-Bush- Worst president in the history of America?

50 worst presidents in the history of America

hahahahahahahaha=>
For my list I believe the best need GREAT periods of turmoil in order to do a job that is worthy of high classification. In addition, I place a high value on personal leadership skills as broadcast from study of private documents and biographies. So, I don?t think it is enough that a presidents cabinet is good etc? also it is hard to make it in times of peace (rules out almost all non-conflict presidents of past, and Reagan.)

The Best...(simple notes why b/c for most it is obvious.)
1.) Lincoln (saved the union, prevented outside influence at a time when most thought democracy was a fad)

2.) Washington (pioneer)

3.) Jefferson (great ideas...but history has proven he was short-sighted ethically challenged for the hemming/slavery + his treatment of Hamilton...but I'll still include him as his commitment to expansion was vital to the growth of the u.s.)

4.) FDR (dealt with Nazi Germany. saw the threat and dealt with it even as others urged us not to go to war in Europe again, dealt with Stalin and Churchill effectively, lucked out on the end of depression.)

5.) Truman (dealt with dual threat of finishing WWII and dealing with the threat of Communism, took over for FDR at a perilous time where he didn?t have full knowledge of various operations?most notably the a-bomb, which is why I don?t fault him for the 2nd bomb.)

5.) Eisenhower (dealt with aggressive communists well and aggressively ?wouldn?t rule out nuclear action but allowed for openness in regards to capabilty, dealt with burgeoning military-industrial complex, shrewd guy not quite ?great turmoil? but I like Ike a lot.)


Much like the best presidents, these guys had to face critical time..
4th qtr 3rd down and 4 at the goal line and fumble in the super bowl.
Or for you internationals? as keeper with a 1-0 lead in the 85 minute allow two scores in the world cup finals.

Worst
Johnson power vacuum, did a bad job in critical times not all his fault but tough?
Buchanan fool, did nothing while the south split
Ford wrong man, wrong time so bad almost lost to Reagan in primary while prez
Harding fool, horrid scandals.. damned fool.
Pierce important times did nothing.

As you see mordern presidents haven?t done nearly as bad as folks in the past?Bush isn?t a ?worst? president because he initially did well in handling 9/11 but fumbled horribly with his neo-con cabinet and vice president propping up Chalabi. They?ve now used Chalabi as a scapegoat blah blah?I?m tired of writing.

Read a history book, there are a quite a few of presidents in the 18th century that did an awful job.

Each country deserves its president you know

few days ago I watched movie where Iraq soldiers cut off head of American soldier with big knife. Terrible. I was so fucking shocked that couldn't sleep.
All that war was started by president and government and I think bad that president that could send his people dye for shady interests. Democracy reached form that not acceptable any more. Read Bible people. USA was build on it principles but now something awful happening

Bush was a horrible soldier and is a lousy president, probably the worst in the history of the US

Best Presidents:


1. John Adams
2. Thomas Jefferson
3. George Washington
4. James Monroe
5. Dwight Eisenhower

Worst Presidents:

1. Abraham Lincoln
2. Ulysses Grant
3. Lyndon Johnson
4. William McKinley
5. William Clinton

Don't worry, dude...That video is not real...

jarhead

check out

www.bushflash.com

www.bushin30seconds.com

www.notbush.com

BUSH IS A LIAR HE WILL GO DOWN IN HISTORY ON THE SAME LEVEL AS HITLER

Hitler? Same level as Hitler?

How fucking stupid are you?

Buff he is so fucking stupid, it doesn't even deserve a comment.

Amazing what type of people are allowed to rome this earth.

"Clinton was pretty average...no great policy shifts, but didn't spend us into a huge deficit either...partially b/c of the repub-controlled congress. There was no great turmoil, other than dealing with regional conflicts."

I know you're just trying to be fair, but you don't go from a record surplus to record defeceits without spending your fucking ass off!!!! Who controlled Congress while GW spent us into the worst debts in recorded history? Isn't it time to ask once again if Republicans are really controlling spending? BTW, before Bush II the previous biggest spender was Ronald Reagan and Bush I. And BTW, what type of men do you think the government will be PAYING those debts to in the coming years no matter who wins in November... my bet is they are white, wear business suits to work every day, vote strictly for a party that starts with "R," frequent a lot of our porn sites, and own more houses than those of us here own pairs of pants. For these people, the rewards of the Bush II admin will be enjoyed for a decade to come. Oh yeah, Bush II is a classic....

God damn it wasn't Iraqi soldiers, I know that's what the media loves to make people think to make the prisoner tourture seem justified, but the beheading was done by Al Queda. Well, so the tape says anyway.

