Ask Experts Questions for FREE Help !
Ask
    Debra's Avatar
    Debra Posts: 14, Reputation: 8
    New Member
     
    #1

    Apr 24, 2006, 02:04 PM
    Bush: The WORST President in History?
    http://www.rollingstone.com/news/profile/story/9961300/the_worst_president_in_history?rnd=1145910812680&h as-player=true&version=6.0.8.1024

    .. . More than half the country now considers Bush dishonest and untrustworthy.. .
    When Bush's lips are moving, he's lying to us, misleading us, or engaged in Orwellian doublespeak. The willfully blind citizens of this country play the part of Bush's useful idiots who lick his boots and devour the garbage that spews out of his mouth as if it were the "gospel." The spoiled and unworthy brat who is sitting in our beloved White House is fullfilling his boyhood dreams to be a war-president and a dictator. He maims and spills the blood of our sons and daughters to enrich his corporate cronies. In his self-aggrandized dream world, he believes he's above the law and ordained by God to rule.

    If we don't impeach this war-mongering mad man and his cabal, then we are the fools. Don't you agree?
    Fr_Chuck's Avatar
    Fr_Chuck Posts: 81,304, Reputation: 7692
    Expert
     
    #2

    Apr 24, 2006, 02:13 PM
    Actully you can get a quote like that for almost any president we ever had.

    He is acting in our nations best interest and most Amerians still support mostof his national defense. He has lost some support over his weak immigration stand. If we don't support our soldiers in this way we will never be safe.

    But if you want bad presidents,
    Carter, Clinton
    Debra's Avatar
    Debra Posts: 14, Reputation: 8
    New Member
     
    #3

    Apr 24, 2006, 03:02 PM
    Comment on Fr_Chuck's post
    Your reply was based on partisanship rather than merit and falls into the willfully blind category.
    CaptainForest's Avatar
    CaptainForest Posts: 3,645, Reputation: 393
    Ultra Member
     
    #4

    Apr 24, 2006, 06:58 PM
    Comment on Debra's post
    Excellent Question
    CaptainForest's Avatar
    CaptainForest Posts: 3,645, Reputation: 393
    Ultra Member
     
    #5

    Apr 24, 2006, 07:02 PM
    Debra: Your reply was based on partisanship rather than merit and falls into the willfully blind category.
    I agree with Debra.

    Fr Chuck, your answer is "based on partisanship rather than merit and falls into the willfully blind category."

    And Clinton was a great President.

    That being said, to address Debra's original question:

    I don't think you can tell yet. You need to wait some time after a President leaves office before judging him. There were a lot of people who did not like President Clinton near the end of his term, but 3 years later, his reputation rebounded and he was once again loved.

    So I do not believe that any one can really say how history will remember President Bush.

    In Canada, Prime Minister Trudeau rebounded a few years after he left office. However, Prime Minister Mulroney who left office in 1993, has still not rebounded in terms of his reputation.
    CaptainForest's Avatar
    CaptainForest Posts: 3,645, Reputation: 393
    Ultra Member
     
    #6

    Apr 24, 2006, 07:12 PM
    Comment on Fr_Chuck's post
    I agree with Debra. "Your reply was based on partisanship rather than merit and falls into the willfully blind category."
    Fr_Chuck's Avatar
    Fr_Chuck Posts: 81,304, Reputation: 7692
    Expert
     
    #7

    Apr 24, 2006, 07:24 PM
    Let me see, our economy has been great, interest rates have been held down.

    The war would have happened no matter who was in office at the time.

    And what about Carter, come one

    Of course Bush has been far to liberal for most in his party, signing almost every spending bill sent to him ( actually I think he signed all of them)

    And honestly no president has ever did much, it is actually congress who either passes or not passes the laws and budgets.

    And I don't see really much choice to Iraq right now, what can we do, pull out and let Saddam regiem take back over or perhaps have iran invade and take it over ( they are already staged at the border)

    And now Iran, what should we do when they have several atomic bombs,

    The trouble is making the hard choices is not popular, but doing nothing is even a worst over all choice.
    ashley19's Avatar
    ashley19 Posts: 69, Reputation: 6
    Junior Member
     
    #8

    Apr 24, 2006, 08:10 PM
    Comment on Debra's post
    My veiws exactly.. he is sent by the devil and I bet he causes a lot more disturbances before he leaves office.
    kp2171's Avatar
    kp2171 Posts: 5,318, Reputation: 1612
    Uber Member
     
    #9

    Apr 24, 2006, 08:23 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck
    Let me see, our economy has been great, interest rates have been held down.

    The war would have happened no matter who was in office at the time.

