Bush: worst president ever

[Ghostrider]

As much as folks on the left in the US don't like to think about it, the US isn't Europe.

And they should thank Iluvatar for that.

 

[Pilot7893]

I don't think is his fault, he was elected, right?

He cheated in both elections

 

[steph]

But what is so bad about gender or skin color? A white one can be dumb, as well as a black one or a woman. What's important is that if McCain gets reelected, he'll probably be Bush's puppy. And that doesn't look good.
As long as their policies are good, or at least better than the current one, it's all OK. But then again, not all obey the electoral promises (remember Bush's promise of cutting back emissions?).
But I think either of the two democrats would be better than McCain. As far as I know however, a part of Obama's supporters would vote with McCain if Obama loses. The same goes with Clinton's fans. This might be the result of the fact that they kept shoveling crap at each other all the way through the campaign, and some voters are rather emotion driven than rational.

 

[Usonian]

Worst president ever? Did people forget about Nixon?

I must take exception!

Nixon inherited his screwed up war. He took several years and thousands of lives convincing himself it couldn't be won, but he finally gave up and made the best peace he could - not a great peace, not "peace with honor" but at least he faced facts and called it quits with a thin veneer of dignity. Nixon was effective and realistic dealing the Soviets and, as is often said, "Only Nixon could have gone to China." Nixon was also one of the best friends the environmentalists ever had in the White House. Sure, Nixon was throwing the liberals what he considered an inconsequential bone, but at least he was willing to deal, and he made a difference. (I saw a bald eagle yesterday, and thanked Nixon.) In comparison to more recent Republican Presidents, Nixon was fiscally responsible! All that said, Nixon was a crook. He lied and cheated and subverted the Federal law enforcement and prosecutorial systems. His chief motive was personal paranoia and lust for electoral success.

Now let's compare with George Bush. He chose his pointless war, diverting attention from a real enemy that killed 3,000 citizens and caused billions in damage. Entering his war of choice, Bush ignored the advice of his military chiefs, and systematically eliminated every general who disagreed with him. He lied his way into the war - "fixing the intelligence around the policy," baking up bogus yellow cake uranium, and otherwise cherry-picking outlandish data to support his notions of "pre-emptive warfare" - all to deal with fantasy WMD. Nixon's lies and subversions were petty and selfish in comparison - and Nixon's lies killed no one. Aside from the war, Bush's fiscal, domestic, and foriegn policies range from ineffective to disasterous. And through it all, Bush II did almost nothing to inspire and lead, choosing instead to appeal to fear, selfishness and greed, consistantly calling on us to listen to the lesser angels of our nature.

Bush is very likely the worst war President ever - though Madison or Johnson are hot competitors for that title. Still, Madison will always have the Constitution to his credit - hard to top that, even if it (necessarily) pre-dates his Presidency. Johnson was effective with his domestic policies, whether our not one agrees with them.

Taken all together, Bush II wins! Worst President ... EVER.

 

[Thunder Chicken]

He cheated in both elections

A baseball player (can't remember who) said, "If you ain't cheating, you ain't trying". We'd all love to think that we're voting saints into the Oval Office, but the fact of the matter is that politicians need to twist the truth and spin all stories to maintain their image in our media (which twists and spins to it's own music). An honest politician loses elections, period. Sad but true.

The 2000 election was Al Gore's to lose, and Al snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. I am not a fan of Bush, but Al Gore was handed a golden opportunity and he blew it, plain and simple. In 2004 Bush was riding high on the backs of the folks who though Iraq was a good idea (a majority back in 2004).

My hopes are with Obama this election, but I feel he makes too much sense, and that Clinton can still sleaze her way to the nomination. If she gets the nom I am voting for McCain. I don't share his beliefs but I think in the whole he is a more honorable person than Clinton and won't do too much damage, particularly if we can get more Dems in the houses. Not much will get done, but at least whatever does get done will be compromise.

 

[Dogsbd]

Reading this thread I just have to wonder what some folks are smoking.
:crazy:

I maintain that the instant George W. Bush closed that canopy and took off on the first of his many solo hours in an F-102, it is quite impossible that he was either an idiot or a coward.

http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000136.html

 

[Usonian]

Thunder Chicken,
I was with you right up to the end - McCain more honorable???

I used to respect John McCain. He was one of the only Republicans not drinking the tax-cutting, borrow-and-send kool-aid, he was one of the only Republicans to dismiss the lunatic Christian Right, he was one of the only Republicans to recognize torture when he saw it and call it un-American. But he backed down on ALL of those positions to get nominated! Now he is so in bed with the radical fringe of his party that he won't be able to back away from them.

I won't vote for Hillary with any enthusiasm, but I do it over having more of the McSame.

Obama is my man - a class act. If they all lie, let's at least have a smooth liar.

 

[Zatnikitelman]

Getting back to Hillary vs. Obama, it's not so much that she's a woman and he's black, it's the simple FACT that they are what they are. I know that sounds confusing, but people (yes, I personally know some of them) are voting Clinton STRICTLY because she's a woman, and Obama STRICTLY because he's black. I frankly have no problem what gender or color president we have as long as they do a good job. If people in this election would vote for who they think will lead our country the best, then we might just come out all right.
Now, getting back to bush. Iraq is totally unjustified. I still maintain that we "invaded a SOVEREIGN nation" that was minding its own business! We got nukes, why can't they have nukes? We can build chemo/bio weapons, why can't they build them? I can think of no excuse for the 4,000 good U.S. citizens that were murdered by bush. If we were going to take that part of the world, then we should have deployed Thermonuclear warheads and wipe out a chunk of the resistence. A good show of force might just have struck enough fear into these twats we're fighting so they would think twice about ticking us off too much.