I'd say the same about Bush apologists. The comparison to Hitler is over the top but he's definitely the fascist lunatic war monger of our day.

If you listen to enough talk radio you end up thinking that Clinton is the anti-Christ and responsible for all of Bush's problems, trust me. See according to Rush, Reagan was responsible for Clinton's success, and Clinton is responsible for Bush's lack of success. The good always comes from Republicans and the bad always comes from Democrats, the sick thing is people actually buy it.

Read a history book, there are a quite a few of presidents in the 18th century that did an awful job.
=>>
meant to say 19th century.

Warren Harding was the worst - that is pretty simple. Take some history courses. The poeple of that time would pray to Alah for Bush. Teapot Dome Scandel


And others...

Hoover - Think this economy is rough? He presided over the events leading to Black Tuesday.

Buchanan - Did nothing to stop the succession of southern states.

Johnson - Poor handling of reconstruction

Ding Ding Ding, and guess who his number 1 campaign contributers are? Oil companies? Defense companies? Pharmaceutical companies? No, above all, banks, according to the center for public integrity. Unreal right? He gets 8 million from bankers for his campaign and in exchange the country gets thrown into an absolute crisis debt they'll probably never be able to pull out of. What a fucking superstar this guy is.

lol...finally somebody with sense

The bottom presidents were soooooooo bad it is hard to pick anybody else but those guys.

I disagree a bit on Hoover though, but still a logical choice. His policies really didn't cause the GD, but ppl blame him for it, and he wasn't able to do much about it.

I'm not sure why you put Reagan and Nixon on top list. Both were bad presidents. Reagan was good speaker but aweful for economy.

Polk was one of the great presidents. He got us over half the land in the US which we needed for growth.

Andrew Jackson is one of my favorites. He was the last President to try to stand up to bank ownership of the USA in the form of privatizing the Federal reserve. The world would be a better place today if we all weren't bowing down to corporations and the World bank.

Yeah, I'm just trying to be objective. Everyone is entitled to a favorite or worst based on certain criteria...but damn some picks can't be justified.

Bush can plummet further if another terrorist stike occurs in the next year or two as a result of his policies. However, unless some more major scandals come out he still wouldn't make the bottom list.

They're pretty fucking stupid. Been making that Hitler/Bush comparison for months now no matter how absurd it may be. Ask them how much they actually know about Hitler, his rise to power, and rule over Nazi Germany and they will come up woefully inadequate in the knowledge department, as do most people on this board when you try to talk history or politics.

My Prez list:

Best:
Jefferson, FDR, Reagan, Eisenhower, Washington

Worst:
Nixon, Clinton, Carter, Harding, Lincoln

Bush is a fucking retard. One thing about Kerry, dispite having a silver spoon in his mouth (like Bush) he put his life on the line for our country in another bullshit war, and even killed people for the sake of america. He is a real hero, bush is a real zero

And Cheney's a poo-poo head. Like, duuude.

i was exageratin wow u guys take shit to heart lol

bush is a liar its simple as that this whole war campaign was started over lies im not even gonnna get into i battle someone everday about this shit and its not worth it anymore if you want to be informed check ou those sites maybe it will make you realize how much the american people have been lied to for the last 40 years

did you know the CIA put saddam in power after crippling the qassin government we put him in power

thats not even the point though all i have to say is WHERE ARE THE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION? isn't that the reason we went there in the first place ? now over 10k civilians have been killed hrm hrm how many us soldiers will die before it stops? fuggit people in this country are all wastes of life and believe everything that this government pumps into there heads

Translation: "Wow, someone who knows what they are talking about called me on my stupid comment. Umm, I was just kidding or something."

hey buddy kill urself i could care less what you think i don't need to prove what i know to some asshole over the internet peace


you can reply all you want i don't care im not postin anymore about this war bullshit cause like i said bush is a scum bag end of story he lied to everyone in this country and put all of our lives at risk for MONEY it's all about money


peace internet tough guys

Okay just for shits and giggles i have to ask...with all the possible choices for best and worst pres...
Since it is pretty subject question and a few peopole didn't really define their criteria...

worst
Lincoln and Clinton, (I'm tempted to even ask why ppl select Nixon but I can understand a few lines...)...by what methodolgy?

Best...
Reagan, Clinton ... how?


Are ppl using cult of personality to determine things or... I'm really at a loss...

You sound EXACTLY like my poli sci college professor!! Are you him?? You guys said EXACTLY the same thing, I am not kidding; about the ones who were good Presidents and bad, and why.... etc Are you moonlighting as a professor?!

