Bush Worst President in US History? » Forum Post by Capt775

You make him sound so good! There are other things that he's done, I don't like much, but as to Iraq, it is a common presidential decision.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Capt., if you don't mind, I'd like to borrow what you posted. I'd like to use it to see how many Democrats bring any of this up.

Thanks!

Successfully updated karma reason!

1. If the idea of waging war against Nazi Germany leaves a bad taste in your mouth (and I think you're alone on that one), then think of it as Roosevelt "liberating France." (Remember: if you call it "liberating a country," you can do whatever you want!) Germany and Italy declared war on us as soon as we declared war on their ally, Japan. If you think the war in Europe was somehow not necessary or otherwise avoidable, you're an idiot.

2. Nobody today likes the Vietnam War.

3. Bush went to war in Iraq in 2003. Iraq never attacked us. Phony intelligence was used to justify the war. No weapons of mass destruction have been found. And how many servicemen and women have died since Bush lied to us and said that the fighting was over?

4. No one can dispute that the US and the Administration did not start the war on terror--that was begun by al-Qaeda on September 11--but the Administration admitted that Iraq and Saddam had no connection to the events of that day. Osama bin Laden remains at large.

5. Our relations with the entire world (except for the perpetually in-our-pocket United Kingdom) have been severely strained completely unnecessarily. We have all but strangled the purpose of the United Nations.

6. Hello? Massive unemployment? Not *everything* is about terrorism, y'know.

7. Bush's domestic strength relies on keeping the people in a constant state of fear and anxiety. His adorable color-code system for how afraid we should be is utterly pointless as far as the civilian public is concerned. Republican mayor of New York City Michael Bloomberg has stated outright that the public should disregard the DHS color alerts as they are for emergency and security forces only.

I wouldn't be so bold as to call Bush the worst President in US history yet (I haven't read enough about James Buchanan, Ulysses Grant, and Warren Harding), but it's not an outlandish claim. I don't see ordering the most powerful and technically advanced military in the history of humanity to beat the hell out of Third World nations as a demonstration of tremendous leadership. I am not impressed by the capacity of the US Armed Forces to conquer lands with no electricity and no running water.

[insert Democrat here] in 2004.

Successfully updated karma reason!

any president will be hard pressed to beat harding or grant for the title worst president. the email auhor could have made a good point if he didn't tack on so many dumbass examples:

"Germany never attacked us":
all they did was issue a declaration of war against us after pearl harbor. and that whole reuben james deal was way overblown.

btw, when something is called a "world" war, expect slightly higher casualties than something called a "gulf" war.

"North Korea never attacked us.":
did you notice the word "china" or "chinese" was nowhere near the statement that showed the number of casualties? if you don't understand what that has to do with the korean war, look up "korean war" in google.com.

"Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.":
weeeeeee, watch me spin like a ballerina:
and of course if you protested against it, (even if you won medals as a soldier in it) you were unpatriotic.

"We lost 600 soldiers, an average of 300 a year.":
and that has something to do with the past couple decades of new military training, equipment, doctrine, advances in battlefield first aid, and not that much with bush. not to mention the lack of human wave attacks conducted by an unrelentless enemy. you think the gis who watched their bazooka rounds bounce off north korean t-34s/german tiger tanks had the same advantages as the present day guys wearing night vision goggles, kelvar, with specialized training and having all weather air cover by planes with laser guided bombs? apples, meet oranges...oranges, apples. notice as how us technology advanced, the lower the casualties were?

btw, where are the number of dead and wounded in the bosnian war example?

Successfully updated karma reason!

Bush is definitely not the best President to serve, but to call him one of the worst is ludicrous. Maybe it's me, but destroying a threat to the U.S. does not make me hate the man. I also think that the economy fluctuates and goes through both good times and bad. I guess we could blame Bush for not stopping what the economy has done for years. Still, if serving during a bad economy makes him one of the worst Presidents, then I'd hate to be one of those other Presidents who've served during a recession.
I also don't think that Bush is a bad President for hurting ties with countries such as France and Germany who had interests in preserving Hussein's dictatorship and therefore disapproved of the war.
Also, does anybody who feels that Bush is one of the worst Presidents think he's worse than Andrew Jackson? I'm just curious.

