucking what. Even if oil companies do start drilling in the previously restricted areas they won't produce any oil from these areas for at least 5-10 years. So this will have ZERO effect on the price of oil in the short term. And by the time any of this oil hits the market place inflation will have cancelled out any price alleviation it would've provided.

It's an election year and the two party thugs have got us all scrambling to lay blame so much we cannot see that they BOTH have our asses over a huge (oil) barrell.

 

[Friday on my mind]

Once again all the myopic right-wingers can do is blame the Democrats for inaction while they pretend to take action. The article clearly states that the Presidential ban was put in place by ***** Bush. Congressional ban for 27 years. G.W. Bush and his Republican congress had 6 years to change that. Yet did nothing. And yet they still blame the Dems for not implementing an energy policy.

Neither side has done anything to reduce our dependancy on foreign oil since the energy crises of the ’70’s. Our cars get the same fuel milage now as they did 30 years ago!!:wtf:

So Bush lift's a ban. So fucking what. Even if oil companies do start drilling in the previously restricted areas they won't produce any oil from these areas for at least 5-10 years. So this will have ZERO effect on the price of oil in the short term. And by the time any of this oil hits the market place inflation will have cancelled out any price alleviation it would've provided.

It's an election year and the two party thugs have got us all scrambling to lay blame so much we cannot see that they BOTH have our asses over a huge (oil) barrell.

They gave people exactly what they wanted which is what politicians are in buisness to do or they will be out of buisness soon.People wanted big gas guzzling cars and SUV's,people wanted no drilling near them(Florida is prime example),people were/are afraid of nukes so lets not have that near them eithier.It wasn't about party or left or right it was about shallow non serious citizens getting what they asked for.I'm not sure the people are ready to be serious and make some choices yet.One example is a proposal to lower the speed limit to 55 again which it is estimated could increase mpg 30% and a recent poll said 70% of the country is against that.So if they want to look for someone to blame ,they need not look far IMO.

 

[titsrock]

It's not just that it will take a MINIMUM of 5 and MORE LIKELY 10 years to get any new oil off our coasts...it's also the fact that is there any guarantee that the American consumer will see any of this oil or will it simply "go into the market"...in either case, all Saudi Arabia has to do is ratchet down their own production to exactly match whatever new production Big Oil squeeze out of our coastlines...in effect, we can't "drill or produce" our way to $2/gallon gas...we must bring a new competing fuel source to the market. That's the only way to get to $2/gal gas.

The time has come for Americans to put their money where their mouths are and DEMAND NEW FUEL TECHNOLOGIES. Ethanol is no good because it still uses Oil. We need to look elsewhere.

Fox--my thought, and I'm sure the thought of other people like me, was that the Plundering of Iraq's oil was to secure it from Saddam to keep him from squandering it to build palaces, basically. I also thought that when we got to Bagdad, secured the oil field maps, we learned that Saddam's oil fields were running on empty, making the war, in effect, a useless endeavor, since there was no oil "to secure."

I really didn't think the "Oil grab" was meant to actually GUIDE the Price increase...Shame on my assumption that American companies actually look out for Americans?

 

[titsrock]

^^^^Post of the week and hard to argue, given the state of affairs and the events that led us to them...

 

[Member2019]

Just remember ...

We capitalist don't go around screwing everyone.

We just go around screwing those who are stupid enough to be screwed.
They usually disguise themselves by arguing how other people should spend their money.
Because they themselves usually don't have any of their own money to do such, let alone to be screwed out of ... ???

:dunno: :dunno: :dunno: :dunno: :dunno:

 

[titsrock]

This is your best defense yet Prof...a nonsensical, ****-filled, class warfare vitriolic beauty...nice job!

So you defend the need for companies to swindle consumers? You're hired! I bet the next hot EnronCountrywideBearStearns, Inc is awaiting your resume...

