Is Bush the worst president ever?

[member2686]

I disagree, Prof. V. That would be the best thing for the USA, not for W., however it would be a crime of murder for someone to do that and I cannot and do not condone that. That's why we have elections every 4 years and why a President can only serve two terms, thank goodness. lol

As for G.W. Bush... :ban: :hatsoff:

:2 cents:

...The best thing for W. would be if he was assassinated like JFK. Although it would have been better back in 2003...

 

[Member2019]

I disagree, Prof. V. That would be the best thing for the USA, not for W.,

I really don't think you guys think things through at all.
First off, do you think Chenny would change anything?
Secondly, the American public would change their entire perception overnight -- just like it did for JFK.
It would turn him into a martyr for freedom, American influence, etc...
Although the effect would be less than back than if it happened in 2003, only 2 years into his administration like JFK.

however it would be a crime of murder for someone to do that and I cannot and do not condone that.

Please do NOT twist my words!!!
I wasn't asking if you think he should be murdered -- but I wouldn't expect less from someone who seems to take my words and apply shallow logic.
No offense, read what I am saying! Not whatever fits what you want me to say!
I was comparing W. to JFK -- the administration and the policies and why JFK isn't hated today.

That's why we have elections every 4 years and why a President can only serve two terms, thank goodness. lol

Yeah, look at the socialism empire built by FDR.
Over 12 years was enough of that -- something, ironically, a fellow Democrat tried to reverse but got murdered before he could.
JFK.

I sure wish you guys knew American history before commenting on W.
Especially in the context of "worst President ever"!

Hard decision ... Bush / Nixon / ? .. He is bad, but could he be the worst

The same reason Gore shouldn't run in 2008 is the same reason Nixon shouldn't have run in 1968.
I think Gore is smart enough to understand that, but we'll see come 2008.

The greatest irony is that some of the most paranoid people who think the election of 2000 was rigged think Nixon is one of the worst Presidents.
HINT: Both became paranoid becauase of an election.

 

[member2686]

I know my history pretty well, Prof. (and what I don't know I research), but I'm not a mindreader. Perhaps a different writing style would suit you better so you wouldn't have to clarify some of the things that you post and then repost, and edit and re-edit (or posts asked to be deleted as you did above). I don't know. :dunno: It's an idea to ponder. You seem to have to repost or rewrite much of what you say because you (apparently) think that we all think as you do. :eek:

Regardless, it really doesn't matter what we say here - we're stuck with Bush/Cheney until the next election, and "hindsight is 20/20," as people say (excluding 2004's election, apparently...lmao).

Best or worst President - it doesn't matter to me. I'm not pleased with my President, and since he's my employee, I'll be glad to see him replaced at the next opportunity, and that's in 2008 (barring any impeachment proceedings, his resignation, or his death between then and now).

Good debate/discussion, as always!!! :2 cents: :thumbsup:

 

[pr0nk1ng]

Is Bush the worst president ever? Does pinnochio have a wooden dick ?

The man is a complete moron. I love how now he's soo concerned about gas prices.......bullshit !!!! He's lining his pockets as we speak. And that bullshit war in Iraq, all about oil ! I support the troops 100%. They didnt choose to be there.

 

[pussy+dickdenice]

This board is heavily left, so you're going to get a lot of fanfare.
I've noticed that a lot of people love to feed that -- instead of actually stopping and looking at the history in all its context.

Sorry Prof, I didn't want to get into a sqabble with you at the first hand. But when you generalise and club majority of the members together with an erroneous assumption, just because they 'don't' subscribe to your observation; I can-not, but answer it.

If this board members were really left oriented, I'd have seen at least one thread regarding the just-past agitation in Nepal for the removal of the monarchy. But it was not there.

If being humanitarian and sensible is, becoming left in your view, then I think, majority of the active board members will feel proud, that you have called them left oriented, me included.

 

[Member2019]

I know my history pretty well, Prof. (and what I don't know I research)

Then I'd like to see some more comparisons to more Presidents and not just Nixon.
If you still feel W. is worst after that, then I will respect your view.

but I'm not a mindreader.