Successfully updated karma reason!

it sounds like you need a history lesson or 2.....!do you even know why world war 2 started, you don't.if you are going to contraindict somebody you should know the facts.......why is the american economy going down and down.....becouse people like bush, and the rich are selfish , and could care less about you and me, so it 's all about the dollar, which i may add is going to be devalued in the near future, unless, we stop screwing up .under the democrats the usa is better off. oust george w. bush... www.citizen.org/

Successfully updated karma reason!

1 US Dollar = 0.784252 EUR

1 US Dollar = 0.531067 GBP (British Pound)

Successfully updated karma reason!

I did not live under the rule of those other men. "History is history, man".

Heck why go back to FDR - was Garfield a bad president? Rutheford B Hayes? I don't know, I'm not a presidential historian.

He is the worst president in recent memory - yes, undeniably. He is a pretender to the throne and an embarrasment.

I was chatting with my mother last night - extremely apolitical and she says "I'm considering changing parties." Why I ask? She responds "You have to send a message, enough is enough."

If that is not a slice of the typical American voter I don't know what is.

There you go.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Draginol

Join Date 03/2001

+137

The first large scale scale invasion of American troops in World War II was in French North Africa. The French had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor. So by some people's logic, it must have been "wrong".

After 9/11, Iraq became a necessary target in the war on Terror.

I always find it amusing when someone claims that Bush was the worst President or even a bad President. Look at what Poet says above. "Yes, undeniably." And why? No reason given. It's "undeniable". This is one reason I have so little respect for the opinions of the left. The arrogance. How could anyone, for instance, say that GW Bush was worse than say Jimmy Carter? Or how about LBJ? Carter's policies helped create a serious recession. His cuts to the military made the US unable to carry out even basic operations. His terrible foreign policy decisions made the world more dangerous.

That doesn't mean I think GW Bush is a great President. He's not. He, like Clinton, will likely go down as a middle of the road President.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Draginol

Join Date 03/2001

+137

it sounds like you need a history lesson or 2.....!do you even know why world war 2 started, you don't.if you are going to contraindict somebody you should know the facts.......why is the american economy going down and down.....becouse people like bush, and the rich are selfish , and could care less about you and me, so it 's all about the dollar, which i may add is going to be devalued in the near future, unless, we stop screwing up .under the democrats the usa is better off. oust george w. bush... www.citizen.org/

The recession began 1Q2001. In other words, Bush inherited it.

The economy is on its way up btw. Not down. As for the rich being "selfish", the rich already pay the vast majority of the taxes -- 5% of the population pays 54% of the taxes. And get virtually no concrete benefit from it. So who's really being selfish? It's the rich that create jobs in the first place.

The dollar being devalued is a GOOD thing. Not a bad thing. It makes US goods cheaper overseas helping create more jobs in the United States.

As for World War II, if one were to dramaticize the play by play actions of World War II like we've done the war on terror it would look even crazier. Japan bombs us and Germany declares war on us. So what was the justification fall of 1942 for the first large scale invasion of France's territory in Africa in operation Torch? Vichy France, like it 4or not, was a sovereign nation -- recognized by the international community.

BTW, the allies also attacked Iran and Iraq during World War II as part of their operations to support the USSR against Germany. People who spaz out about the US taking out Saddam have no historical perspective. The US, like it or not, is at war. A world war on terror.

Successfully updated karma reason!

put
> > nuclear inspectors in Lybia, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot,

There are Nuclear inspectors in those countries? Since when? North Korea is allowing this? God, I can't believe I wasn't paying attention.

The recession began 1Q2001. In other words, Bush inherited it.

