The Worst President in History?

Mr.Intrepid_ I notice no response to my post in which I answered your questions. Why not?

Then-you quote me QUOTING HINGEHEAD!

You may think it was a COMPLETELY KNEE-JERK RESPONSE TO 9/11, but your opinion is not worth very much since the AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE THE ONES WHO ELECT THE CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT--not people who post on these venues after the fact!!

You are not suggesting that these people are of low intelligence, are you?

Of course the voters are not of low intelligence--They probably average around 100 IQ.

It is hingehead who is holding them responsible for electing President Bush and I SAY THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE AND ARE THE ONLY ONES WHO CAN ELECT HIM!

Now, as I pointed out to Hingehead--If he feels that the American People made a mistake, he should work to elect someone else in 2008. I should tell him that I can assure him that George W. Bush will not run for President in 2008.

He may, of course, feel that an injustice was perpetrated. He has the right to hold that view but I can say without fear of contradiction that the History books will show that George W. Bush was President of the United States from 2000 to 2008 and nothing that hingehead can do will change that fact!!

0 Replies

BernardR wrote:

Mr.Intrepid_ I notice no response to my post in which I answered your questions. Why not?

Perhaps I am getting confused because you still refuse to use the quote function to make things more readable. If you do not know how to do it, I or anyone else, would be happy to tell you. What is it that you want me to reply to?

Quote:

Now, as I pointed out to Hingehead--If he feels that the American People made a mistake, he should work to elect someone else in 2008. I should tell him that I can assure him that George W. Bush will not run for President in 2008.

He may, of course, feel that an injustice was perpetrated. He has the right to hold that view but I can say without fear of contradiction that the History books will show that George W. Bush was President of the United States from 2000 to 2008 and nothing that hingehead can do will change that fact!!

May I remind you, Sir, that the thread is about the worst President in history. NOT whether any particular President was elected for a single or multiple terms. Not whether the people made a mistake in electing said President. NOT whether the history books showed that they were elected to that high office. Only whether the history books show him to be a complete boob. I think that history will bear this out.

Maybe not today; maybe not tomorrow; but soon, and for the rest of millennia.

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

May I remind you, Sir, that the thread is about the worst President in history. NOT whether any particular President was elected for a single or multiple terms. Not whether the people made a mistake in electing said President. NOT whether the history books showed that they were elected to that high office. Only whether the history books show him to be a complete boob. I think that history will bear this out.

end of quote

And I do not think that history will bear this out. You think that the fact of Bush's re-election is not pertinent, you obviously do not know very much about Presidents and Presidential Historians. People who are apt to be listed as the worst Rresident in history do not get elected for a second term.

If you were correct, Mr. Intrepid, I am certain that the House and the Senate, who, despite what you may think, are much more well informed than you are,would have already impeached President Bush.

They have not done so. Your thesis is then doubly flawed.

0 Replies

Can you name one president who was impeached?

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

Can you name one president who was impeached?

Two U.S. presidents have been impeached: Andrew Johnson, the seventeenth chief executive, and William J. Clinton, the forty-second.

And interestingly,both of them were Democrats.

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/impeach.html

0 Replies

I was hoping for an answer from Bernard. Oh, well.

0 Replies

Mr. Intrepid- I think you will find that Mysteryman is a very adept poster and knows what he is talking about at all times. I thank Mysteryman for his answer. I assume that you really were ignorant of the fact that two American Presidents have been impeached, Mr. Intrepid. If that is correct, I am also going to assume that you don't know very much about American Presidents.

Here is a list compiled by American Historians

Presidential Leadership

Historian Survey Results Category:
Performance Within Context of Times

President's Name Final Score Category Ranking Overall Ranking
1. Abraham Lincoln 97.5 1 1
2. George Washington 96.6 2 3
3. Franklin Delano Roosevelt 94.2 3 2
4. Theodore Roosevelt 84.9 4 4
5. Harry S. Truman 80.0 5 5
6. Thomas Jefferson 75.8 6 7
7. Woodrow Wilson 75.6 7 6
8. Andrew Jackson 72.0 8 13
9. Dwight D. Eisenhower 70.7 9 9
10. James K. Polk 68.6 10 12
11. John F. Kennedy 68.1 11 8
12. Ronald Reagan 66.8 12 11
13. Lyndon Baines Johnson 64.2 13 10
14. William McKinley 61.8 14 15
15. John Adams 61.4 15 16
16. James Monroe 61.1 16 14
17. Grover Cleveland 59.4 17 17
18. James Madison 57.5 18 18
19. John Quincy Adams 54.1 19 19
20. George Bush 52.8 20 20
21. Bill Clinton 51.2 21 21
22. Gerald Ford 49.3 22 23
23. William Howard Taft 49.0 23 24
24. Jimmy Carter 48.6 24 22
25. Rutherford B. Hayes 48.1 25 26
26. Chester Arthur 44.3 26 32
27. Calvin Coolidge 44.1 27 27
28. Zachary Taylor 43.9 28 28
29. Benjamin Harrison 43.8 29 31
30. James Garfield 43.7 30 29
31. Martin Van Buren 42.9 31 30
32. Richard Nixon 40.9 32 25
33. Ulysses S. Grant 39.6 33 33
34. Millard Fillmore 38.3 34 35
35. John Tyler 36.7 35 36
36. Herbert Hoover 34.9 36 34
37. Warren G. Harding 28.3 37 38
38. William Henry Harrison 25.7 38 37
39. Andrew Johnson 25.6 39 40
40. Franklin Pierce 24.8 40 39
41. James Buchanan 21

