Worst President Ever

[J316]

Who do you think is the most horrible president thats listed?

[Stoner]

I voted Jimmy Carter. However Bubba is a close second. Afterall, you have to be a collasal fucktard to get impeached.

[Elrathin]

GWB by a landslide. He's divided and fucked this country so bad with his mistakes we may never recover from them.

[Red Dragon]

I'm trying to decide between Nixon and Bush, and it's so hard becuase their adminastrations are so simlar. :D

[lily]

No question......Bush. He'd make Nixon jealous.

[Buck Laser]

No question......Bush. He'd make Nixon jealous.

Lily, I think there's a major difference between Bush and Nixon: Bush is incompetent, but Nixon was highly competent. Nixon's competence to some degree is what got him in trouble, and the stonewalling mistakes led to his downfall. In Bush's case, stonewalling is just his natural response. But I suspect Nixon would admire the facility with which Bush lies--it just comes natural to him from a lifetime of making excuses to Poppy and Babs.

Can you say "dumb as a box of rocks?"

[lily]

Now Buck........You're not giving Bush enough credit. The only difference is Nixon got caught.......and we can't forget Nixon's trip to China....

[Buck Laser]

Now Buck........You're not giving Bush enough credit. The only difference is Nixon got caught.......and we can't forget Nixon's trip to China....

The fact that Nixon went to China is one of the main reasons I think he was a much better president that Shrub could ever be.

[lily]

My point exactly.:D

[AlonzoMourning23]

Ever since the documents were released showing that nixon tried to get china to attack india, and promised to support china if the soviets became involved, I have a hard time choosing anyone over nixon in the latter half of the 20th century.

[BIrdzeye]

Bush, for sure. IMO he earned the "honor" by getting us into this stupid war. Then there's his arrogance; it's his way or the highway; the public be damned.

[TheStripey1]

Bush... without a doubt, is the absolute worst president we have ever had... altho, Jimmy "I have no big money ties" Carter comes in a distant second...

[firefox]

IMHO, FDR really sucked, but I did learn today from one of my profs that the Nixon campaign people considered doing an incendiary bombing of the Brookings Institute because they suspected that they had a leaked copy of the "Pentagon Papers" (with no evidence of course). These later came out anyway, as we all know. Yay for whistle-blowers! On a related note, they need your protection (http://action.downsizedc.org/wyc.php?cid=65).

[Saigio]

Bush is the worst.

[firefox]

Why? He definitely sucks, but I wouldn't say he was the worst. As far as we know, he hasn't ordered any political hits on anyone, but you never know ;)

[Saigio]

Why? He definitely sucks, but I wouldn't say he was the worst. As far as we know, he hasn't ordered any political hits on anyone, but you never know ;)


Well, not the worst statisticlly. But when well over half the nation disagrees with your actions, and most the world is getting annoyed...

[Professor]

I felt bad voting since I am not fully informed on all the choices, just Clinton, Bush 2 and Nixon. But I still picked Bush 2.

[Pookie]

I think Bush, but history and the future will decide.
Purrs,

[speedracer]

I certainly don't think Bush II will get love from historians, but Nixon is the alpha and the omega. He and his band of merry men are heads and shoulders above (below?) the rest.

[NortheastCynic]

Nixon. He would have been the only President to every be removed from office in the history of the country. He and Clinton are the only two on that list to have committed documented crimes while in office. I'm certainly no fan of the current Administration and its utter disregard for the Constitution, but as of yet, it has not committed any high crimes or misdemeanors.

-NC

[underdawg]

Nixon. He would have been the only President to every be removed from office in the history of the country. He and Clinton are the only two on that list to have committed documented crimes while in office. I'm certainly no fan of the current Administration and its utter disregard for the Constitution, but as of yet, it has not committed any high crimes or misdemeanors.

-NC



So are you saying that you are a bad president only if you get caught? If you were talking about two thieves. If both steal from people equally however one happens to get caught and the other doesn't , does that make the one that didn't get caught less guilty than the other?

Nixon got caught just for Watergate, Clinton got caught for lying about sex. GW Bush has a hell of a lot more things to be accused of and possibly be tried on. The only reason that he got away with it so far is that congress or the press looked the other way for way too long, but now it is coming back to haunt him.

[NortheastCynic]

So, what you're saying is that I should ignore the fact that this President has not been proven to be guilty of a crime? I'm not going to put this President on the same level as criminals until he is PROVEN to be one.

-NC

[underdawg]

I am going to put him on the same level and below because he has proven that he is a crook to me. There are factual things that he has done that that should be criminal.

1. Valerie Plame was outed from the white house. Whether it was done through a sneaky legal way or not, the information leak came directly from the white house to the press. That should be an act of treason.

