Is It possible that Bush is the greatest president the United States has ever seen

In the words of the magic 8 ball: No.

Is this some kind of joke?

Are you kidding?

Anything is possible though I must say the odds of that happening are about the same as a worm hole from another galaxy suddenly opened up in your ass and out came flying hippo's being ridden by super intellegent monkeys with plasma riffles.

the dumbass is back

Any hippo's yet?


Just checking.

Nig-ga on crack alert

yeah, he sure is the greatest dumb fuck.

Ok let me clarify

I am not saying that he is?

But entertain my thought pattern and what bought me to ponder this

What if? there is a whole lot more to the Iraq fiasco than the general public has a clue about..

What if his outrageous foreign policy was really a necessary in positioning the country as the sole leader of a globalized planet?leapfrogging china and others with long term ambitions of world dominance

What if every single move made by the administration was a step toward control in the inevitable globalization of not only the worlds economy?s ? but the people and cultures of the planet as well

What if the Iraq invasion was a modern iroshima .. and this was really done to send a message to the world.. that just because we were attacked.. do not think we are vulnerable

Some things you have to admit:

He did staff his administration with some of the sneakiest most analytical minds our government has ever seen..

We have not been attacked since sept 11

The terrorist of the world do in fact fear us ?

Quite a few terroristic states changed their tune after bush went cowboy on the world..

The poster child for capitalism maybe??

I don?t know .. but was just thinking? what if? what if 50 years from now everything we don?t know ? we know
Like I said , I am not saying its true? just a thought? really a what if

I can read, please explain.

damn nigga.that must be some good crack

You will regret making this thread in the morning

hehe I regret it already lmao

in a word: no.

in 3: not remotely possible.

I think you're probably correct.

Truman was the biggest failure in 100 years and he didn't run for re-election and was the most corrupted President ever and history shows him as one of the greatest ever.

FDR was a disaster until WWII and was actually more conservative then Reagan until his third term. He was against welfare and taxes until his third term then he gave us high taxes, welfare and social security.

He promised social security would only be for the very poor while putting in place a system that would be for everyone.

Under FDR the Fed controlled everything and he fired the supreme court
and appointed his own people who blocked any challenge to his policies.
If Bush tried this today there would be riots.

FDR also lied and said the US would never go to war in Europe while he built a massive army and navy to go to war in Europe when he said he wouldn't.

FDR violated the law and constitution hundreds of times and unless you're an ignorant dumb sheep you'd already know about this.

But, history shows FDR as one of the top 3 in every poll.

As long as he's getting attention, it dosen't really matter.

he is the greatest president at ripping up habeas corpus

if I were looking for attention.. I would post something you could follow like.. look at her tits.. or would you hit it

howabout your thoughts on the thread if you are capable

hell no.. but honestly i dont give a shit, course im not going to put a feet in the USA

Just trying to get another reaction... best: read worst?

You need to read something besides Ann Coulter

Right now he is looked up as one of the worst. That said, he rolled the dice and bet his legacy on Iraq. If the next president continues what he started there with minimal changes and eventually 5-8 years from now there is a stable country with a good democracy and we get great oil prices from them and the democracy in Iraq has helped spread the seeds of democracy throughout the middle east he will be looked upon as great and as the guy who started it all. Will this happen? I can't imagine any scenario where it does. That part of the world has known nothing but blood since before recorded history, there is no reason think it ever will know anything else.

Bush Jr. is a funny guy.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...01869971500776
http://www.amazon.com/Bush-Family-Fo.../dp/B0002T7YWQ

At this point he would have to get Osama in the next year just to become an average president (in the US; not by the world's standard). Really, even if everything he did suddenly led to an accomplishment it is difficult to see how he could become anything other than about average. he can't explain or convince people of anything. Reagan could fail at something and convince you it was succeeding. Bush could succeed at something and convince you he was failing.


Invaded Iraq. No WMD.
Invaded Afghanistan. No Osama.

I think most people would say "No Child Left Behind" is still leaving children behind.

Accomplishments: Medicare D, established Department of Homeland Security

haha... yeah right

I know you are being sarcastic.... but think about it

if not for Condi & Colin there would be no Barack And Hillary in 2008

Which brings up another point about Bush and his administration's inability to explain things. They marketed the war wrong. By focusing on WMD they ended up wrong. If they had focused on telling everyone that they were going to remove Saddam, the "Butcher of Baghdad" for ignoring so many UN resolutions things would look different.

Rebuilding America's Defences???

PDF

He has not changed our world in a better way in any area of his command.

He is a horrible public speaker.
He created a failed foreign policy.
Him and his cronies have ruined America in the worlds eye. Which is important.
Our armed forces are by far in worse shape then when he took over.
Our economy is in shambles.
He repeatedly places incompatant crooks in high seated goverment positions.
In 8 years he managed to make legal to spy on our own people while stripping every American of his liberties and privacy..
He failed and refused to help the victims of huge tragedy (Katrina)in our own country while filtering our countries wealth across the borders...

blah blah blah..I could go on for days.

Absolutely that was terrible marketing / PR. I don't know if we needed to go into
Iraq at that time or not, but the most convincing argument, I think, is that Iraq
agreed to certain terms in the cease fire, then thumbed their nose at the UN,
ignoring multiple resolutions and totally failing to follow through on their
agreements regarding weapons programs, etc. UN resolutions said there would
be serious consequences up to and including military action. In order to have
any state take the UN seriously, to take their own agreements seriously, or to
take the US seriously WE needed to take those resolutions seriously and act.
Whether invasion was the best action is debatable, but serious action was
required based not on the actual presence or absence of WMDs but based on
Saddam's utter failure to live up to his own agreements and ignoring UN
resolutions. That is to say once the UN made the threat, that threat had to
be backed up or the UN loses all credibility and influence.