Sorry, I didn't mean to get jumpy.
But suggesting the President should be assinated is one of the few things that will get you a visit from the Secret Service.
All I was saying was if JFK had not been assinated, I'm sure many people might feel about him like they do W.

Perhaps a different writing style would suit you better so you wouldn't have to clarify some of the things that you post and then repost, and edit and re-edit (or posts asked to be deleted as you did above). I don't know. :dunno: It's an idea to ponder.

I don't doubt many don't like my writing style.
As far as editing, I'm a person who likes to "save" a lot, but these web forums don't work well for that.
Hitting "preview" isn't the same thing, although I do try to use that as well.
So sometimes I add things within 10 minutes of my initial post -- which could never be to change what I said in such short time -- but only add to it.

You seem to have to repost or rewrite much of what you say because you (apparently) think that we all think as you do. :eek:

Huh? I typically clarify and go into further detail -- largely because some people take what I say wrong.
Again, web forums are the worst for draft/save/review -- especially for someone who is a published author and goes to the depth I do.

Regardless, it really doesn't matter what we say here - we're stuck with Bush/Cheney until the next election, and "hindsight is 20/20," as people say (excluding 2004's election, apparently...lmao).

For me, it's never been about "hindsight."
I didn't vote for W., I didn't vote for Clinton.
Both were extremely predictable, although both had their surprises.

In fact, I wish people would read up on JFK -- W. is the President who reminds me of him the most.

Best or worst President - it doesn't matter to me. I'm not pleased with my President, and since he's my employee, I'll be glad to see him replaced at the next opportunity, and that's in 2008 (barring any impeachment proceedings, his resignation, or his death between then and now).

2/3rds of America would agree with you.
But that doesn't necessarily mean he is the "worst President."

Heck, even *I* do not like W. -- although for different reasons than most.
I think he's escalated welfare and public services better than any Democrat since JFK/LBJ.
The best fiscal conservative has been, not surprisingly, Clinton -- who slashed many social programs -- including welfare and other safety nets.

I wish people would actually qualify this thread with intelligent dialog.
I will never fault people who have sound arguments, even if I don't agree with them.
But this thread has been largely just non-sense rhetoric.

Let's at least get into LBJ and Vietnam comparisons.
Let's also look at JFK and his invasions, crisis and conservatism.
Let's compare to Monroe and Teddy.
Let's talk about federal consolidation versus Lincoln.

Good debate/discussion, as always!!!

No, that's my problem.
This is the most shallow debate I've ever seen!
Com'mon people, let's get deeper!

If being humanitarian and sensible is, becoming left in your view, then I think, majority of the active board members will feel proud, that you have called them left oriented, me included.

And that's exactly why you are left!
Conservatives are humanitarian and sensible, but people on the left don't see them as such without federal beuracracy.
You just made my point for me better than I could have myself!

Most lefties eventually "get it" as they age, with many becoming conservatives.
Because as they enter their prime income earning years, many eventually start caring how their dollar helps people.
And that's when several say, "what do you mean my dollar went to pay for this agency, or this non-essential service?!?!?!"

Conservatives care that a dollar given actually goes to help someone.
They don't trust the government to do it.
And that's why they give freely, of their own money and time, instead of just assuming the government will help.

As someone pointed out in another thread, you've never seen the waste and mis-management until you've seen it first hand.

 

[Wankerboy]

Bring back Bill! Pimps up, hoes down!

 

[Slaa Master]

Being an international user. For the rest of the world, HE IS! lol

 

[Member2019]

Being an international user. For the rest of the world, HE IS! lol

So were Monroe and Teddy.

Bring back Bill! Pimps up, hoes down!

Would Clinton be so different? He had his 9/11 back in 1993, it just didn't work. He was wholly ignorant on the Al Quieda connections on many attacks in the US until 1998.

The executive orders W. used were signed by Clinton in 1998, several of which are the foundation of the Patriot Act -- largely because W. recognized the important to involve the Legislative branch (something I don't think W. gets enough credit for).