    And what about Carter, come one

    Of course Bush has been far to liberal for most in his party, signing almost every spending bill sent to him ( actually I think he signed all of them)

    And honestly no president has ever did much, it is actually congress who either passes or not passes the laws and budgets.

    And I don't see really much choice to Iraq right now, what can we do, pull out and let Saddam regiem take back over or perhaps have iran invade and take it over ( they are already staged at the border)

    And now Iran, what should we do when they have several atomic bombs,

    the trouble is making the hard choices is not popular, but doing nothing is even a worst over all choice.
    As an independent who nearly always leaves the voting booth with his tongue bleeding (from biting it)... I'm generally unhappy with either party.

    Last election I did not want to vote for bush, and I really thought kerry was a poll chaser. Election before that, didn't care a whole lot for bush, thought gore was a nutjob (only to be fully convinced of this later).

    I really disagree that any president would have taken us to war with iraq. Afghanistan, I backed. Didn't like iraq from the start. Even if all of the data backing the war was true, I just didn't like the first strike idea. 911 warranted afghan invasion. 911 wasn't ever, in my mind, an iraq issue. Told my wife from the outset I didn't like it. Its only gotten worse than I imagined.

    Even if bush believed all the data was true, I think he was more predisposed toward invasion that others would have been. Have you ever seen the tape of the bush vs bush "debate"... things he said as governor concerning nation building versus bush as president? Its alarming. And I'm not a bush basher generally speaking. He either had iraq on the mind or 911 shook him into an iraq mentality.

    Congress and the senate do the heavy lifting (sort of), but lets not forget the power of the supreme court, which is a presidential prerogative (given approval)... and I'm not talking about the abortion issue. I don't elect the president of the nation for that issue alone. Let that be fought in the states. People tend to forget that the biggest presidential legacy anymore might be the years after the service, when the court is making its judgements.

    Id love to go to the polls, just once, and be frustrated because I have to choose between two great candidates.
    cajalat's Avatar
    cajalat Posts: 469, Reputation: 66
    Full Member
     
    #10

    Apr 24, 2006, 08:44 PM
    Impeach Bush? He hasn't done anything worth impeaching. So I think we should send a hooker over to the white house to give this guy a *** job. Only then will this country consider THAT an impeachable offense.

    The insane thing is that you can have sex in the oval office and get impeached but if you kill 100's of thousands (of Iraqi's/Afgans), sacrifice over 2000 of our soldiers for oil, spy on your own citizens by setting up endless illegal wire-taps, force the passage of horrific draconian laws (Patriot Act I & II), Lie-Cheat-Repeat, Leak classified information, condemn those that whistle blow because they have a conscience, and are preparing for yet another war and seriously considering the use of Tactical Nuclear weapons, THAT is OK. Go figure.

    Casey
    ScottGem's Avatar
    ScottGem Posts: 64,966, Reputation: 6056
    Computer Expert and Renaissance Man
     
    #11

    Apr 25, 2006, 06:21 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck
    Actully you can get a quote like that for almost any president we ever had.

    He is acting in our nations best interest and most Amerians still support mostof his national defense. He has lost some support over his weak immigration stand. If we dont support our soldiers in this way we will never be safe.

    But if you want bad presidents,
    Carter, Clinton
    Quote Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck
    Let me see, our economy has been great, interest rates have been held down.

    The war would have happened no matter who was in office at the time.

    And what about Carter, come one

    Of course Bush has been far to liberal for most in his party, signing almost every spending bill sent to him ( actually I think he signed all of them)

    And honestly no president has ever did much, it is actually congress who either passes or not passes the laws and budgets.

    And I don't see really much choice to Iraq right now, what can we do, pull out and let Saddam regiem take back over or perhaps have iran invade and take it over ( they are already staged at the border)

    And now Iran, what should we do when they have several atomic bombs,

    the trouble is making the hard choices is not popular, but doing nothing is even a worst over all choice.
    These two have me scratching my head.

    Bush acting in the nation's best interests? Give me a break! Bush is the most self interested president in history. He spoke yesterday about investigating gas price gouging. Why? Because he's getting hit at the polls about it. Where was he after the runup in prices after Katrina. Why did he wait so long to say something now? Does anyone real believe that his oil company ties is going to have him come down hard on these people?

    Our economy has been great? Do you live in the same country? Our economy is barely holding its own! Interest rates have risen steadily since the low rates under Clinton.

    And saying the Iraq war would have happened no matter who was president is ridiculous. Even if all the intelligence was true, there was still insufficient reason to start this war. Any president less indebted to oil interests or trying to insure his own re-election would not have started this debacle.