It's a shame that Capitalists don't actually care about improving the lives of their consumers or the communities they do business in...:******:

Given that "expert estimates" are now pegging 150-300 more banks could fail in this country in the next year (something that didn't happen except in the Great Depression) perhaps too many of your Capitalist brethren spent too much time "screwing the dumb people" and not enough time caretaking the deposits of their actual customers...:dunno: [The foundation of Capitalism is the Bank--that place that deals in Capital]

Oh, I forgot...none of this happens under Libertarian-Capitalists..since you are "the chosen ones"...:thefinger

 

[Friday on my mind]

Lets add this,in the real world of american capitalism there is a lot of socialism on behalf of the wealthy capitalists.Here is an op-ed by Paul Krugman of the NY times on the bail out of Fannie mae and Freddie Mac.


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/o...16699200&en=109a8c014b649f84&ei=5070&emc=eta1

Here is just a part of it.

"Here’s the background: Fannie Mae — the Federal National Mortgage Association — was created in the 1930s to facilitate homeownership by buying mortgages from banks, freeing up cash that could be used to make new loans. Fannie and Freddie Mac, which does pretty much the same thing, now finance most of the home loans being made in America.

The case against Fannie and Freddie begins with their peculiar status: although they’re private companies with stockholders and profits, they’re “government-sponsored enterprises” established by federal law, which means that they receive special privileges.

The most important of these privileges is implicit: it’s the belief of investors that if Fannie and Freddie are threatened with failure, the federal government will come to their rescue.

This implicit guarantee means that profits are privatized but losses are socialized. If Fannie and Freddie do well, their stockholders reap the benefits, but if things go badly, Washington picks up the tab. Heads they win, tails we lose.

Such one-way bets can encourage the taking of bad risks, because the downside is someone else’s problem. The classic example of how this can happen is the savings-and-loan crisis of the 1980s: S.& L. owners offered high interest rates to attract lots of federally insured deposits, then essentially gambled with the money. When many of their bets went bad, the feds ended up holding the bag. The eventual cleanup cost taxpayers more than $100 billion. "


The profits are all theirs but when they are in trouble the problem and loses are socialized and we foot the bill.Of course we have to save them as Paul points out or the consequences to the economy and country of them failing would be tremendous.The real problem here was lack of govt regulation on the mortgage industry that has gotten even Freddie and Fannie who had tighter restrictions into trouble now.Same thing that happened couple decades ago with the savings and loans.BTW I will mention John Mccain does not want reminders around of the S & L debacle as he was tied to it.

The lack of accountability and responsible behavior by american "capitalists" has been on the rise for decades.There used to be a social contract where the haves saw benefit to doing the right thing by the rest of us by working towards an economy where the majority's living standards increased and growth in wealth was not nearly as concentrated at the top as it is today.Thats gone now as they don't see the benefit to themselves any longer of all boats rising if that will cost them anything.With the growth of other markets to sell and do buisness in they no longer need an expanding american middle class to make money in.But I know there are some here and other places (Rush Limbaugh says this kind of thing quite a lot) that think those who have the money now deserve it and anyone who doesn't is just dumb and weak and got what they deserve.
Now I ask which economic "class" is waging war on the other " classes"??

 

[Member2019]

I agree this is true and a major problem ...

Lets add this,in the real world of american capitalism there is a lot of socialism on behalf of the wealthy capitalists.Here is an op-ed by Paul Krugman of the NY times on the bail out of Fannie mae and Freddie Mac ... cut ...

Actually, this is not only something I agree is true, but it's the major source of the problem.
We don't have capitalism, we have facism and monopolies, which can be worse than socialism.

BTW, titsrock my post was a rhetorical-type joke.
Allegedly capitalist screw over the "poor little guy" but people often put up the "poor little guy" who doesn't have any money or wealth anyway.
And yes, I am a "chosen one" -- I decided not to be ignorant and no real estate agent could get me to be stupid in the last few years.

People failed themselves, and now everything is failing as a result.
With the tax payer picking up the check, which will mean those responsible who are left.