The invasion intelligence and plans used by W. come from Clinton's 1998 planned justification for and invasion of Iraq. So after 9/11 hit, would you say Clinton would have not invaded Afganistan, and possibly gone after Iraq as well -- feeling sorry for not going through with them in 1998?

If you read many interviews with Clinton, he has much remorse for the actions he did not take. It's an interesting read, and I respect him for it. They are very hard to find because they don't paint him like the US media does. Remember, 98% of the international perception of the US President comes from the US TV media -- or those who re-report it.

I also guarantee you won't like the next US President, Democrat or Republican. The US is that "Hyperpower" that isn't going to change, even though the Soviet Union is gone. I mean, did any of you listen to Kerry when he ran? "Involve more foreign nations and have them pay more." Do you really think you would have liked him more? Ha!

In fact, one of the stupidiest phrases that always gets Americans thinking was that whole '90s "peace dividend" non-sense.

 

[Member2019]

CORRECTION: Only the first 3 planes!

People with box cutter"s hijacked airplanes :thefinger

CORRECTION: Only the first 3 planes!
Once the passengers on the 4th plane learned they were being rammed into buildings and killing people, their choice was obvious.

Americans are told not to be heros because that only gets people killed.
But the second someone makes it a numbers game, Americans know exactly what to do.

Think about what you're saying before you go suggesting such non-sense.

 

[4G63]

There is no way a plane was hijacked with box cutters, not with Americans on board. And I don't care what evidence anyone "has". Nobody knows what happened that day. But we can be damn sure the story we heard was total BS. And if Clinton is in part responsible, then so is Bush. If no one is willing to take the blame then it falls evenly on those who were supposed to protect our interests.

 

[4G63]

#1.Id like to point out the video of him sitting there for (any more than 2 seconds is out of the question) however long it was reading to school children.

If I were President I would have stayed with the children. But I would have told them what was happening, that an attack on America had begun. Those children are our future, our hope. As President I would have known that my subordinates were working double duty, my Army was being deployed, I would have known my people need consolation. I would have started in that classroom, informing and calming those kids, with hugs and truth, something every human could understand.

A President is not a decision maker, not to me. The President is our face, our pride, our spirit, the shining voice that speaks for a country, a mother. Bush is a horrible President, he does not inspire, does not have soul. He speaks of GOD, in capitals, but does not follow in His image.

September Eleventh was a horrific day. Bush reacted, slowly, with a strike on Afghanistan, which I was a part of. A foolhardy attempt, that resulted in more deaths, mostly innocent.

Bush is a bad President because he inspired fear, not hope, Death, not life. Other may have done more, and may be considered "worse", but Bush is contemporary and therefore subject to criticism now. Prof Voluptuary put it best with, "Time will tell". Bush will go down in the anneals of history as a bad President, as will Clinton and all that came before. Being President is a very hard job, and Bush has had to bear more than other Presidents, but could that have to do with the company he keeps?

I don't know, but I do talk allot, I did fight for my freedom of speech.

 

[member2686]

Bush seems to be the "President who's been best cast via corporate mold." I wish I could put it better, but I'm too brain-lazy at the moment to assign a good label. lol Wait... No. I have it - "President CEO."

Many of us here work in corporate America, or have, and many of us here work in companies all over the world with similar corporate structures. We see powerful men and women at the top (more men than women, but that's another discussion lol) making speeches, appearances, and hobnobbing at events, etc. Figureheads. They get paid a lot of money (unlike the President, but his cash will come later once he goes on the speaking circuit after his Presidency) to appear as the face of the company (country), consult with the board of directors (Congress/Presidential Cabinet), and to deal with the stockholders (voters), and there are hundreds or thousands of people working "below" them who actually DO the job, make it happen, and get things done.

In my opinion, Bush is the most full embodiment of this CEO President that we've EVER had. Certainly, all Presidents have had staffs and advisors and rely upon all of the government agencies that we have established for the functioning of the USA, but to me, Bush is the epitome of the CEO President.

