Is Bush the worst President in recent time?

[Will]

That is a full fledged distortion of reality.

That is not a full fledged distortion of reality. That is a full fledged distortion of my post. My point was many people in the US (especially on this board) say they don't care about what the rest of the world thinks about them, and they don't give a shit if the rest of the world likes how their leader acts on the worldwide scene. I was just pointing out it's not a good attitude to have. I do not blame 9/11 on Bush. I blame it on the crazy terrorists of course. Crazy Saudis for the most part. But Iraq was invaded, for the sake of the world. Go figure.

[sandman]

it cracks me up that the people that claimed more than half of america was stupid for voting bush into office, now come on here and quote polls on a daily basis. talk about hypocritical.

in the early 90's, reagan was given very average grades on his presidency. by 2000, those grades had risen dramatically, and he is not viewed as a great president.

the middle of a bloody war isn't a fair time to ask this question.

but hey, all you lefty doves need as many bush bashing threads as possible to release a little bit of your anger. whatever helps you sleep at night.

try drinking a beer instead. 

[Will]

but hey, all you lefty doves need as many bush bashing threads as possible to release a little bit of your anger.

I may be wrong but I believe BerkeleyRiot is not exactly what you would call a "lefty dove", unless I'm confusing him with someone else.

It's funny how right wing people see not supporting war as an insult: "you don't support war, you're a coward lefty dove. You tree hugging hippie. You know what we do to doves? We kill them, that's right, hunting doves is a national sport." Talk about opening up your mind. Geez.

[Surfrider]

but hey, all you lefty doves need as many bush bashing threads as possible to release a little bit of your anger.

I may be wrong but I believe BerkeleyRiot is not exactly what you would call a "lefty dove", unless I'm confusing him with someone else.

Right.  If you read the first post, I am writing as someone that supported Bush because of the alternatives.  I don't think any of the things that I listed about Bush's failures can really be refuted.  Again, I don't believe in the conspiracy theories, and I generally believe that Bush had good intentions when he went into Iraq.  However, this guy continues to fail on many levels. 

And again, if I had the chance to vote over for Gore or Kerry, I would probably still choose Bush.  That is a sad state of affairs.

[Surfrider]

All kidding aside, I haven't seen anyone answer BerkeleyRiot's points.? I think its because he's right, and no one can argue with him.? But I'm waiting for someone to try.? It should be entertaining.

I don't think anyone can either. 

Personally I go back and forth about whether Bush is ignorant or arrogant.?

Me too.

Sometimes I think he just doesn't care that much.? He grew up in a world where you didn't have to succeed, someone always bailed you out.? You have things given to you, like jobs, and when you are in a position to give them, you take care of your friends.?

I think that is exactly right.  It may work at an oil company, but in the highest post in our country I am not sure just appointing friends is the way to go.

Sometimes it seems like he's got a conservative, religious agenda, but then it looks like he bailed on it to give a friend a job (Supreme Court nomination.)? So I can't figure him out, but I don't think he concerns himself with what's best for this country.?

I am sure that I have quite a different perspective on what makes a good Supreme Court justice than most here.  However, I think all sides should be able to agree that she is unqualified.  I think this was Bush's chance to place another conservative intellect on the court.  I think this will go down in history as a huge missed opportunity.  We have a split court, a so-called conservative president, and 55 republican votes.  We get Harriet Miers?


If I hear one more person defend his nomination of Miers on television I think I am going to throw-up.

[sandman]

but hey, all you lefty doves need as many bush bashing threads as possible to release a little bit of your anger.

I may be wrong but I believe BerkeleyRiot is not exactly what you would call a "lefty dove", unless I'm confusing him with someone else.

Right.? If you read the first post, I am writing as someone that supported Bush because of the alternatives.? I don't think any of the things that I listed about Bush's failures can really be refuted.? Again, I don't believe in the conspiracy theories, and I generally believe that Bush had good intentions when he went into Iraq.? However, this guy continues to fail on many levels.?