Now, if you are so deluded that you think American Histrorians will rank President George W. Bush with anyone of the Presidents listed below Bill Clinton, you know nothing about American History.

Go ahead,Mr. Intrepid, pick one of those out and I can tell you why he is rated so low on the list!!!

0 Replies

BernardR wrote:

Mr. Intrepid- I think you will find that Mysteryman is a very adept poster and knows what he is talking about at all times. I thank Mysteryman for his answer. I assume that you really were ignorant of the fact that two American Presidents have been impeached, Mr. Intrepid. If that is correct, I am also going to assume that you don't know very much about American Presidents.

Here is a list compiled by American Historians

Presidential Leadership

Historian Survey Results Category:
Performance Within Context of Times

President's Name Final Score Category Ranking Overall Ranking
1. Abraham Lincoln 97.5 1 1
2. George Washington 96.6 2 3
3. Franklin Delano Roosevelt 94.2 3 2
4. Theodore Roosevelt 84.9 4 4
5. Harry S. Truman 80.0 5 5
6. Thomas Jefferson 75.8 6 7
7. Woodrow Wilson 75.6 7 6
8. Andrew Jackson 72.0 8 13
9. Dwight D. Eisenhower 70.7 9 9
10. James K. Polk 68.6 10 12
11. John F. Kennedy 68.1 11 8
12. Ronald Reagan 66.8 12 11
13. Lyndon Baines Johnson 64.2 13 10
14. William McKinley 61.8 14 15
15. John Adams 61.4 15 16
16. James Monroe 61.1 16 14
17. Grover Cleveland 59.4 17 17
18. James Madison 57.5 18 18
19. John Quincy Adams 54.1 19 19
20. George Bush 52.8 20 20
21. Bill Clinton 51.2 21 21
22. Gerald Ford 49.3 22 23
23. William Howard Taft 49.0 23 24
24. Jimmy Carter 48.6 24 22
25. Rutherford B. Hayes 48.1 25 26
26. Chester Arthur 44.3 26 32
27. Calvin Coolidge 44.1 27 27
28. Zachary Taylor 43.9 28 28
29. Benjamin Harrison 43.8 29 31
30. James Garfield 43.7 30 29
31. Martin Van Buren 42.9 31 30
32. Richard Nixon 40.9 32 25
33. Ulysses S. Grant 39.6 33 33
34. Millard Fillmore 38.3 34 35
35. John Tyler 36.7 35 36
36. Herbert Hoover 34.9 36 34
37. Warren G. Harding 28.3 37 38
38. William Henry Harrison 25.7 38 37
39. Andrew Johnson 25.6 39 40
40. Franklin Pierce 24.8 40 39
41. James Buchanan 21

Now, if you are so deluded that you think American Histrorians will rank President George W. Bush with anyone of the Presidents listed below Bill Clinton, you know nothing about American History.

Go ahead,Mr. Intrepid, pick one of those out and I can tell you why he is rated so low on the list!!!

I do not doubt Mystery Man's posting abilities or prowess and implied nothing of the sort.

Count me in as delusional. History will tell. :wink:

Oh, and I do not consider this a matter of Repulican and Democrat.

0 Replies

hingehead wrote:

Well he became president - many, many would argue he wasn't elected. Tens of thousands of black voters in Florida were disenfranchised, purely because they were black (ie more likely to vote Democrat). And the consulting agency he used is now pursuing the same tactics in South American countries, no doubt at the recommendation of the current administration.

How do you make statements with not one shred of evidence to support them? Where are those thousands of disenfranchised voters? An investigation following the election could not find them. So where is your evidence? This is the type of demagoguery repeated by the Jesse Jacksons of the world with not one shred of evidence.

