The Worst President in History?

DrewDad, Bravo!

0 Replies

Asherman wrote:

So you don't like my style. I think I can live with that.

I have no problem with the style of your writing.

0 Replies

DrewDad wrote:

Disagree with? Nothing. This comment:

Asherman wrote:
Whats remarkable, well a little bit, is that this thread has endured so long with so little substance.

annoyed me because of the whole "Asherman dances up and insults the thread participants" tone.

Are you similarly annoyed with Setanta who does that on a regular -- if not daily -- basis?

0 Replies

How is it insulting to note that 53 pages can exist with so little substance, and that most of the participants are aware that the whole thing is chasing a will-o-the-wisp?

Initially, you suggested that there was nothing of substance in my post, but later admitted you just didn't like the tone of my remarks. All right, perhaps I should take a "lighter" approach to expressing myself. I do try to seriously address things, and have no problem with admitting my errors or changing my opinions when they become outdated. So, convince me either that I am wrong in my views, or that you are right in your own. Do you also work hard to maintain an open mind? I hope so.

0 Replies

<sigh>

I said you added nothing new.

In a long-winded manner.

Deal with it.

(And when Set annoys me similarly, he will get the same response.)

0 Replies

DrewDad wrote:

(And when Set annoys me similarly, he will get the same response.)

<heh>

I suspect he will never annoy you similarly.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

DrewDad wrote:
(And when Set annoys me similarly, he will get the same response.)

<heh>

I suspect he will never annoy you similarly.

He's annoyed me variously, and been told so....

0 Replies

I agree with McGentrix. One post of Asherman's reveals more substance and fact than any ten polls of Drew Dad.

Asherman's comment concerning "53 pages with so little substance" is right on the money, but the left wingers continue to strike out blindly and throw mud in the hopes that some of it will stick.

One could almost hear the sign of disappointment when it was revealed that there would be no indictment of Karl Rove.

In the meantime, another of the Democratic balloons were punctured-

Editorial-Sun Times- 6 /16 /2006

quote

MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING

"Remember why Patrick Fitzgerald was named to be a special counsel? It was to learn who had outed a covert CIA agent to SunTimes columnist Robert Novak. NOW, AFTER NEARLY THREE YEARS, JUST ONE INDICTMENT ON PERJURY ALLEGATIONS, THE NON-INDICTMENT OF KARL ROVE, THE JAILING OF A NEW YORK TIMES REPORTER, THE HAVOC WREAKED ON THE CONCEPT OF THE REPORTER-SOURCE CONFIDENTIALITY, AND THE EXPENDITURE OF WHO KNOWS HOW MANY MILLIONS OF DOLLARS, NO ONE HAS BEEN CHARGED WITH OUTING A SPY. FITZGERALD DOESN'T EVEN CLAIM THAT VALERIE PLAME WAS A COVERT AGENT. SO IT TURNS OUT THAT THERE WAS NO CRIME TO INVESTIGATE IN THE FIRST PLACE"

The dirt thrown by Democratic haters is not sticking!!!

0 Replies

Mr. Asherman, who is, as far as I am concerned, the most accurate and erudite poster on these threads, has nailed it precisely---The pools mean nothing. The only real result--the one which supercedes all others-are the results in the elections--

A. President Bush elected in 2000

B. Despite the fact that the party in power( in this case, Republicans) most always lose seats in past years, the GOP gained seats in the House and Senate in 2002.

C. President Bush was re-elected in 2004

0 Replies

BernardR wrote:

Mr. Asherman, who is, as far as I am concerned, the most accurate and erudite poster on these threads, has nailed it precisely---The pools mean nothing. The only real result--the one which supercedes all others-are the results in the elections--

A. President Bush elected in 2000

B. Despite the fact that the party in power( in this case, Republicans) most always lose seats in past years, the GOP gained seats in the House and Senate in 2002.

C. President Bush was re-elected in 2004

And he continues to be an ignorant moron...who makes one's eyes water when listening to him butcher the English language.

He wouldn't make a decent small mayor.

But conservatives have to love the moron in chief...because they are the most knee-jerk bunch of losers ever to hold sway over this Republic.

We'll survive them.

They will be back where they belong soon...as a minority.

And, take away the misguided Christians in their ranks who probably could burst into flames in Jesus' presence without him deigning to piss on them because of their corruption of his message...

...and the redneck scum of our country...

...and they already are a tiny minority.

0 Replies

So, correct me if I'm wrong - you don't like president Bush and the Republicans?

0 Replies

snood wrote:

So, correct me if I'm wrong - you don't like president Bush and the Republicans?

No correction needed.

0 Replies

How far back to I have to read in this thread to find a post that contains a specific allegation of something - anything - Bush has done wrong, with an argument as to why and how it's wrong? The past few page at least are nothing more than cheerleading. About the most you seem to have on him is his poll numbers, which have no relevance to showing that he's done something wrong. If he's, "the worst president in history," why don't you have example after example of his misdeeds???

0 Replies

Why that's because he's done nothing wrong of course, Brandon!

0 Replies

snood wrote:

Why that's because he's done nothing wrong of course, Brandon!

Thanks for your list of examples.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

How far back to I have to read in this thread to find a post that contains a specific allegation of something - anything - Bush has done wrong, with an argument as to why and how it's wrong? The past few page at least are nothing more than cheerleading. About the most you seem to have on him is his poll numbers, which have no relevance to showing that he's done something wrong. If he's, "the worst president in history," why don't you have example after example of his misdeeds???

Why not pick up the issue of Rolling Stone and read what those historians have to say? You'll have two options then, of course...either just ignore everything that doesn't match your worldview or consider in some objective manner whether the case is well made and the thesis defensible.

0 Replies

Rolling Stone historians? You are serious?

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Rolling Stone historians? You are serious?

okie

You can write us all a post comparing Sean Wilentz's CV against your own. That's bound to impress the heck out of everyone reading here.

Or, of course, there is this...

Quote:

Now, though, George W. Bush is in serious contention for the title of worst ever. In early 2004, an informal survey of 415 historians conducted by the nonpartisan History News Network found that eighty-one percent considered the Bush administration a "failure." Among those who called Bush a success, many gave the president high marks only for his ability to mobilize public support and get Congress to go along with what one historian called the administration's "pursuit of disastrous policies." In fact, roughly one in ten of those who called Bush a success was being facetious, rating him only as the best president since Bill Clinton -- a category in which Bush is the only contestant.

The lopsided decision of historians should give everyone pause...

Then, to further demonstrate to the assembled the facility and originality of your mind along with the depth and breadth of your education in American politics and history, bravely set out over the next 24 hours here (a wee period for most) with the modest goal of using not a single cliche, slogan or talking point. Your posts will be shorter or blank but the exercise will be good for you and indeed very very good for all the rest of us.

0 Replies

Blatham, Good post; it shows how historians rate Bush; much more reliable than the man on the street - who rarely understands what's going on. Thanks for uplifting my day!

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Blatham, Good post; it shows how historians rate Bush; much more reliable than the man on the street - who rarely understands what's going on. Thanks for uplifting my day!

Historians deal with the past,Bush is the present.

Why dont we wait a few years before any announcement is made about his rating.

0 Replies

The Worst President in History?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know