Worst President Ever!

phattonez wrote:Someone want to prove that this wouldn't have happened if there was no war?

---

Honestly, I feel bad for Jimmy. I mean, the things he had going against him weren't really his fault. The economy tanked because of the oil crisis, and the oil crisis happened because of the Iranian revolution. As for the hostage situation, Jimmy was the one that really did all the work to get the hostages free - it was only bad timing that they weren't released until Reagan took office, letting him take all the credit while basically having done nothing.

Eh, it's just one of the hazards of the job, I guess.

rock_nog wrote:Current estimates hold that we've spent roughly $500 billion on a war that was supposed to cost between $20 billion and $100 billion. Now, you can't prove this wouldn't have happened, but I mean, basic economics will tell you that spending $500 billion that you don't have isn't good (except maybe in a time of recession, to invest in the economy).

And what's the national debt again? 😉

And you knew that the poll was going to go this way. People just don't have a sense of history. We have a guy that took us to a war that really hasn't affected us at all and will probably result in 7000 American deaths at the most. Then you have Woodrow Wilson who basically took us into WWI, which was responsible for 100,000 American deaths, steered this country pretty close to fascism, and for what? FDR interred pretty much all Japanese people in this country and historians see the main reason as petty racism. Andrew Jackson screwing with the Indians, John Adams almost leading us to a totalitarian state, Thomas Jefferson basically ignoring his job after realized that next year he wasn't going to be president, Abraham Lincoln suspending habeas corpus for his own citizens, etc. If you honestly thing that George W. Bush is the worst president that this country has ever had, then you really need to go look into a history book and look at all of the atrocities that other presidents have committed.

phattonez wrote: a war that really hasn't affected us at all

This is the most ignorant and short sided statement I've ever seen.

If by short sided, you mean shortsighted, then I agree.

Come on, Bel. I expected more from you.

Presidential historians have been doing rankings like this for years now, and they frequently put Harding and Buchanan at the bottom of the list, for scandals and failing to do anything while the south seceded, respectively.

On the other hand, W isn't on their lists yet as he is still in office. I have to think you only made this list because deep down you know W is terrible, and you wanted to make yourself feel better by trying to get others to tell you he isn't the worst ever. So why even bother? Why not just go watch some Fox News and let their soothing lies surround you. Whatever helps you sleep better at night, right?

Well let's see Bel, compare your life before the war and your life after the war. What's the only difference? Gas prices (easily responsible for inflation and everything else that is going on) is about all that you notice. The Iraq war has had a negligible affect on gas prices. You know what's really behind high gas prices? Peak Oil, maybe you should look that up. Actually, Bush wanted to fix the problem at least somewhat by drilling in Alaska, but you know what, Congress wouldn't let him.

Let's compare this war with other wars. Have you been deterred (WWII)? Have you been drafted (basically every war up to Vietnam)? Has your right to a trial been abused (Civil War)? Has your right to free speech been violated (WWI)? Have goods been rationed (WWII and others)?

Sounds like anyone who thinks that George W. Bush is the worst president ever is just spoiled by this era's American lifestyle.

You know, how do define "worst president ever," anyway? I mean, I just realized, it's easy for your least favorite president to influence your views. Just look at the votes - only one for Harding, despite the fact that it's basically commonly accepted that he's the worst ever. I myself voted for Andrew Jackson, but I realize that I may have let my personal hatred of that man get in the way of my judgment. Plus, I also kinda just wanted to make a statement - you know, because I don't know how many people realize what a horrible person he really was, what with the Trail of Tears and all that jazz. I mean, he's on the $20 bill, for Pete's sake. Even if he's not the worst, he certainly doesn't deserve to be on currency.

EDIT: Oh, and Phattonez, I've looked into the ANWR issue, and I don't think that drilling in Alaska would have done much to reduce oil prices.

rock_nog wrote:You know, how do define "worst president ever," anyway? I mean, I just realized, it's easy for your least favorite president to influence your views. Just look at the votes - only one for Harding, despite the fact that it's basically commonly accepted that he's the worst ever. I myself voted for Andrew Jackson, but I realize that I may have let my personal hatred of that man get in the way of my judgment. Plus, I also kinda just wanted to make a statement - you know, because I don't know how many people realize what a horrible person he really was, what with the Trail of Tears and all that jazz. I mean, he's on the $20 bill, for Pete's sake. Even if he's not the worst, he certainly doesn't deserve to be on currency.

If ever there was a president that deserved to be impeached, it was him. He basically told the supreme court to go fuck itself. Alas, for a president to be impeached he has to be unpopular, and Jackson was too popular at the time.

ctrl-alt-delete wrote:Come on, Bel. I expected more from you.

Typo. My most common typos are grammatical because I go too fast and if something "sounds" correct then I don't notice it.

Cloral wrote:
On the other hand, W isn't on their lists yet as he is still in office. I have to think you only made this list because deep down you know W is terrible, and you wanted to make yourself feel better by trying to get others to tell you he isn't the worst ever. So why even bother? Why not just go watch some Fox News and let their soothing lies surround you. Whatever helps you sleep better at night, right?

Wow, strawman climbs out of his hole again. He sees his shadow. Six more weeks of BS.

Okay. so to be clear here, yes, Dubbya is a bad president, but he's not the worst president in history. I'm sorry, but "not sucking as much as Harding" is a pretty lame goal in terms of presidential excellence. I mean, about the best I can say about Dubbya is that he implemented NCLB, and that was a complete disaster - I respect his determination to improve our school system, but damn, he sure picked a terrible way to go about it.