I mean honestly, does ANYONE, even die-hard Bush supporters, really believe that G.W. Bush is actually calling the shots? The man couldn't beat a 7 year-old at a game of checkers, much less make globally-significant decisions. People support his administration, but I don't think even the best-informed, staunchest Republican actually believes that Bush is even 1% capable of being a real President. He's the CEO, and he goes around making appearances and representing his political party. He's a name reminiscent of his father, George H.W. Bush, who was both President and also Vice President to Republicans' "Jesus of All Presidents," Ronald Reagan.

That's what it all boils down to, in my opinion. He's a figurehead, a name, and now look where we are because people voted for a name... :2 cents:

God - I cannot wait for the next election. It's going to be so exciting to see what happens!!! :nanner: :thumbsup:

 

[4G63]

Figureheads.

God - I cannot wait for the next election. It's going to be so exciting to see what happens!!! :nanner: :thumbsup:

Figurehead is a perfect word. An embodiment.

You an I have different notions of "exciting", but I do have a child.

 

[member2686]

Well, eventually I hope to have a child as well, 4G, so maybe "exciting" should have been written "exciting/scary." lol

Figurehead is a perfect word. An embodiment.

You an I have different notions of "exciting", but I do have a child.

 

[Member2019]

Does anyone remember what happened in 1993?

As for Clinton, he's responsible for many wonderful and one or two questionable things: but 911 would never have happened if Gore won the election;

That is about the most ignorant thing I've ever heard.
Do you even remember what happened in 1993, right after Clinton got in?
No, of course you don't -- otherwise you wouldn't have said it.

Thats why you guys would fail any history course I taught!
And why this thread is a joke!
You can't even remember what happened to Clinton either.

 

[Freakybastard]

I know my history pretty well, Prof. (and what I don't know I research), but I'm not a mindreader. Perhaps a different writing style would suit you better so you wouldn't have to clarify some of the things that you post and then repost, and edit and re-edit (or posts asked to be deleted as you did above). I don't know. :dunno: It's an idea to ponder. You seem to have to repost or rewrite much of what you say because you (apparently) think that we all think as you do. :eek:

Regardless, it really doesn't matter what we say here - we're stuck with Bush/Cheney until the next election, and "hindsight is 20/20," as people say (excluding 2004's election, apparently...lmao).

Best or worst President - it doesn't matter to me. I'm not pleased with my President, and since he's my employee, I'll be glad to see him replaced at the next opportunity, and that's in 2008 (barring any impeachment proceedings, his resignation, or his death between then and now).

Good debate/discussion, as always!!! :2 cents: :thumbsup:

You do have a tendency to twist people's words aroung either for the sake of argument, or for the sake of making yourself look good, plain and simple.

You say negative, hurtful, and sometimes prejudical remarks, yet you give me a negative for my comments on Liz Taylor, when clearly you overkilled in the Proof thread with your repetitivness.

I think thats why Prof probably edited his posts or asked for it to be deleted, cause he has probably said it before, or doesn't want to be misinterpretted, which you clearly did anyway by twisting his words.

I'm all for debating and it's much more interesting when no one is on the same page.

I respect Prof's remarks in this thread because he states that I probably now more about politics than I think, otherwise I would have never created this thread.

 

[Big P13]

Re: Does anyone remember what happened in 1993?

That is about the most ignorant thing I've ever heard.
Do you even remember what happened in 1993, right after Clinton got in?
No, of course you don't -- otherwise you wouldn't have said it.

Thats why you guys would fail any history course I taught!
And why this thread is a joke!
You can't even remember what happened to Clinton either.

Yeah, too bad Clinton never had the chance to ignore that incredibly obviously titled brief that Bush did isn't it?

 

[AFA]

Watch Fahreinheit 9/11

 

[Freakybastard]

Watch Fahreinheit 9/11

even I'm not that dumb. Moore usually makes good docs, but I heard mixed remarks about this as being biased and very misinformative.