Brad, I know you and I have fought over this before, but an economic downturn does not a recession make. Bush did take the largest surpluses in US history and turn them into the largest deficits.

As for the rich being "selfish", the rich already pay the vast majority of the taxes -- 5% of the population pays 54% of the taxes. And get virtually no concrete benefit from it.

5% of the US population also make far more than 54% of the income. I used to practice law, I did it in a major firm in New York, I probably made more in a year than your, and I honestly say this without any irony, incredibly nice company has made in profits, and definitely more than your salary, what my point is, however, we who make the most, have the largest burden to our fellow man. We pay taxes that go to things that benefit us, and we pay taxes to things that don't. I agree, we shouldn't be given crap about being greedy, etc. But we should be willing to pay that for the things the government needs. As a college professor, I now make far less than I used to, I pay far less than I used, but I was then and I am now a democrat, a liberal, and willing to pay more in taxes than I do.

Cheers

Successfully updated karma reason!

Draginol

Join Date 03/2001

+137

Jeb -1Q2001 was a recession. There is no way around that. It is a fact. A recession has a specific definition - 2 consecutive quarters of negative economic growth. 4Q2000 (Clinton) and 1Q2001 were those two quarters.

3Q2001 included 9/11 which dramatically disrupted the US economy.

Bush's deficits, and as far as I'm concerned, they are his deficits (I'm not a Bush cheerleader) is partially a seperate issue.

Jeb - nothing you wrote there contradicts anything I said. Where is the evidence that the rich are the greedy ones? I'd say greed is pretty well distributed amongst the classes. I favor the current tax structure. But I haven't seen a good argument for why we shoudl pay more taxes. I certainly don't see how more taxes help the economy.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Jeb - nothing you wrote there contradicts anything I said. Where is the evidence that the rich are the greedy ones? I'd say greed is pretty well distributed amongst the classes. I favor the current tax structure. But I haven't seen a good argument for why we shoudl pay more taxes. I certainly don't see how more taxes help the economy.

I'm not actually saying the rich are greedy. I am saying that the Government does things which benefit the economy in different ways. For instance research and work done and funded by NASA has inspired many of the gadgets and gizmos in the telecommunications field. I don't speak for all rich people, and though I now make a professor's salary, I became a rich person before I left the practice of law, but most of my money is tied up in investments. Things that help the economy, sure, but since I don't usually fiddle with them, they benefit me a whole bunch more than they benefit the company. The rich make more, so the rich pay more. As to why that's the case, i's because one of the responsibilities of government is to take care of it's citizens, including those who can't take care of themselves. Should health and welfare benefits be extended to people who abuse the system? Probably not, but how do you know when someone is abusing the system? I believe the current system doesn't work, I would like to see it changed dramatically, not eliminated completely.

Which brings me to my favorite thing that Ahnold said, and I paraphrase, he enjoys paying lots of taxes because it means he's doing well. I vote to table the discussion on the recession, since you believe it was a recession, and I think, under Clinton's presidency was just a downturn. Personally, though you are right it was two quarters of negative growth, I believe it was simply a correction due to the unreasoned enthusiasm in the late 90s. I think it actually became a recession under Bush. As I said, I won't convince you, and you probably won't convince me, after all, you have training in Business, and I had training in Economics. Therefore I recognize both of us as expert witnesses. This is actually a fight that is being fought amongst real Economists, so I think we're both in good company.

Finally, how taxes help the economy. Aside from the above mentioned NASA example, taxes pay for schools, schools allow people to take new, high tech jobs, such as yours Brad, creating programs, running successful IT companies, designing newer and faster computers, etc. So, schools, funded by taxes, improve the workforce, therefore improving the economy. Roads, paid for by taxes, allow goods to travel across our great country allowing cities to have the things necessary for their survival, food, clothing, computers, and computer games. Welfare-to-work programs, paid for by taxes, provide people with job training to move from a labor intensive job, which doesn't pay well, to a new, better paying job. Medicare, paid for by taxes, keeps the lower class people, who work in factories, and cleaning toilets, etc., healthy, and therefore employable. Social Security, paid for by taxes, makes sure that the elderly have enough money in order to buy products. I could continue, but I think that's enough.