2. The United States was lead into a war and innocent people died. Whether it was technically legal or not it was certainly quite underhanded how they manipulated their way into a war in which our country was never attacked.

3. Bush directly violated the law by wiretapping people without going through the special courts. At first when asked he denied it, then it was revealed and he admitted to doing it. Telling lies sounds like an impeachable offense to me.

If these were ordinary Americans, then yes I would say lets not judge then until they are proven guilty, but when you have as much power as this president has, and has every means at his disposal to skirt the law, then I feel quite justified is calling him a crook and worse than Nixon or Clinton.

[Stoner]

I am going to put him on the same level and below because he has proven that he is a crook to me. There are factual things that he has done that that should be criminal.

1. Valerie Plame was outed from the white house. Whether it was done through a sneaky legal way or not, the information leak came directly from the white house to the press. That should be an act of treason.

2. The United States was lead into a war and innocent people died. Whether it was technically legal or not it was certainly quite underhanded how they manipulated their way into a war in which our country was never attacked.

3. Bush directly violated the law by wiretapping people without going through the special courts. At first when asked he denied it, then it was revealed and he admitted to doing it. Telling lies sounds like an impeachable offense to me.

If these were ordinary Americans, then yes I would say lets not judge then until they are proven guilty, but when you have as much power as this president has, and has every means at his disposal to skirt the law, then I feel quite justified is calling him a crook and worse than Nixon or Clinton.


Funny. All these outlandish conspiracy theories of law breaking yet Bush hasn't been convicted of anything.

Interesting.

Get back to me when a guilty verdict for Bush is announced. Until then all of your wild accusations belong in the 'Conspiracy Theory' section.

Dismissed.

[underdawg]

These are not theories that I pointed out. They have actually happened. Whether they technically have broken the law is up to whoever wishes to pursue it.

[Stoner]

Whether they technically have broken the law is up to whoever wishes to pursue it.


Like I said. Done nothing wrong. Can't say the same for Bubba.

[Elrathin]

Can't say the same for Bubba.


Or you. Hows that illegal weed you keep smoking?

[Stoner]

Hows that illegal weed you keep smoking?


It's insane, bro. Will put you in orbit. I think you should toke...take a little edge off. If anyone needs to hit the spliff it's you.

Now back on topic, son!

[Elrathin]

The topic being that President Bush is the worst president ever? Absolutely.

[underdawg]

I say let the investigations and the impeachment process begin. Lets see if he is found guilty or not.

[NortheastCynic]

And until then, I'll reserve my judgement with regards to this President being on the same level as two criminals.

-NC

[speedracer]

Get back to me when a guilty verdict for Bush is announced.

Without passing judgment on the Bush presidency, I'd like to point out that someone that breaks the law but is not charged with a crime is still a criminal.

[Jaaaman]

Without passing judgment on the Bush presidency, I'd like to point out that someone that breaks the law but is not charged with a crime is still a criminal.


All suspects are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law...


And Bush is not even a suspect at this time...

[Elrathin]

All suspects are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law...


That is LEGALLY in a court of law. However, if I steal a car, but never get caught, does that mean I haven't committed a crime?

The problem is too many people feel that it isn't a crime, unless you are caught. That is simply not true. Just because a court has not found someone guilty does not mean they are innocent of a crime.

[speedracer]

All suspects are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law...
And Bush is not even a suspect at this time...

This is has been probably the biggest disappointment for me. You're right. He's not guilty.. yet. I think a casual observer can point to some pretty questionable calls made by this administration. The legality of a sizable body of Bush's administrative decisions should have been vigorously pursued by an Attorney General ready to make the Constitutional threshold question the central theme of their time as AG. You just don't have the kind of legislative and executive upheaval of the last five years without some serious Constitutional questions arising. The Bush presidency has felt the need to press the envelope. This in and of itself is not incriminating or criminal.

But it should have been paired with a strong AG reviewing process. There has been none of that. We have had virtual lapdogs as AGs, and that more than anything else casts the biggest shadow. The legal weakness from the Bush presidency arises from its own machinations. They have only themselves to blame.

As said once, sunshine is the best disinfectant.

[Stoner]

Came across this and thought it was appropriate.

The Worst President?

Liberals claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war.
They complain about his prosecution of it. They point out that
Iraq didn't attack the U.S. and we shouldn't have went to war
with them.
One liberal recently claimed Bush was the worst president in
U.S. history.

Most of these claims come from liberals in the Democratic party.
Being an Independent I decided to take a look at history and see
if using that criteria who else could be called the "worst" president.

FDR ( a democrat) led us into World War II against Germany, Italy, and Japan.
Neither Germany or Italy ever attacked us: Japan did.
From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.
That's 1 Democratic President, 4 years and 450,000 American lives

Harry Truman (a democrat) finished that war and started one in Korea, North
Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average
of 18,333 per year.
That's 1 Democratic President, 3 years, and 55,000 American lives.