 

[Thunder Chicken]

Thunder Chicken,
I was with you right up to the end - McCain more honorable???

It's all relative. By my math it is Bush = Clinton < McCain << Obama.

Obama is my man - a class act. If they all lie, let's at least have a smooth liar.

Not all of them lie (all of the time), but some are good enough at word-smithing the truth to sound like something the people would be happy with. Anyone with any understanding of people know that stating the blunt, obvious truth may have unwanted consequences. Those who have perfected the art of the spin win elections. People don't like bad news, so woe to anyone who can't spin bad news. People do hate liars, so there are only so many bald-faced lies you can dish out before it comes back to bite you (e.g. the capital lost by Clinton's "mis-speaks").

If you have seen the movie 'Thank You for Smoking', the main character is a schematic of a 'politician' who can spin the truth. Whether he is immoral, moral, or in the fuzzy zone between depends on which direction your particular moral compass points.

 

[Saturn V]

I didn't like Clinton the first time she was president...

 

[Kyle]

Wasnt CNN the ONLY Station covering the Challenger Disaster Live, when Fox said "Screw it, space shuttles boring."

 

[Andy44]

Wasnt CNN the ONLY Station covering the Challenger Disaster Live, when Fox said "Screw it, space shuttles boring."

I don't think the Fox network even existed yet in 1986.

 

[Missioncmdr]

I don't think the Fox network even existed yet in 1986.

According to Wikipedia, FOX was created in October, 1986. The Challenger disaster occured in January, 1986.

 

[adamb193]

Basically you have to choose who will do the least damage till the whole country falls apart.

 

[Urwumpe]

Reading this thread I just have to wonder what some folks are smoking.
:crazy:
http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000136.html

You don't have to be stupid, to do bad work?

Also, Bush II very likely did never have to hold a speech inside the F-102 cockpit. And somebody else told him what to do.

 

[simonpro]

Its different thing because this two countries arent at the same "stage" of development.

Africa stills needs to make a step towards democracy.

Well my point was that the USA could have a lot worse people than Bush in charge (and, IMO, it has in the past).

We got nukes, why can't they have nukes? We can build chemo/bio weapons, why can't they build them?

I never really understood that either. All the noble bull**** about protecting the world from terrorists and rogue dictators is just that: Bull****
The only reason the US, UK and others went in there is to protect themselves. That, at the end of the day, is the only reason a country does anything. The most important thing to any country is it's continued survival and growth.
Of course, it's not "politically correct" to say something like that, so the governments had to package it up in some nice lies to feed everyone.

If we were going to take that part of the world, then we should have deployed Thermonuclear warheads and wipe out a chunk of the resistence. A good show of force might just have struck enough fear into these twats we're fighting so they would think twice about ticking us off too much.

Which would've caused a global recession and possible world war. People say Bush is stupid (which I disagree with), but no-one is that stupid.

 

[silent_protagonist]

Which would've caused a global recession and possible world war. People say Bush is stupid (which I disagree with), but no-one is that stupid.

Please don't ginx us, he still has eight months to prove you wrong.

I'd have to agree that Bush II is one of the worst presidents in recent history. He may have been dealt a bad hand, but he's done very little to improve the situation and a lot to make it worse, such as bleeding our armed forces dry in order to turn Iraq into one giant Al-Qaeda recruiting poster. Thank God for the Twenty-second Amendment.

 

[simonpro]

Well there's the beginnings of a recession already

 

[Urwumpe]

Well there's the beginnings of a recession already

Yes, but if you can prove that GWB is responsible for THIS kind of recession, you'll get the Nobel Prize of Peace.

This crisis was mostly created by people having the same low standards for people, they give credit or for situations where they apply for a loan, as for their presidents.

 

[Thunder Chicken]

Well there's the beginnings of a recession already

Urwumpe is correct. Whether the economy booms or busts has little to do with the president - it has everything to do with lots of business people trying to make a quick buck while not breaking the law (the legal ones, not necessarily the moral ones). They are doing this without any heed to what their plans may do to the economy - that isn't their lookout.

Banks and lenders saw a huge market for loans to people with sub-standard credit rating. They assumed that they could tailor credit and loan products to these people in such a manner that they could minimize risk to themselves. The truth - people snapped up these loans like crazy, bought a ton of houses, cars, vacations without reading the fine print and overextended themselves. Blatant stupidity, of course, but this was all done quite within the law.

The economy is now in rough waters due to all that bad debt. New laws will be enacted to prevent this foolishness in the future. Meanwhile, somewhere, business people are quietly planning the next best way to make a quick buck while staying within the laws. And, as before, the stability of the economy is not part of the their planning. Stay tuned, in another 10 or 15 years we'll have another big economic crisis stemming from the greed of a bunch of business people.

The Fed is very much like anti-virus software. It must constantly update to protect against the development of things that could raise havoc in the system under the current operating system. Once in a while one slips through and causes mayhem. In this role it really does not matter whether there is a Republican or Democrat in the White House.