Cheers

Successfully updated karma reason!

Nope. Bush - the worst. Stupid lame frat-boy hick pretender never did a thing right without a handout. War on Terra. TERRA!

Oy. We'll make it right this winter.

TERRA!!

Successfully updated karma reason!

(In my opinion)

Really must I preface everything I say with that !?!?

Successfully updated karma reason!

Cripes I really should wait before hitting Post. Sheesh - whatta dork

Interesting chart on Bush approval rating:

http://www.pollkatz.homestead.com/files/image001.gif

What do you make of it ? I mean - it seems pretty clear to me that there is a constant trend down, with occasional short-lived jumps around certain events. Does anyone out there think this trend will change when the election heats up?

Successfully updated karma reason!

Draginol

Join Date 03/2001

+137

Jeb - I don't necessarily disagree with you on your statements. My point was that our economic situation, good or bad, isn't due to "greedy rich people".

I have never advocated eliminating taxes.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Draginol

Join Date 03/2001

+137

BTW, regarding the economic slow down, we are all paying for the Internet stock bubble. How many trillions (with a T) were lost when the bubble burst? Everyone I know lost money, some lost their life savings. That, in turn, dried up capital which in turn caused the slow down.

Blaming Bush or Clinton is silly IMO.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Blaming Bush or Clinton is silly IMO.

Again, my only blaming of Bush is of turning surpluses into deficits.

Cheers

Successfully updated karma reason!

Feel the love

Successfully updated karma reason!

Draginol

Join Date 03/2001

+137

Can't blame Bush for the deficits. They would have happened regardless. Just not to the extent we have. The surpluses were based on the economy growing at a specific rate going into the future. A difference of say 5% over 3 years in that growth on a multi-trillion dollar economy will turn a surplus into a deficit in a hurry.

Successfully updated karma reason!

But bush's tax cuts caused the HUGE deficits that exist now, yes?

Cheers

Successfully updated karma reason!

> > Truman 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.
> >
> > John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never
> > attacked us.
> > Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives
> > were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.

Actualy, North Korea DID attack us, and so did China.

JFK didn't start the Vietnam conflict either, it was actually in the it's early stages in the early 1950s. The French, our allies, called for our aid and we gave it. It was foolish to give it, but let's give the credit where it's due.

Cheers

Oh, and I once again point out Brad, that we're never going to settle this between us, we're just going to hurl cause and effect scenarios back and forth until we grow old.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Draginol

Join Date 03/2001

+137

But bush's tax cuts caused the HUGE deficits that exist now, yes?

No. The tax cuts are only a relatively small part of the deficit. You do know that most of the tax cuts haven't even come into effect yet? I'm really surprised you've bought into the left wing propaganda.

The deficit is about 1/8 tax cuts, 3/8 spending increases and 4/8 the economic down turn. Have you ever wondered what caused the surpluses in the first place? It was largely due to capital gains taxes flowing in thanks to the dot-com bubble. When that burst, so did all those capital gains taxes.

What I find frustrating is that right-wingers blame it on Clinton, left-wingers blame it on Bush. But this stuff is publicly available. You don't have to be an accountant to see the cause of the debt. I guess it's easier to listen to left-wing or right-wing pundits and just parrot what they say based on which side you choose to believe.

The reason I'm unhappy with Bush is that he has allowed spending to go through the roof. Across the board.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Draginol

Join Date 03/2001

+137

Oh, and I once again point out Brad, that we're never going to settle this between us, we're just going to hurl cause and effect scenarios back and forth until we grow old.

Why are you directing that at me? I'm not involved in your North Korea attack discussion. That's between you and Capt775.

Successfully updated karma reason!