Chill, dude. It's time for recess and snacktime. But then it's right back to 2nd grade English class for you (that's the one where they cover capitalization, spelling, and basic sentence construction).
"hey buddy kill urself". You're killing me over here .

Geez, it's tough to say who was better, Clinton or Bush ?

On the one hand, Clinton gave us 8 years of peace and prosperity-
One the other hand, under Bush we've had war and recession.

Clinton gave us record surpluses, while Bush gives us record deficits.

Clinton gave us record employment, while GW has given us record unemployment.

If both were CEOs of companies, which one would you buy stock in ???

That's funny as shit

Grover Cleveland spanked me on two non-consecutive occasions.

<IMX>, I guess I'd say Lincoln is more overrated than "bad" or the "worst". The two main things he is classically known for (preserving the Union and freeing the slaves) are actually more historical myths and revisionist history than actual fact. IMO, Lincoln did quite a bit to dissolve the Union in the first place by being incredibly rigid and inflexible to many of the pre-war issues of the Confederacy. Had he been a bit more yielding on any of these issues, the whole debacle possibly could have been eliminated. Of course, some states vowed to secede if he was even elected, thus speaking to his platform regarding the South. In addition his mobilization of troops somewhat prematurely angered the Confederacy and fed the flames that led to the war. As far as helping to preserve the Union, while I won't argue that he did want the US to remain one country, there are MANY MANY reasons why the North won the war, perhaps the least of which was Lincoln. Errors by Southern Generals, lack of supplies (on the Southern side) and an overwhelming amount of manpower in the Northern Army being just a few.
As far as freeing the slaves, this is yet another fallacy that has come down through the years painting Lincoln as this saintly figure who freed the slaves because he just couldn't bear the thought of any Americans in bondage. False. You need to look no further than the fact that the Proclamation freed JUST the slaves in the Southern states. It left the institution alone in the border states (Deleware, Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri) that had not seceded from the Union. We wouldn't want to piss off any potential voters would we? As with most decisions made by a sitting president, the decision for the Emancipation Proclamation was political in nature and based on being re-elected for another term. First, it helped bolster the failing morale of the Northern people to continue with the war by turning it into a crusade. Second, it caused France and Britain to draw back from helping the Confederacy (which had they done, the south would surely have won the war). So, both items that have immortalized Lincoln in the minds of many and made him be often thought of as the best President ever are really myths that have been oversimplified and twisted for political correctness and pandering to special interest groups (as with most history today).

We aren't arguing Clinton or Bush. We're dicussing best or worst out of them all. In additon, 1)Clinton didn't have to deal with 9/11 and probably set us up for it by worrying more about his dick than Al-Qaeda. 2) Often in economics, techniques to give your "record surpluses" and a booming economy can blow up in your face later on down the road. This could have happened with Gore or Bush in the White House. 3) Unemployment is at 5.6% which is historically very good.
God save me from idiots without the facts who insist on expressing their "opinions".

The predominant pre-war issue of the confederacy was slavery...you can look at Mississippi's articels of cessation and they were worried about the economic impact the end of slavery would have...it would decimate their capital stock (slaves).

There were two economic systems in America the northern industrial and the souther aristocracy/agrarian economy (hd more in common with europe and hence the threat to northern interest).

The two "countries" were on a crash course socially, religiously, and economically long before lincoln....in fact the worst presidents ignored the problem, Lincoln was the president that took devisive action to destory the economy of the south and begin to reintergrate the country.

As far as revisionist...that is totally Johnson flubbing the reconstruction...It is commmonly said by present historians (religious, economci) the North one the war, the south won the reconstruction and reshaped it into a war of "nothern agression" against southern life instead of a war over the future of the economic charcter of the United States...which version of "manefest destiny would win, manufacturing or agrarian," which way of government democracy or genelteen planter's aristocracy. The south won the way the war was characterized plain and simple read any book about the "Battle of the Lost Cause." About how southern states reshaped the image of the Civil War after reconstruction. That's why we celebrate "hereos" of the confederacy rather than branding them astraitors to the union.

Clinton again..how is he a "worst?" given the other choices available. Ecoomic data is manipulated all the time etc..shit look at Reagan tax cuts as an example of that and how republicans went from neo-clasical economic beliefs to Keynesian (Regan tax cuts to Bush tax cuts).

The thing is clinton was centrist as far as economic policy and largely stayed out of the way. etc.. etc..

As far as Al-Qaida...that administration ranked him as a priority adn gave it to Bush.

