0
   

The Worst President in History?

 
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Nov, 2006 06:53 am
cjhsa wrote:
Maybe it was because Al Gore invented the Internet shortly after inspiring the novel "Love Story", along with the movie by the same name.


I see cj is still showing his ignorance by claiming Al Gore invented the internet. Typical conservative, once they latch on to something that makes them look ignorant they just can't let go.

Quote:

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Nov, 2006 06:55 am
blatham wrote:
They have been disappeared, apparently. Ain't seen hide nor hair of the two fellas since tuesday.

ainsi il va
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Nov, 2006 07:11 am
Quote:
One of the tenets of Scientology is that anyone who criticizes the religion is fair game for any and all kinds of retribution. You can file lawsuits against them, you can harass them, you can spread lies about them, and it's OK because the critic is fundamentally evil.

This is the same reason Republicans have no problem running push polls, or handing out leaflets with false accusations, or calling Dems and telling them that their polling place has been changed... all this dishonest, sleazy stuff is OK because it's in the service of a greater good.

I'm not saying Dems don't indulge in vote shenanigans from time to time, but it's never on the same level. And when the Democrats do win, the impetus isn't to work with them, it's to destroy them - that was how Bill Clinton was received.

For a good chunk of the GOP base, the Democrats are literally in league with the Devil, so any means of keeping them out of power is legitimate.

In fact, this attitude is only a matter of degrees away from the belief radical Muslims have that any wrong perpetrated against the "infidels" is justified.

This also ties into the so-called father of neo-conservatism, the philosopher Leo Strauss, who argued that the only way to stop liberalism from ruining society was for the elites (a.k.a his neocon followers) to exploit myths (religion) or create new myths (the Islamic Menace) that will unite the hoi polloi in an orgy of nationalistic fervor. Sounds like fascism? Yup. But an interesting feature of Straussism is that the elites don't care if the myths they are exploiting are actually true; that's irrelevant as long as they're effective. Which is why we get Karl Rove talking about the Christian "nut-jobs," and the Kerry-hates-the-troops nonsense from last week. All those Republicans parroting the talking point re Kerry knew it was bullshit but they didn't care because it was an effective myth.

Bill Maher is the host of HBO's "Real Time with Bill Maher" which airs every Friday at 11PM.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Nov, 2006 11:10 am
xingu, Your post describes the neocons very well; they latch onto a tale, then go with it full speed ahead. On it's surface, they have succeeded so often, it makes one wonder about the American populace that buys that crap. Maybe, just maybe, they're catching on to all that BS. Rove is the father of the last go-around. He should be hung from the lowest branch.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Nov, 2006 11:25 pm
dyslexia wrote:
Does all this mean Karl Rove is no longer president? What about Cheney?


Rove who? Cheney who?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Nov, 2006 11:27 pm
I also think GWBush replaced his puppeteers.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Nov, 2006 08:19 am
parados wrote:
Nah cj, the largest tax increase in US history was passed by the GOP.

It will bite you in your ass in 2010. You can thank them now.


Only if the dems block any attempt to make the tax cuts permanent,like they have so far.

Of course,if the dems control the congress and the WH then,it will be seen,rightfully so,as a dem tax increase.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Nov, 2006 09:02 am
mysteryman wrote:
parados wrote:
Nah cj, the largest tax increase in US history was passed by the GOP.

It will bite you in your ass in 2010. You can thank them now.


Only if the dems block any attempt to make the tax cuts permanent,like they have so far.

Of course,if the dems control the congress and the WH then,it will be seen,rightfully so,as a dem tax increase.


Lower taxes and drive us into the ground with debt. Start an unnecessary war and middle America pays. Some tax cut. It's obvious that this administration doesn't care about anyone but the very rich (that would be themselves). They throw a few tiny crumbs in the form of a tax rebate to the middle class and they gobble up the entire cake themselves. Nothing for the poor. Some fools actually fall for this vote grabbing gimmick. I'm hoping the electorate has gained some wisdom over the past few years.

I went to see Marie Antoinette last week end.......made me think of poor dimwitted W.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Nov, 2006 09:21 am
mysteryman wrote:
parados wrote:
Nah cj, the largest tax increase in US history was passed by the GOP.

It will bite you in your ass in 2010. You can thank them now.


Only if the dems block any attempt to make the tax cuts permanent,like they have so far.

Of course,if the dems control the congress and the WH then,it will be seen,rightfully so,as a dem tax increase.

ROFLMAO..
So, its the Dems fault if they don't repeal the GOP law? What lunacy is that MM? The GOP passed the largest tax increase in US history. The fact that the Dems haven't repealed that tax increase by changing the law after the fact doesn't protect the GOP from their act.

For that matter, we could argue that the Dems have never passed a law that you disliked. It is only the GOP fault for not repealing the laws. Gee, your logic suddenly sounds stupid, doesn't it MM?
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Dec, 2006 09:32 pm
This had to happen and it should and will happen. We're not talking about a bad president. We're talking incompetence on a scale that couldn't possibly ever be matched again. The bar has been set so abysmally low.