And again, if I had the chance to vote over for Gore or Kerry, I would probably still choose Bush.? That is a sad state of affairs.

i think it's obvious my post was not directed at you. you were not one of the people in these threads talking about how stupid americans are after the election last year.

still, this is probably the most UN-original thread i've ever seen. we have countless threads for bush-bashing. and everything you listed has been said several times in several threads.

[Surfrider]

but hey, all you lefty doves need as many bush bashing threads as possible to release a little bit of your anger.

I may be wrong but I believe BerkeleyRiot is not exactly what you would call a "lefty dove", unless I'm confusing him with someone else.

Right.? If you read the first post, I am writing as someone that supported Bush because of the alternatives.? I don't think any of the things that I listed about Bush's failures can really be refuted.? Again, I don't believe in the conspiracy theories, and I generally believe that Bush had good intentions when he went into Iraq.? However, this guy continues to fail on many levels.?

And again, if I had the chance to vote over for Gore or Kerry, I would probably still choose Bush.? That is a sad state of affairs.

i think it's obvious my post was not directed at you. you were not one of the people in these threads talking about how stupid americans are after the election last year.

I wasn't really assuming that it was directed at me.  Those people are idiots.  As I said, I would probably vote for Bush again over the alternatives.

still, this is probably the most UN-original thread i've ever seen. we have countless threads for bush-bashing. and everything you listed has been said several times in several threads.

Well, I actually think it is somewhat original.  Sure we have Bush bashing threads left and right.  But since those on the right, or even moderates, areso busy defending Bush or the administration against conspiracy theories and ridiculous accusations, I dont think these things actually have been discussed in a proper way.

I am not saying Bush hates black people, nor that he went to war for oil.  However, Bush has fucked up a lot of things.  Whether you are a conservative, liberal or moderate I think these things are hard to refute.  Sure you don't want to add fuel to the fire of people that will bash Bush no matter what he does, but looking at these things Bush has done a pretty poor job.  Most of these things are conservative vs. liberal policies, they are simply an inability to have control, plan, and look like a head of state.

[Walk]

Funny man. FYI, a large percentage of the European population is using public transportation. Of course, a lot of people still use cars, but public transportation is huge here. Just ask the millions of people who use the parisian subway every single day. And I for one do not give a shit about high gas prices for cars because I don't own one and only use the subway and trains, which run on electricity in France...
Different story for airplanes though, cuz airfares are getting more expensive...but it's not like I take the plane everyday so...

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/
http://dieoff.org/

You'll lose more than just gasoline if you don't have oil. I'm glad Bush had the guts to go to war for oil instead of trying alternatives, because oil can do so much more than run a car. I don't judge him as immoral; resources have always been fought over. It's what you get in a finite world. Europe's oil comsumption, by the way, is relatively high, even if public transportation is popular. It helps, but it won't solve the problem.

[SLCPUNK]

Funny man. FYI, a large percentage of the European population is using public transportation. Of course, a lot of people still use cars, but public transportation is huge here. Just ask the millions of people who use the parisian subway every single day. And I for one do not give a shit about high gas prices for cars because I don't own one and only use the subway and trains, which run on electricity in France...
Different story for airplanes though, cuz airfares are getting more expensive...but it's not like I take the plane everyday so...

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/
http://dieoff.org/

You'll lose more than just gasoline if you don't have oil. I'm glad Bush had the guts to go to war for oil instead of trying alternatives, because oil can do so much more than run a car. I don't judge him as immoral; resources have always been fought over. It's what you get in a finite world. Europe's oil comsumption, by the way, is relatively high, even if public transportation is popular. It helps, but it won't solve the problem.

At least the bigot admits why we went into Iraq.

But for YOUR information France runs on 80 percent nuclear, and other European countries use nuke power too. As far as I know no cars have been produced, or retrofitted to run on nuke power. Although public transit DOES run on nuke power. So they certainly have a huge advantage over the USA as far as sustaining a society is concerned.

As usual, you are wrong again.

