The Worst President in History?

Another stupid statement by mm:
Historians deal with the past,Bush is the present.

Can we imagine? Historians are not allowed their opinions about the current resident of the white house, because mm says so. Where do these idiots come from?

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Another stupid statement by mm:
Historians deal with the past,Bush is the present.

Can we imagine? Historians are not allowed their opinions about the current resident of the white house, because mm says so. Where do these idiots come from?

Excuse me,where did you learn to read?
Or,are you just naturally an ass?

I said that lets wait till his term is over before we rank him the worst in history.
Things may happen between now and then to change that view of him.

0 Replies

The only way to change Bush from being the worst in history will be if we elect a successor that's worse.

0 Replies

mm, No problem with my reading comprehension; it's just your stupid statements that I respond to. Live with it; you're just stupid.

0 Replies

Word. The twins gave Bushie a big bag of pretzels for Father's Day.

0 Replies

Presented with the bag of Father's Day pretzels, the President spent most of the morning trying to figure out the puzzlel and why there were so many of the same puzzle in one bag.

0 Replies

Asherman wrote:

Presented with the bag of Father's Day pretzels, the President spent most of the morning trying to figure out the puzzlel and why there were so many of the same puzzle in one bag.

Holy cucaracha!

A joke.

And a damn good one at that!

Asherman...I love that there are days where things happen in my life that surprise and delight me.

This is one of those days.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

mm, No problem with my reading comprehension; it's just your stupid statements that I respond to. Live with it; you're just stupid.

I submit this for everyones review.

He calls me stupid,instead of addressing what was said.

Why does the left always resort to name calling,yet they claim the conservatives on here are the ones that do that.

CI,you are a hypocrite and a fool.
But as long as you are happy,then I'm happy for you.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
mm, No problem with my reading comprehension; it's just your stupid statements that I respond to. Live with it; you're just stupid.

I submit this for everyones review.

Hmmm... Why thank you. Let me take a look.

[JustanObserver slowly reviews said comments while swishing a small glass of aged rum in one hand, periodically putting it down to enjoy a pull from his cigar]

Well, then. I would have to say- some people just ask for ridicule by their comments. There are some statements that simply beg "Please don't take me seriously!" of which your comments certainly qualify.

I'll dumb it down for you. If someone came up to you in the street and said "Hey, smearing peanut butter on your toes is the best way to stop incest, and anyone who disagrees with me is a damn liberal commie hippie!" Would it really be that tough to understand why other people would poke fun at that person?

0 Replies

Quote:

I'll dumb it down for you. If someone came up to you in the street and said "Hey, smearing peanut butter on your toes is the best way to stop incest, and anyone who disagrees with me is a damn liberal commie hippie!" Would it really be that tough to understand why other people would poke fun at that person?

I agree,but that isnt even close to anything I said.

Let me repeat what I said...

Modern historians deal with the past.
Before anyone calls Bush the "worst President in History",lets wait for the full outcome of his policies and see.

Lets give it a few years after his admin ends and then see.
I am not saying that the judgement of current historians is wrong,I am saying that the final verdict cannot be made yet.

Why is that so hard to understand?

0 Replies

I must, regretfully disagree with Mysterman in part. Historians, especially Presidential Historians--those who specialize in writing highly rated books about presidents--eg- David McCullough-who wrote "Truman" Pulitzer Prize Winner--are among the best commentators on Presidents. So is a highly rated Presidential Historian like Dr. Fred Greenstein- author of "The Presidential Difference"

BUT

Just as no Sports writer would evaluate the career of Albert Pujols or Tiger Woods DEFINITIVELY, no Presidential Historian worth his salt( the idiots who write for the Rolling Stone rag are beneath contempt, and as I have heard are not even allowed into the yearly Presidential Historian conventions.

President Bush still has thirty months in office. Then his entire career will be evaluated.

In the meantime, no one gives any evidence to PROVE that compared to other presidents, Bush is indeed the worst presidents.

I think that the people who say that are the losers. The losers are the ones who lost the Senate and the House in 1994 under the fastest zipper in the West-William Jefferson Clinton.

Enraged by the loss of power, they hurl around unproven statements, while in the meanwhile the facts--

a. Bush elected 2000

b. GOP GAINS seats in the House and Senate

c. Bush elected 2004

are more than they can bear-----

0 Replies

BernardR wrote:

Just as no Sports writer would evaluate the career of Albert Pujols or Tiger Woods DEFINITIVELY, no Presidential Historian worth his salt( the idiots who write for the Rolling Stone rag are beneath contempt, and as I have heard are not even allowed into the yearly Presidential Historian conventions.

So you are saying with all your authority and benvolentia that a Dayton-Stockon Professor of History, Director of the Program in American Studies at the Department of History at Princeton University, Ph.D. (Yale University), M. Phil. (Yale University), M.A. (Yale University), B.A. (Balliol College, Oxford University), BA. (Columbia College, Columbia University) ... is an idiot.

But he has some degrees more than you have ... Shocked

0 Replies

Please post or give a link to the Professor's writings. I will evalute them as soon as possible.

On another thread, Mr. Hinteler, I thanked you for your insights on Germany and told you that as a citizen of that country, you knew much more about Germany than I did.

I know much more about the USA than you do and can, I assure you, evalute the professor and his comments, despite your erudition, which I do not doubt, more expertly than you can.

I am sure that you realize that there are professors,professors, and professors.

Surely, you know of Professor Rudolphe Tomashek, Director of the Institute of Physics at Dresden. Just because a man is a professor does not mean that he cannot be ideologically biased or a tool. Tomashek, a distinguished professor said-----"Modern Physics is an instrument of Jewry for the destruction of Nordic Science...True Physics is the creation of the Germany Physics."

Give a link to the man at Princeton...I'll look at his writings.

PS. Dr, Greenstein is also from Princeton. I will match his writings with the ones you post( if you do)

0 Replies

BernardR wrote:

Give a link to the man at Princeton...I'll look at his writings.

Well, it was YOU who introduced the term "idiot" about him here.
So why should I give you any links?

Btw: at Dresden University, there's neither an Institute for Physics nor a Professor Rudolphe Tomashek.

0 Replies

Very well- Don't give any links, Mr. Hinteler. I reacted not to the writer but to the periodical in which I believe his writings were displayed.

Get a copy of Rolling Stone! If you are as serious a scholar as I think you are, you will be appalled. "Rolling Stone" magazine uses the word F..., in every other line, as an adjective, adverb, verb and noun.

0 Replies

So far your reaction. Thanks.

I've just looked up in the "register of college and university teachers" ('Hochschullehrerverzeichnis"): there are nearly 60,000 persons mentioned, but no Rudolphe Tomashek - could it be that this "distinguished professor" has a chair in some other country?

(And I had subscribed the Rolling Stone [as well as Down Beat] when I was younger, so I know what it is about.)

0 Replies

The Professor Rudolphe Tomashek worked in the 1930's. Perhaps Gatos understanding of history neglects such details as time frames.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

The Professor Rudolphe Tomashek worked in the 1930's. Perhaps Gatos understanding of history neglects such details as time frames.

Yo, Dys...did I mention that George Bush is a goddam moron????

0 Replies

Yes, Frank, but keep repeating it will ya, the righties don't seem to hear it.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Historians deal with the past,Bush is the present.

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

mysteryman, you are absolutely and obviously correct. 2 + 2 = 4. I don't care how many PhD (piled higher and deeper) degrees somebody has, if they say 2 + 2 = 5, they are still obviously wrong.

0 Replies

The Worst President in History?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know