Quote:


'Wash Post' Sunday Debate: Is Bush Worst President Ever?

By E&P Staff

Published: December 02, 2006 3:30 PM ET updated Sunday

NEW YORK Five op-eds in Sunday's Washington Post may set off an intriguing debate, pro and con. On the front page of the Post's Outlook section, famed Columbia University historian Eric Foner proposes George W. Bush as the worst president in our history -- and author Douglas Brinkley disagrees, but very slightly: He thinks Bush only ranks as poorly as Herbert Hoover.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003467728

0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Dec, 2006 10:49 pm
JTT, A paragraph from your link that speaks volumes.

Foner closes: "Historians are loath to predict the future. It is impossible to say with certainty how Bush will be ranked in, say, 2050. But somehow, in his first six years in office he has managed to combine the lapses of leadership, misguided policies and abuse of power of his failed predecessors. I think there is no alternative but to rank him as the worst president in U.S. history."
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Dec, 2006 11:04 pm
Posted on Thu, Dec. 14, 2006email thisprint this
Survey ranks Bush lowest among last six presidents
By Kenneth R. Bazinet

New York Daily News

(MCT)

WASHINGTON - Americans think President Bush will go down in history as the country's worst leader of his era, according to a Gallup poll released Wednesday.

Former President Ronald Reagan tops the field of the last six Presidents, with 64 percent of Americans believing that he'll have an outstanding or above-average place in history.

But Bush rates the worst, with 54 percent saying history will paint him as a poor or below-average President, according to the survey.

Bush last week told pals he expects to be better understood and appreciated after he is dead.

"It is comforting to people, who at the moment are not being viewed in a positive light, to be hopeful that later on they will be seen more positively," Gallup Poll editor-in-chief Frank Newport told the New York Daily News.

The President's dad, former President George H.W. Bush, will have a much better place in history, Americans believe. Just 18 percent believe Bush Sr. will be rated poorly while 32 percent say he'll be in the elite class.

Presidential standing usually improves with time. Former President Bill Clinton rebounded from a 1998 impeachment over his sexual relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. Only 25 percent of Americans think Clinton will be viewed as a lousy leader, while 45 percent believe he'll be rated outstanding.

Jimmy Carter has also seen his ratings climb since the Iran hostage crisis, with 38 percent now seeing him as an above average commander-in-chief. Most of those surveyed, 60 percent, said Gerald Ford was average.

---

© 2006, New York Daily News.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Dec, 2006 03:05 pm
http://int1.fp.sandpiper.net/reuters/editorial/yearinreview/yearInReview_midArticle.jpg
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Dec, 2006 08:05 am
'W' trashed his dad's
Iraq wisdom - and
America paid dearly





BY CURT SMITH

For someone born in New York, my life dovetails with Texas. My future father-in-law was George H.W. Bush's first campaign manager. Later, in a strange cycle of irony, I became speechwriter to the 41st President. I met the current President Bush (the 43rd President) in 1989.
My first Lone Star tie was writing for ex-Texas Governor-turned-1980-presidential-candidate John Connally. Big John loved risk: "I might win big or lose big," he said, "but what's the sense of losing small?"

Part of me loved Connally as riverboat gambler. Part winced. Risk-taking is seductive: the shiny ornament on a tree. It can be foolhardy, too: reaching, you may knock the tree down. Enter George W. Bush's defining risk, now careening toward calamity.

In 2003, when Bush invaded Iraq, I recalled Omar Bradley's reluctance to expand Korea: "The wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time and with the wrong enemy." I didn't know that Iraq was - only that doubts were not addressed.

Prewar, I had phoned ex-White House colleagues still in Washington. Once balanced, they seemed messianic: As Brent Scowcroft said of Vice President Cheney, I no longer knew them. Old friends assured me that we would be viewed as liberators, oil would pay the freight and regional democracy would thrive. They are lucky you can't be more than 100% wrong.

Don Rumsfeld himself said, "I don't do quagmires." True. W has done a catastrophe.

The bipartisan Iraq Study Group now terms the war "grave and deteriorating." Perhaps someone should tell "If we had it to do over again, we'd do exactly the same thing" Cheney that insanity is defined as doing the same thing and expecting something different. Iraq has become the war we can't leave, can't stay in, can't win.

Not content with leading Bush to slaughter, The Weekly Standard, Wall Street Journal and others now want to increase troops, shun discourse with Syria, even bomb Iran. Being a pragmatic people, we will, I suspect, decline.

Speakers at the 1988 Democratic National Convention mocked, "Where was George?" My query concerns 2003-06: "Where was Dad?" Recently, Newsweek called my ex-boss "a deeply seasoned and wise foreign policy expert." Under him, the Berlin Wall collapsed, the Soviet Union dissolved and Panama, Eastern Europe and Kuwait were freed.

In 1991, Bush the Elder declared war against the same country that 43 would attack later. Who better to counsel Bush the Lesser now? Daddy refused to occupy Iraq. Sonny might have asked why.