[Axls Locomotive]

But for YOUR information France runs on 80 percent nuclear, and other European countries use nuke power too.

Absolutely...i found these statistics interesting and surprising

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/ene_nuc_ele_gen_cap

[Jamie]

P.S.? I wrote my senior thesis for my last Political Theory class on C02 and the atmosphere.( I got an A and my teacher was an admitted liberal)? Interesting reading if anyone is up for around 20 pages of libertarian/realist outlook.

What exactly did you have to say about CO2 that's so different to what is already blatantly obvious? I mean, it's a huge threat to the environment, I don't think there's much denying that.

[Axl_owns_dexter]

It's funny how right wing people see not supporting war as an insult: "you don't support war, you're a coward lefty dove. You tree hugging hippie. You know what we do to doves? We kill them, that's right, hunting doves is a national sport." Talk about opening up your mind. Geez.

Paleo-Conservatives are against the war in Iraq...

[Guns N RockMusic]

P.S.? I wrote my senior thesis for my last Political Theory class on C02 and the atmosphere.( I got an A and my teacher was an admitted liberal)? Interesting reading if anyone is up for around 20 pages of libertarian/realist outlook.

What exactly did you have to say about CO2 that's so different to what is already blatantly obvious? I mean, it's a huge threat to the environment, I don't think there's much denying that.

I disagree that it's a huge threat.  The Earth has been much hotter and colder long before man walked the Earth.  There is a natural cycle that the Earth has in place to protect itself from a runaway green house effect.  Anyway, the majority of the paper is oriented around a free market sollution to aide in the reduction of pollution and a philosophical understanding of why we do what we do.  The reality is that scientist aren't sure what's going on.  Everyone remember the hole in the ozone layer cause by "global warming" - yea it's gone now.  in the 1970s Scientist were claiming we were heading to a new ice age.  Since very few of you actually are interested enough in the issue, I have a Penn & Teller Bullshit! episode on the issue I'd be more than glad to make available.  Since everyone loves to have an open mind, why not read/watch what some libertarian atheist have to say.

[Will]

As usual, you are wrong again.

Nothing surprising here. Narrow minded people are very often wrong about a lot of things. Sometimes I wonder why we even respond to his posts. lol Maybe for some readers not used to the guy?

[-Jack-]

The worst president in recent times? George Washington! I mean just look at the guy.. hes so.. stupid looking..

I mean, wooden teeth? Come on. He obviously didn't care about American independance, he just wanted a seat in politics. The man owes my father 500 acres of land in the louisiana territory and 20 pounds for serving in the war. Damn bastard.

   -jack

[Charity Case]

Nuclear power has disadvantages as well.? The disposal of nuclear waste is a huge environmental issue (you liberals would care about that issue I'm sure) and the chance of a nuclear power plant failure (like Chenobol) exists.? The capital costs are huge as well.? I know we need alternatives to oil, and I'm not at all refuting that.? But I bet there are other alternatives than nuke power.? There are alot of smart people out there working on this right now.? I'm hopeful there will be a solution.

As far as the thread goes, I'd put the do nothing administrations of Clinton and Carter ahead of Bush on the "worst presidents of modern time" list.? Of course, I'm biased.

[Walk]

Let's put Bush's administration into perspective here...

When thinking of all time, the worst presidents are Franking Pierce, Millard Fillmore, and James Buchanan. They literally divided the nation by creating policies that favored the Northern states. I don't think we've had a president as bad as these in the last 100 years.

If by recent, we mean to last 10 administrations or so, I think LBJ would have to be the worst. He expanded the government's powers in the 60's, to the joy of liberals and Communists everywhere. Minor policies that FDR created to inspire confidence and hope became big bureaucratic nightmares. A little more money could have won us the Vietnam war instead.