When you talk about Bush, you talk about Iraq. You can't talk about much
else because that's about the only really significant thing he's done in two
terms as president. Well, Iraq and Afghanistan. We'll hear more about
Afghanistan in the history books than we do now because our focus is on
Iraq, where the trouble is while Afghanistan created a democratic constitution
four years ago and things are going as well as could be expected.
Anyway, the point is, Iraq and Afghanistan are pretty much all there is to the
Bush presidency. Regardless of the spin we hear from the Clinton News
Network, CNN, our action in the region is neither the best nor worst thing a US president has done, not by a long shot. Any time you do anything in the
middle east there will be short term problems, just because you upset the
apple cart. On the other hand, establishing two democracies in the region,
especially democracies where WOMEN are elected, can only be good for
the world, including the US. Establishing close ties with nations that border
Iran on both sides is good for the US and other nuclear powers as they deal
with Iran's nuclear program. So overall both good and bad will come from
the US involement there. Not the greatest thing we've done, not the worst.

Bush hasn't created any huge social programs that are going to have major
affects for decades to come, and he hasn't gotten rid of any. He's had his up
moments and down moments, inspiring the country for a little while after 9-11
but not inspiring us much after that. He hasn't increased or decreased spending
or taxes by all that much. He didn't free the slaves or win WWII, defeat the
Soviets or anything. Basically he's a Filmore - kind of a boring president.
He has our interest right NOW because he's the president right NOW, just
like the pop star of the week, but neither are particularly special as pop stars
and presidents go.

What about the current crop of canidates? Barak Hussein Obama, who
amazingly got the nomination despite the obvious Iraq Hussein Osama
associations, would be remembered as the first black president. Other than
that, he appears to be just another democrat cut from the same old mold
as far as I can see. I don't see him doing anything special. He'll make
great speeches and inspire people, which would be great in a crisis.
At times other than a major crisis, he'll do the typical tax and spend thing.

McCain is an interesting case. Though he has run as a Republican, he's also
spoken at the Democratic National Convention and was approached as a
possible vice presidential canidate on the Democrat ticket because he often
sides with the Dems. Really, he's neither Democrat or Republican. Personally,
I think that a lot of our political problems can be traced back to partisanship,
politicians seeking to gain power for their party as much or more than they
focus on what's good for the country as a whole. All of the money needed
to run a campaign every few years also feeds into the problems a lot.
Since McCain isn't loyal to either party and idealogically straddles the fence,
working with both parties, he could make huge strides to
end the partisanship and all of the problems is causes or makes worse.
Campaign finance reform is a big issue for him, so he might take
some significant steps towards getting some of the money out of politics.
It would be very interesting to see what would happen with McCain, the first
president who's not forcely loyal to his party. I don't know how that would
turn out. He could end up getting a LOT done because he'd work so well with
both parties to come up with compromises and to switch the focus to what is
good for America. He might also just annoy both parties and be a boring
president who doesn't get much done. His likability is high, though, so I think
he'd be able to get the population as a whole to pressure the politicians to
work together.

Clinton is interesting because of her personality and connections. She has
every right to brag about the Clinton political machine the way she sometimes
has. Clinton, Inc. has been a force to be rekoned with since it was headed by
a former governor of Arkansas. Now that it's headed by a former president and
current senator, there is a lot of power there. The Clinton's are good at power - that's what they do. They consolidate and wield power expertly, and they
love it. Not love it, they covet it. If Hilary is elected they will wield
more power than any person in the country has in a long time, perhaps
in our entire history. That kind of power, and love of power, would make for
an interesting presidency. She'll either do something great or something
horrible, but she'll do SOMETHING. I read a book written by someone
who worked closely with four different presidents and he says that's the biggest
problem for a president - they have so much power they start to think they can
do anything. Nixon was a prime example. He really believed his famous quote
"when the president does it that means that it is not illegal". That quote,
according to this author who knew Nixon and four other president's well,
is one of our best insights into Nixon's psyche and to a lesser extent the
psyche of other presidents. I fear that Clinton would be very much like
Nixon in this respect. She would do whatever the hell she felt like doing.
She could end up being an illustration of what Nixon was talking about
when he referred to "a president can run amok in this country and get away
with it".
So Clinton could well end up being either the best or worst president in over
a century. Whether she's the best or the worst is a roll of the dice.

Then the government has a responsibility to inform the public.

Ah, I see... Kind of like what Hitler was trying to do?

Iraq had nothing to do with Sept 11... There was a reason for bombing Hiroshima.

Name one?

I would say Bush has been the worst President you guys have ever had, in now way could he be the best imo.

I think he will be more on a level with Hoover. Lead us into a huge recession with a disasterous war that had no point. Even Reagan who we can credit with the death of communism is not near any top of the lists that I have seen so Bush is not going to spin this crap into much.

Not the best... but pretty close to the top prolly in the top 15.

Note: Look at past news clips about Reagan yet Americans rate him in top top 60% nearly every poll. Food for thought.

Reagan was a moron too :S

And I think I just puked a little something up in my mouth after reading this thread.



....
Americans rate him in top top 60% nearly every poll
... they're morons too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histori...tes_Presidents

Nice link.

lol at this thread title