In 1990-91, I helped draft many of Bush 41's Persian Gulf War speeches, vowing, "This aggression will not stand." I often arrived at the White House to find pages of presidential-typed text. Bush knew what he wanted to do - and did so, brilliantly. No one had to nurse a Father who Did Know Best.

Grasping history, Churchill said, means knowing biography. George H.W. Bush was astute and nuanced. By contrast, W's gamble has eviscerated his presidency. Bush the Elder often twitted the word "prudent." At one time, prudence might have saved Bush the Lesser. It is unlikely to save him now.

Some risks are so bad they become immune even to Texas-sized providence. How heedless, needless and, above all, sad.

Smith wrote more speeches than anyone for former President George H.W. Bush. The author of 12 books, he teaches presidential rhetoric and public speaking at the University of Rochester.



Originally published on December 17, 2006
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Dec, 2006 11:12 am
'Don't worry, it's not as bad as it looks,' Bush reportedly told friend

RAW STORY
Published: Sunday December 17, 2006

"Don't worry, it's not as bad as it looks," President Bush reportedly told a friend depressed by the ongoing "unpopular" war and GOP woes, according to an article in Sunday's Washington Post.

"For a man who presides over an unpopular war, just lost Congress and faces a final two years with constrained options, Bush gives little sign of self-pity," Peter Baker writes.

The analysis, entitled "Stubborn or Stalwart, Bush Is Loath to Budge," examines the following questions: "At what point does determination to a cause become self-defeating folly? Can he change direction in a meaningful way without sacrificing principle?"

Excerpts from article:

#
At holiday parties for friends and family in recent days, he has found himself bucking up others depressed by the turn in his political fortunes. "Don't worry, it's not as bad as it looks," he told one friend visiting the White House. "There's a lot we can get done."

The friend, who shared the private moments on the condition of anonymity, was struck by how upbeat Bush seemed. "But he's not a fool," the friend added. "He knows how bad all this is, trust me. There is some resignation that this is where he finds himself. I know he's got a lot of second thoughts about how he got there. Anybody would."

#
FULL WASHINGTON POST ARTICLE CAN BE READ AT THIS LINK
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Dont_worry_its_not_as_bad_1217.html
0 Replies
 
Zippo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Dec, 2006 11:37 am
http://www.pridurki.org/1text/Bushism/bush_not.jpg
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Sun 17 Dec, 2006 12:03 pm
blueflame, Bush hasn't lived in "reality" for several years. He still thinks he's good at something while the world crumbles around him. Only an idiot misunderstands all the negative evidence surrounding him.

He thinks he's smart, because he graduated from yale and harvard. He's actually the village idiot promoted by his daddy's money and influence. He's now a dangerous idiot.
Miller
 
  3  
Reply Sat 27 Sep, 2008 11:13 am
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

blueflame, Bush hasn't lived in "reality" for several years. He still thinks he's good at something while the world crumbles around him. Only an idiot misunderstands all the negative evidence surrounding him.

He thinks he's smart, because he graduated from yale and harvard. He's actually the village idiot promoted by his daddy's money and influence. He's now a dangerous idiot.


Why would Yale and Harvard graduate "dangerous idiots"?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Sep, 2008 11:16 am
@Miller,
No university in this world can predict how their "graduates" will help or destroy this earth. Do you?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Sep, 2008 11:17 am
@cicerone imposter,
Here's another Bush issue that is now being addressed;

Quote:
Prosecutor named to probe U.S. attorneys' firings
Posted 1h 30m ago | Comments7 | Recommend2 E-mail | Save | Print | Subscribe to stories like this

Nora Dannehy
By Bob Child, AP


WASHINGTON (AP) " Attorney General Michael Mukasey appointed a prosecutor Monday to pursue possible criminal charges against Republicans who were involved in the controversial firings of U.S. attorneys.

His move follows the leading recommendation of a Justice Department investigation that harshly criticized Bush administration officials, members of Congress and their aides for the ousters, which were seen by many as politically motivated.

Results of the investigation were made public Monday. The report singled out the removal of U.S. Attorney David Iglesias of New Mexico " among 9 prosecutors who were fired " as the most troubling.

Republican political figures in New Mexico, including Sen. Pete Domenici and Rep. Heather Wilson, had complained about Iglesias' handling of voter fraud and public corruption cases, and that led to his firing, the report said.

Justice Department Inspector General Glenn Fine and Office of Professional Responsibility director Marshall Jarrett said that a prosecutor was needed because "serious allegations involving potential criminal conduct have not been fully investigated or resolved."
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY, EVERYONE! - Discussion by OmSigDAVID
WIND AND WATER - Discussion by Setanta
Who ordered the construction of the Berlin Wall? - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
True version of Vlad Dracula, 15'th century - Discussion by gungasnake
ONE SMALL STEP . . . - Discussion by Setanta
History of Gun Control - Discussion by gungasnake
Where did our notion of a 'scholar' come from? - Discussion by TuringEquivalent
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 07/26/2021 at 10:35:43