He didn't know how to handle Vietnam. He didn't understand how to fight Communism. You can't destroy an idea with br00t force alone. To fight propaganda, destroy it with better propaganda. Don't make settlements or bargain for peace; the Communist cannot be trusted. When one's own news media turns liberal, the enemy's propaganda will have an advantage. A few infamous photographs ruined our chance to give the Vietnamese people freedom. Hell, there isn't even oil in that country! We were there out of pure altruism and had a chance to be heroes, and LBJ fumbled.  After all his mistakes, we had 50,000 casualties (20x the Iraq deaths!) and the red army marched into Saigon and took down the American flag. It's disgusting what happened...

For a real Cold War president, look up to Ronald Reagan.  If we had him as president in the 60's, Vietnam would be a free country now. Enough said.

Bush isn't nearly as great as Reagan, but he's not as bad as LBJ or Jimmy Carter. Overall, he's slightly above average for a Republican, and significantly better than an average Democrat. I give him 8/10. I think it would be intereting to have some ratings, and nothing stupid like 1/10.

[Walk]

Nuclear power has disadvantages as well.  The disposal of nuclear waste is a huge environmental issue (you liberals would care about that issue I'm sure) and the chance of a nuclear power plant failure (like Chenobol) exists.

A lot of waste can be reprocessed and reused. However, it often isn't for political reasons. Peaceniks think it would be used in nuclear weapons (which is admittedly true), but it could also be fed back into a reactor. These are called breeder reactors, iirc. Also, there is a type of reactor called "pebble bed" that is nearly meltdown proof. My only problem with nuclear power is that it requires government work, since the private industry can't process uranium freely, for obvious reasons.

The capital costs are huge as well.  I know we need alternatives to oil, and I'm not at all refuting that.  But I bet there are other alternatives than nuke power.  There are alot of smart people out there working on this right now.  I'm hopeful there will be a solution.

Smart people have been looking for a solution for a long time. Solar isn't going to cut it. Hydropower damages our rivers. Biofuel gives off C02, a dangerous, toxic gas!  Zero sum energy is a hoax, as is cold fusion. Geothermal power might be doable in Hawaii, but not the continental US. Wind power might just work, even if it would be pricier than what we're used to...

Actually, I've read about some guys planning to build a tether to get fans up into the jet stream to generate power in those constant 100+ mph winds!  If they could pull that off...

But the biggest problem is NIMBY people who think windmills look ugly.  They want to preserve the "pristine skyline" instead of having wind power. They're forgetting that coal powered plants are borderline socialist government owned, since they're so regulated, and windmills can be set up by an individual farmer or entrepreneur. Windmills might be hippie approved, but they're great for decentralizing energy production for the free market individual.

The government, obviously, doesn't like this. Liberals say they might kill birds.  The world is a crazy place...

As far as the thread goes, I'd put the do nothing administrations of Clinton and Carter ahead of Bush on the "worst presidents of modern time" list.  Of course, I'm biased.

Clinton had a great economy inherited from Reagan, so many people mistakenly believe he's a good president. For a liberal, he really wasn't that bad. Carter was awful. He let a bunch of Iranians take hostages from us and handled them like the UN handles genocide. Luckily, Reagan got elected and freed the hostages!

[RichardNixon]

Why don't all you fucking arm-chair warriors that like Bush all sign up and get your ass sent over t o Iraq if you believe in this war and this President? Huh? Why not...No? Just content to sit back and "support" the troops and tie a yellow ribbon around your front tree and let the others do the fighting.

[RichardNixon]

A lot of those people would rather see Iraq fail so that Bush will be embarrassed.

This is sadly true.

This is bullshit.

Total bullshit.

Oh, come on. ?You are telling me that noneone out there was hoping that Bush would fail in Iraq from the start. ?There are plenty of people that simply hated Bush ever since he won Florida. ?I think there is a faction out there, on the left and the right, that would rather see people embarrassed and their views vindicated, then to see that the person they hated made a right decision.

Again, I believe the decision to go to war in Iraq was a mistake. ?But there are some that refuse to acknowledge anything positive ever, and that place the blame on Bush for everything.

Bush did not "win" Florida. That whole election was stolen. And no I wont "get over it." Gore was robbed and the election of 2000 was a joke and made a farce of our "great democracy."