So it is like you are accusing people of playing partisan politics, but then downgrading clinton b/c of the same partasian type issues ppl try to include Bush. If you go by the biz cycle theory, then Bush has nothing to do whith the current recovery either. You simply can't have it both ways.

If you wanted to play politics Bush could definitely be on the worst, given his "wmd neo-con war" effect and RECORD spending b/c of the republican controlled congress. Bush's cabinate officials consolidated executive power, and subverted the independent CIA and Pentagon view on WMD...Precisely what Nixon did, but with none of the policy break-throughs Nixons administration had.

Bush CREATED a link to 9/11 in iraq crisis situation in Iraq, where as Nixon created a huge policy shift in how we normalized relations with China. Nixon's consolidation of power had benefits (imho strong enough to keep him off the worst list, in fact if he hadn't been caught on watergate he'd could be considered as a top).

Bush's consolidation of executive power (met with little resistence by a repub congress and democrats b/c of 9/11) has yet to have ANY benefits.

Chalabi played the neo-cons like a fiddle to get regime change in Iraq. He did so becuae there wre no checks on Bush's administrations exectuive power because of the conditions (9/11 repub congress). Clinton didn't get fucked by Chalabi and others..partially because he didn't want to stick his neck out and he diddn't have the contorl to do much...hence he is just avg.

I still didn't include Bush as a worst, but if they keep creating a crisis situation in iraq he very well could be on the list. It will take another 10 years to see were Bush really ranks, but it is heading down hill very fast, even die-hard republicans would agree with that.

Hey man, I think we can agree to disagree on some things you mentioned and others I think we agree but maybe misunderstood each other. Anyhow, cheers for actually having your shit together and supporting your assertions and opinions with knowledge, not BS.

Wanna look it?

http :// video.bmj.net/ Alluh_Akbar.wmv

hehe

This is one thing I will comment on. Although I'm sure in the articles of "cessation (did you mean "secession"?) for Mississippi, slavery was mentioned, slavery was not THE cause of the Civil War. There were many political & social issues all revolving around the idea of states rights vs. federal rights. This is the main issue. Should the federal government be able to dictate to the state governments, regardless of the issue (slavery or not)? Although you had some Northern soldiers (such as Joshua Chamberlain, etc.) on a crusade to free the slaves, many (most notably Sherman and others) did not care whether blacks were free at all. They fought to preserve the Union. The North of course had slaves as well, but they simply weren't as vital to the industrial economy as they were to the south. I think the idea that slavery by the evil confederates caused the war against the freedom loving North is more of the revisionist (and I didn't mean reconstruction like I think you thought) history that I spoke about. As far as us celebrating Confederates as heroes (not traitors), that's BS. I took several Civil War courses when I was getting my Master's and barely heard Robert E' Lee's name. When Stephen Lang portrayed Stonewall Jackson in Gods and Generals, an interviewer asked him waht it was like to portray such an evil man (Jackson was one of the most pious and honorable soldiers around). Try walking downtown with a confedrate flag on your chest and see what happens. Trust me, society has tried it's best to revise and rewrite history to vilify the South for something that the entire nation was involved in. I've been a student of the Civil War for nearly 15 years, so I've got my facts straight.
As far as Clinton, although the stuff I said above *is* correct, I mainly listed him as worst for getting head in the White House and admittedly lying about it. That defiles the whole office as far as I'm concerned. I'm sure some will say, well every president lies, but until it's conclusively proven, it can't really be held against them.

Worst Presidents..... probably the current trash and Nixon... both participate in criminal conspiracy and are responsible for mass killings which most US people seem to remain in a sanitized state of denial over. Clearly they need/should have been executed.

Best Presidents.... there are many candidates with good or bad aspects to chose from. There is plenty room for debate on them and many honorable men on that list.

trouserrat:

I just noticed this shit ....

It is strange that some idiot who had a blowjob in the Oval Office and tried to cover his ass by lying about it, compares in any way with the lies, almost on a daily basis, from the current admin.

It is also stange that this blowjob has a higher priority than the man, (sorry, Nixon, just in case some ain't got a clue!), who led the US in Vietman and conducted what can only be described as mass murder using "weapons of mass distruction" (chem/napalm).

This attitude of placing a priority over lying about a blowjob and others who did LOTS worse - kinda shows the "state of denial" and triviality in US society. Sad shit!

If you don't think the current trash in office has defiled the Office of President - just stay in that "state of denial".

Thanks for the spell check?I don?t run my posts through word ;)

The primary issue of the Civil War was slavery?Mississippi not only mentioned slavery I quote?
The south left b/c of slavery.