    And what about Carter and Clinton? Carter was not a bad president, he was just ineffectual. His handling of the Iran hostage mess colored his whole presidency. Carter was one of the most decent men ever to occupy the oval office. But a decent person is not going to fare well in cutthroat DC. Clinton's presidency may wind up going down as one of the best. The budget was balanced, the economy stabilized and many other social strides were made. Sure Clinton was a lech who couldn't keep it in his pants. But that was a moral issue that didn't affect his ability as president.

    Whether Bush will go down as the worst president in history is debatable. But I'm sure he will rank near the bottom.
    RickJ's Avatar
    RickJ Posts: 7,762, Reputation: 864
    Uber Member
     
    #12

    Apr 25, 2006, 06:35 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainForest
    I don't think you can tell yet. You need to wait some time after a President leaves office before judging him. There were a lot of people who did not like President Clinton near the end of his term, but 3 years later, his reputation rebounded and he was once again loved.

    So I do not believe that any one can really say how history will remember President Bush.
    Right on.

    Yes, I'm a Republican and yes, I think he's a stinker, but I don't think he'll be seen as the worst in history.

    There's competition for that title:
    William Henry Harrison, Andrew Johnson, Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan, Jimmy Carter.
    fredg's Avatar
    fredg Posts: 4,928, Reputation: 674
    Ultra Member
     
    #13

    Apr 25, 2006, 06:45 AM
    Hi,
    Well, well, well; will times change or what. I agree with the previous answers; couldn't have said it better myself! Referring to ScottGem's answers.
    Clinton was a joke, and Bush is NOT in touch with reality. He might have been right after getting elected, but not now.
    His speeches are more and more "political", not really following up on most anything he says nowadays.
    The economy is Great? Come now; many, many Americans are working two jobs, married persons both working full-time, just to make ends meet. Families are being torn apart while the kids are in daycare, so Mom and Dad can work.
    40 Million Americans have no Health Insurance, and the Fed. Gov't says the new Medicare Programs are working and site statistics, on their side, by including these unfornuate 40 Million! To make it look good! Lies or what.
    Education is being cut back more and more. Homeless shelters have had monies cut back. Senior citizens (over 55) are now becoming a viable voting force, and watch out Administration and some in Congress; you won't be around anymore in the Fall.
    Pres. Jimmie Carter has done more for this country in the last few years by building homes and helping others that most do in their lifetime. Whether he was ineffective as Pres.; don't really know.
    Meantime, Congress will have hearings on the Gas "price gouging"; and we all know (or at least those who pay attention) that this is just a "public show" to constituents back home. The Administration and those in Congress are not about to do anything to Exxon-Mobile Corp. as they will lose their BIG money support! It's time for changes!
    Bush has promised changes for America's Oil independence, or other methods of Energy; and we all know where that policy is... nothing to show for it!
    Even the Ethynol (10% Ethynol-90% gas) mixture has run out at stations selling it; and the 85% Ethynol-15% gas mixture cannot be used in today's cars or trucks without modification to compression ratios in engines. Has this been done? Of course not... Bush isn't interested in "rattling" the chains of Auto makers.
    Hopefully, Americans will wake up after gas hits $8.00 a gallon, and really start looking at this Administration. We only use 25% of the World's oil, and have really no say in OPEC price increases. But, we do have a say in what kind of energy our own country uses. Bush has done nothing about it. Only a crisis makes more political talk from Bush, and some in Congress.
    My guess is that Bush will go down in History, as in the previous answer, as one of the worst Presidents this country ever had.
    talaniman's Avatar
    talaniman Posts: 54,250, Reputation: 10853
    Expert
     
    #14

    Apr 25, 2006, 11:29 AM
    He may be a lousy president but all his rich friends got richer. Me and my friends got poorer.:cool: :mad:
    Debra's Avatar
    Debra Posts: 14, Reputation: 8
    New Member
     
    #15

    Apr 25, 2006, 12:56 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck
    Let me see, our economy has been great, interest rates have been held down.

    The war would have happened no matter who was in office at the time.

    And what about Carter, come one

    Of course Bush has been far to liberal for most in his party, signing almost every spending bill sent to him ( actually I think he signed all of them)

    And honestly no president has ever did much, it is actually congress who either passes or not passes the laws and budgets.

    And I don't see really much choice to Iraq right now, what can we do, pull out and let Saddam regiem take back over or perhaps have iran invade and take it over ( they are already staged at the border)

    And now Iran, what should we do when they have several atomic bombs,

    The trouble is making the hard choices is not popular, but doing nothing is even a worst over all choice.

    Did you read the article? Check it out:

    .. . The heart of Bush's domestic policy has turned out to be nothing more than a series of massively regressive tax cuts -- a return, with a vengeance, to the discredited Reagan-era supply-side faith that Bush's father once ridiculed as "voodoo economics."