Starkist wrote:Wow, strawman climbs out of his hole again. He sees his shadow. Six more weeks of BS.

... Just out of curiosity, is it even possible for you to have any sort of political conversation without going on about your precious "strawman?"

I need to start keeping track of how often you use it.

The problem is that people have no sense of historical perspective. Most of the issues that people use to call President Bush a failed president are ones of ideological disagreement, not objective failures. Talk to most conservatives, and you find that President Reagan is one of the best presidents and President Clinton is one of the worst. Talk to many liberals, and the opposite is true.

Many years from now we will have the benefit of perspective. We will be removed from the passions of ideological disagreement and we will also be able to see how this administration's actions play out in the long term.

Patience and perspective are hard for the post-MTV generation, I know, but it is important, especially from a historical perspective.

DarkDragoonX wrote:... Just out of curiosity, is it even for you to have any sort of political conversation without going on about your precious "strawman?"

I need to start keeping track of how often you use it.

I try, but you all keep doing it. :shrug:

rock_nog wrote:Honestly, I feel bad for Jimmy. I mean, the things he had going against him weren't really his fault. The economy tanked because of the oil crisis, and the oil crisis happened because of the Iranian revolution. As for the hostage situation, Jimmy was the one that really did all the work to get the hostages free - it was only bad timing that they weren't released until Reagan took office, letting him take all the credit while basically having done nothing.

Eh, it's just one of the hazards of the job, I guess.

Cloral wrote:If ever there was a president that deserved to be impeached, it was him. He basically told the supreme court to go fuck itself. Alas, for a president to be impeached he has to be unpopular, and Jackson was too popular at the time.

Starkist wrote:
Many years from now we will have the benefit of perspective. We will be removed from the passions of ideological disagreement and we will also be able to see how this administration's actions play out in the long term.

The whole "In a hundred years Bush will be seen as a good president!" argument is so obnoxious. Bush's goal was to transform Iraq into a productive, capitalist democracy. Tres Noble.

However, to have a productive capitalist democracy you need to have productive capitalist people. Iraq does not have, for the most part, productive capitalist people. It has deeply religious tribal sects that can't do anything but argue and blame everyone for their own culture. George Bush's plan has, and will continue to, fail. In one hundred years, his plan will be viewed as a failure because it is already a failure.

Unless in 100 years people suddenly decide that igniting sectarian violence in volatile regions and trying to force feed your ideology (however superior that ideology is) down the throat of a culture that is too primitive to understand it is a great idea. Then GW will be seen as a real winner.

Aside from that, I don't know how anyone will ever have their head far enough up their ass to view this semi-literate, English as a third language beer drinking Jesus freak as a good president.

If I recall, from Social Studies, Hoover was pretty useless. He tried some things to prevent the Great Depression from happening, and failed miserably. But I really suck at making opinions on things, let alone opinions on presidents, so I can't really say.

Beldaran wrote:The whole "In a hundred years Bush will be seen as a good president!" argument is so obnoxious. Bush's goal was to transform Iraq into a productive, capitalist democracy. Tres Noble.

Bel actually thinks that Bush is the only president who ever thought this. :laughing:

Never mind the Korean War, Vietnam, South America, etc.

Beldaran wrote:The whole "In a hundred years Bush will be seen as a good president!" argument is so obnoxious. Bush's goal was to transform Iraq into a productive, capitalist democracy. Tres Noble.

However, to have a productive capitalist democracy you need to have productive capitalist people. Iraq does not have, for the most part, productive capitalist people. It has deeply religious tribal sects that can't do anything but argue and blame everyone for their own culture. George Bush's plan has, and will continue to, fail. In one hundred years, his plan will be viewed as a failure because it is already a failure.

Unless in 100 years people suddenly decide that igniting sectarian violence in volatile regions and trying to force feed your ideology (however superior that ideology is) down the throat of a culture that is too primitive to understand it is a great idea. Then GW will be seen as a real winner.

Aside from that, I don't know how anyone will ever have their head far enough up their ass to view this semi-literate, English as a third language beer drinking Jesus freak as a good president.

You know, this is why I keep bringing up the strawman fallacy. I never tried to argue to that Bush has been a good president. I am just pointing out that until we have the benefit of historical perspective, any judgment is ultimately premature.

Starkist, since people currently think he's a horrible president, the only possible change in the future would be for people to think he's a good president. Since you argue our opinion is not valid without historical perspective, I am refuting that by saying historical perspective will not change the facts.

There is no straw-man, except for George W. Bush, who clearly needs a brain.

I agree, I fail to see how history will change things. The consequences of his decisions may become more clear, but the important issue is whether those decisions he made were good or bad. I mean, to throw out an analogy - if you decide to run a red light, and you end up not hitting anyone and not getting caught, that doesn't change the fact that running the red light was a bad decision.

I also object to the notion that all objections to Bush are idealogical. In fact, I'm having difficulty coming up with a decision of his that I object to on idealogical grounds. I mean, take NCLB. Obviously, I support education - and in fact, I'm glad to see Bush supporting education. In fact, in a way, I'm kinda glad that he touts it as the greatest accomplishment of his administration. I definitely support education reform, and the implementation of standards. However, despite all that, I object to NCLB, because I just feel that it's completely ineffectual in terms of the implementation of standards. The concept is great - I just don't think that the actual bill itself accomplishes what it was set out to accomplish.