That's the primary reason "states rights," is debated. So, yes technically the North disagrees with the south's ability to leave. But the Southern states leave b/c of slavery and the economic impact.

Slavery is their primary reason.

How do I know? Well because they said so.
The southern view of states rights is brought up by the one key issue on which comprimise did not work.
hahahahahahahahahahahaha>
A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.
hahahahahahahahahahahaha=>
All those other political and social issues I mentioned and agreed with, and actually mentioned them in my previous post. Essentially we agree on those points.

Those social issues stemmed from essentially two different countries, the ?northern manufacturing democracy,? and the ?southern agrarian aristocracy.?each had a remarkably different way of life. The north was furthering democracy, the south was becoming more and more like aristocracies of Europe. It was clear in the mid 1800s the two versions of manifesting destiny were opposed to each other. The north was spreading out, and growing industrially and the south saw the same vision. Notice, this has nothing to do with any moral judgements about the issue of slavery?as far as I look at slavery as the fundamental economic system the south was based on, precisely as MS said.

MS and other states knew that if you ended their ability to grow, the north would end slavery. All those other issues are really unimportant the core was difference were the economic systems?the institution of slavery. The window dressing is ?states rights,?but the push behind that was clear.

You end slavery you end the south. The North might have said we are going to war for state v. federal, but the south left exactly for the reason MS stated.


more in a sec...

just because clinton was horny just like pretty much any guy here doesn't mean he was a bad president.

I think you are right about the Civil war I was unclear about it in my previous post. (as the logical chain of events of the cause, and how that differes from the stated reasons).

Confederates are celebrated as heroes in the south?in most town centers (NOLA, for instance) you have statues of confederate ?heroes,? and museums. This began after the reconstruction, when groups of confederate soldiers began preaching about the virtues of the south? Shit Georgia has the confederate flag as part of their state flag, and South Carolina was flying it still? (not sure if that changed yet).

I don?t mean celebrating confederates in the academy, I mean in popular culture (which generally is driven by the previous 30 years of work in the academy as it slowly filters down)?after all the first writers about the institution of slavery were southern apologists who we now know distorted the institution?it wasn?t until the 1960s did economists actually tackle and begin to define the economics of slavery. Public perception hasn?t really caught up as myths are perpetuated on both sides of the slavery debate?largely because of the moral and policy implications. I?d advise you to take any book that speaks about the ?religion of the Lost Cause,? in the south.

As far as being a student of civil war history for 15 years, congrats, but I?m sure you?d agree the scholarly study of historical events advances with time. For instance, a prof I know is writing a book that re-examines the religious imagery used by both the North and the South during the war?and how the war affected those views. His research, and writing are sure to change present thought on that period in American religious history.

Simply put the view on history is not static, it is living and breathing and subject to revision.

An excellent book by Ron Chernow, for instance, has come out that re-examines Hamilton?s influence on the United States. So suddenly, Hamilton is in vogue and will receive new credit for his work. The view of history is in constant flux.

As far as Clinton..he didn?t lie about getting head he lied about ?sexual relations? and in technical sense sexual relations = intercourse.

Now as far as lying and scandals how can you leave off presidents who caused the civil war to happen, by their inability to reach an effective comprimise? Yet, you fault Lincoln, then remove him yet don?t consider any of the others (Johnson, Buchnan) who did far worse in a far more critical time than Carter as far as inaction???

In addition, you include Reagan ? so are you ignoring his role in Iran-Contra as far as "defiling the white house."

I believe you included Lincoln to try to make a point by downgrading his status, and included Clinton in much the same manner. Reagan you include to upgrade... Yet, you feign anger at those who might include Bush as worst or Clinton as best for playing politics and/or cult of personality.

I don't feign anger at those that might consider Bush worst. As you said (at least I think it was you, I don't feel like checking), time will really tell where Bush lies in history: worst, best or neither. Anyway dude, as I said before good to debate with someone that appreciates opinions and interpretations based on facts and knowledge as opposed to people who completely jump right in and haven't spent one second reading or learning a thing about the subject they are opining on. If you're ever at a show sometime, we should chat; would be interesting.

wtf is up with your posts imx?

Bush is an idiot

Lykos:

"Just" an idiot??? The lying hypocritical snake is evil!

It's not any matter of politics - it's below that level - the guy is totally dishonorable. There is no way on earth he should ever have been "massaged" into leadership of a chicken ranch - nevermind a country.

A few third world countries have more straight and honest Presidents than the US has at this time.

Fortunately...your hatred of the duly elected President of the USA...is of no import...zero...zilch...nada...just as your very life is of no import.