    Bush crowed in triumph in February 2004, "We cut taxes, which basically meant people had more money in their pocket." The claim is bogus for the majority of Americans, as are claims that tax cuts have led to impressive new private investment and job growth.

    While wiping out the solid Clinton-era federal surplus and raising federal deficits to staggering record levels, Bush's tax policies have necessitated hikes in federal fees, state and local taxes, and co-payment charges to needy veterans and families who rely on Medicaid, along with cuts in loan programs to small businesses and college students, and in a wide range of state services.

    The lion's share of benefits from the tax cuts has gone to the very richest Americans, while new business investment has increased at a historically sluggish rate since the peak of the last business cycle five years ago. Private-sector job growth since 2001 has been anemic compared to the Bush administration's original forecasts and is chiefly attributable not to the tax cuts but to increased federal spending, especially on defense.

    Real wages for middle-income Americans have been dropping since the end of 2003: Last year, on average, nominal wages grew by only 2.4 percent, a meager gain that was completely erased by an average inflation rate of 3.4 percent.

    The monster deficits, caused by increased federal spending combined with the reduction of revenue resulting from the tax cuts, have also placed Bush's administration in a historic class of its own with respect to government borrowing.

    According to the Treasury Department, the forty-two presidents who held office between 1789 and 2000 borrowed a combined total of $1.01 trillion from foreign governments and financial institutions. But between 2001 and 2005 alone, the Bush White House borrowed $1.05 trillion, more than all of the previous presidencies combined.

    Having inherited the largest federal surplus in American history in 2001, he has turned it into the largest deficit ever.. .
    Bush is lining the pockets of his friends with sky-rocketing profits while he has plunged this country into debt like none we have ever seen in our history. He's raping and pillaging our nation. He has dug a hole so deep that our children and grandchildren may never be able to climb out of it.
    Debra's Avatar
    Debra Posts: 14, Reputation: 8
    New Member
     
    #16

    Apr 25, 2006, 01:04 PM
    Comment on cajalat's post
    I agree. Bush, as the head of his embellished "Unitary Executive Branch," decides what is best for us. Sex--Bad; War--Good.
    ScottGem's Avatar
    ScottGem Posts: 64,966, Reputation: 6056
    Computer Expert and Renaissance Man
     
    #17

    Apr 25, 2006, 01:07 PM
    Very good rebuttal, Debra. You present the salient facts that are irrefutable. How anyone can say "the economy has been great", when faced with those facts is beyond me. Yet we have a significant portion of this country that has yet to wake up to these facts. Thankfully, that portion seems to be diminishing daily. Its just unfortunate that they did not see what many of saw before affording Bush lame duck status. One of the best deterrants to abuse by an elected official is their need to be re-elected. Bush, now has no such deterrent.
    Debra's Avatar
    Debra Posts: 14, Reputation: 8
    New Member
     
    #18

    Apr 25, 2006, 01:08 PM
    Comment on CaptainForest's post
    We can tell NOW. Although some future revisionist historian might treat Bush kindly, most of us watching now know better than to sing his laurels. He has no redeeming qualities.
    Debra's Avatar
    Debra Posts: 14, Reputation: 8
    New Member
     
    #19

    Apr 25, 2006, 01:13 PM
    Comment on kp2171's post
    Bush is packing the courts with religion-based neo-conservatives who despise liberty and embrace oppression.
    Debra's Avatar
    Debra Posts: 14, Reputation: 8
    New Member
     
    #20

    Apr 25, 2006, 01:17 PM
    Comment on ScottGem's post
    Bush is INDEED the most self interested president in history.

Not your question? Ask your question View similar questions

 

Question Tools Search this Question
Search this Question:

Advanced Search

Add your answer here.


Check out some similar questions!

Checking the history if the history has been deleted [ 3 Answers ]

I want to know all the sites my family has been visiting on the web. How do I check that if the history has been erased/deleted? Thanks in advance.

If you were president [ 9 Answers ]

If you were president what would you do to fix the Untied States problems.

My worst fear... [ 5 Answers ]

I haven't written in a while, simply because I have felt horrible... I thought I was pregnant months ago, but ended up it was just a scare once again... well my worst fear has happened and I have just found out that I have PCOS (Polycystic ovarian syndrome) so that means I am going to have a hard...

From congress to US President [ 3 Answers ]

Who was the last person to go from US congress to US President? Thanks in advance Fred :confused:

My worst nightmare come true [ 8 Answers ]

Last week my b/f of 7 years said that he wanted to call it quits. It came out of the blue. He then decided that he was not going to leave. That we were to live there together as roommates until he could move into another place. He also informed me that he was planning to bring dates have sex with...


View more questions Search