John F. Kennedy (a democrat) started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam
never attacked us.
Lyndon B. Johnson (a democrat) turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975,
58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year. Finally in the 1970's
Richard Nixon (a republican) pulled us out of Vietnam.
That's 2 Democratic Presidents, 1 Republican President, 13 years, and 58,000
American lives.

Bill Clinton went to war in Bosnia WITHOUT UN or French consent, Bosnia
never attacked us.
The Clinton administration was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter
three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple
occasions.

In the two years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has liberated
two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors
in Lybia, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured Sadaam
Hussein, who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.
We lost about 600 soldiers, an average of 200 a year. Bush did all this
abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at home.
That's 1 Republican President, 2 1/2 years, and about 600 American lives.

Then the Democrats complained about how long the war on terror is taking,
but...

It took less time to take Iraq than it TOOK JANET RENO TO TAKE THE
BRANCH DAVIDIAN C0MPOUND! THAT WAS A 51 DAY OPERATION!

We've been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for LESS TIME THAN
IT TOOK HILLARY CLINTON TO LOCATE THE ROSE LAW FIRM RECORDS IN HER OWN OFFICE!

It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy
the Medina Republican Guard than it took TED KENNEDY TO CALL THE POLICE AND GIVE
HIMSELF UP AFTER HE HAD AN ACCIDENT WHILE DRUNK AND SANK HIS OLDSMOBILE IN
THE CHAPPAQUIDIK RIVER KILLING THE YOUNG LADY WHO WAS HIS PASSENGER!

And Finally...
IT TOOK LESS TIME FOR THE U.S. MILITARY TO TAKE IRAQ THAN IT DID TO COUNT THE
VOTES IN FLORIDA IN 2000!!!!

But for some reason the Democrats didn't complain about how long any of that took! Hmmm.....

[micfranklin]

Lincoln wasn't really one of my favorite presidents, so he gets a vote as worst president.

[Red Dragon]

FDR ( a democrat) led us into World War II against Germany, Italy, and Japan.
Neither Germany or Italy ever attacked us: Japan did.
From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.
That's 1 Democratic President, 4 years and 450,000 American lives I would give this to you except for the fact that both Nazi germany and Facist Italy declared war on us december 11 1941, four days after the attack. I think if a country declares war on us then that's a good reason to go to war with them.


Harry Truman (a democrat) finished that war and started one in Korea, North
Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average
of 18,333 per year.
That's 1 Democratic President, 3 years, and 55,000 American lives.

The difference being between that and the Iraq war wat that it was justifeid by the U.N. It's the United Nations Security Council Resolution 82 also TrumanÂ*was under severe domestic pressure for being too soft on Communism by, among others, Republican Senator Joseph McCarthy. Especially outspoken were those who accused the Democrats of having lost China to the Communists.


John F. Kennedy (a democrat) started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam
never attacked us.
Lyndon B. Johnson (a democrat) turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975,
58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year. Finally in the 1970's
Richard Nixon (a republican) pulled us out of Vietnam.
That's 2 Democratic Presidents, 1 Republican President, 13 years, and 58,000 American lives.

Okay you have a point here I'll give that to you

Bill Clinton went to war in Bosnia WITHOUT UN or French consent, Bosnia
never attacked us.
The Clinton administration was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter
three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple
occasions. I'll give you that one also.


In the two years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has liberated
two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors
in Lybia, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured Sadaam
Hussein, who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.
We lost about 600 soldiers, an average of 200 a year. Bush did all this
abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at home.
That's 1 Republican President, 2 1/2 years, and about 600 American lives.

You're not putting the event after that two-year period though. Like at the start of 2007 reports of the Taliban's increasing presence in Afghanistan led the US to consider longer tours of duty and even an increase in troop numbers. According to a report filed by Robert Burns of Associated Press on January 16, 2007, "U.S. military officials cited new evidence that the Pakistani military, which has long-standing ties to the Taliban movement, has turned a blind eye to the incursions." Also, "The number of insurgent attacks is up 300 percent since September, 2006, when the Pakistani government put into effect a peace arrangement with tribal leaders in the north Waziristan area, along Afghanistan's eastern border, a U.S. military intelligence officer told reporters." Opium production has also steadily increased, accounting for one-third to two-thirds of the country's GDP. Hurray for America!

[Truth_and_Power]

I voted Jimmy Carter. However Bubba is a close second. Afterall, you have to be a collasal fucktard to get impeached.


That was an action undertaken by congress. You could say clinton didnt fend them off well enough, perhaps thats "fucktard", but Bush's mistakes have been deliberate in nature. Carter is an obvious 2nd to Bush, his mistakes were also deliberate.