0 Replies

OK Okie

As fragrant as Florida

Greg Palast
Guardian Weekly

There's something rotten in Mexico. And it smells like Florida. The ruling party, the Washington-friendly National Action party (Pan), proclaimed last week that its victory in the presidential race, albeit tortilla-thin, was Mexico's first "clean" election. But that requires we close our eyes to some very dodgy doings in the vote count that are far too reminiscent of the games played in Florida in 2000 by the Bush family. And, indeed, evidence suggests that Team Bush had a hand in what may be another presidential election heist.

Article continues
Just before the 2000 balloting in Florida, I reported in the Guardian that its governor, Jeb Bush, had ordered the removal of tens of thousands of black citizens from the state's voter rolls. He called them "felons", but our investigation discovered their only crime was Voting While Black. And that little scrub of the voter rolls gave the White House to his brother George.

Jeb's winning scrub list was the creation of a private firm, ChoicePoint of Alpharetta, Georgia. Now, it seems, ChoicePoint is back in the voter list business - in Mexico - at the direction of the Bush government. Months ago I got my hands on a copy of a memo from the FBI marked "secret", regarding a contract for "intelligence collection of foreign counter-terrorism investigations".

Given that the memo was dated September 17, 2001, a week after the attack on the World Trade Centre, hunting for terrorists seemed like a heck of a good idea. But oddly, while all 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf, the contract was for obtaining the voter files of Venezuela, Brazil . . . and Mexico.

Full Article

0 Replies

And of course you believe the great "progressive" reporter, Greg Palast, wouldn't you? Progressive is of course another term for "communist." He loves to document fraud against people like Hugo Chavez and the leftist Obrador in Mexico. I suppose Palast would agree with Fidel Castro when he calls Cuba's elections the most democratic and free in the world.

The truth about the 2000 Florida election is summarized here:

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/kirsanow200403090858.asp

From that article, I quote:
"State officials were not at fault for widespread voter "disenfranchisement". The myth holds that Governor Bush, in league with Secretary of State Katherine Harris, either by design or incompetence, failed to fulfill their electoral responsibilities, resulting in the discriminatory disenfranchisement of thousands of black voters. This was purportedly a key to the overarching Republican plot to steal the election from Al Gore.

Again, reality intrudes. The uncontroverted evidence shows that by statute the responsibility for the conduct of elections is in the hands of county supervisors, not the governor or secretary of state. County supervisors are independent officers answerable to county commissioners, not the governor or secretary of state. And in 24 of the 25 counties that had the highest ballot-spoilage rates, the county supervisor was a Democrat. (In the remaining county the supervisor was not a Republican, but an independent.)

Moreover, as is simply put by Commissioner Thernstrom, voter error is not the same thing as "disenfranchisement." Even if more black than white voters spoiled their ballots by mistake, that's not evidence of a scheme to discriminate on the basis of race, and it certainly doesn't evoke images of dogs and fire hoses.

After issuance of the commission's report some diehards, perhaps realizing that history frowns on demagoguery, desperately sought any facts that might support the myth. The Justice Department was pressed for action.

The Justice Department conducted a thorough investigation. The result:

The Civil Rights Division found no credible evidence in our investigation that Floridians were intentionally denied their right to vote during the November 2000 election."

The truth does not matter. Demagogues as Palast, Jesse Jackson, and others will continue to spout their poison without one shred of evidence to the contrary. Only unsubstantiated claims that have been investigated and debunked.

0 Replies

Quote:

Progressive is of course another term for "communist."

No, it isn't. No more than conservative is another word for fascist. Quite different things.

0 Replies

Not a good parallel, blatham. Are conservatives in England or Canada fascists, and do they sympathize with fascists? At the same time, every time I read the opinions of "progressives," they seem to have an affection for leftists and communists, like Castro, Chavez, Gorby, etc. We aren't blind out here blatham, we can read and we can see. After all, this Greg Palast is ballyhooed as a progressive, and some of the work he is most proud of was election fraud in Venezuela and Mexico, where he was distinctly in favor of the leftist or communist candidates. I would say Chavez is a communist. Perhaps you could argue not purely, but I think the label is appropriate.

0 Replies

okie

I'm not going to argue with you. You can study up on the history of the term "progressive" and the political movements associated or you can just hang on to your notion regardless of whether you have it right or not. In Canada, for example, through the 20th century, two parties swapped power at the federal level, the Liberals and the Progressive Conservatives. Brian Mulroney, Prime Minister during Reagan's tenure, was the head of the Progressive Conservatives.

0 Replies

Technically, I am going to give this one to you, blatham, as you understand the term from historical usage. I am making my own judgement as it is claimed by certain figures in the U.S. of late. When they claim progressive, my antenna go up, because it is a buzzword for socialist and communist sympathies. They would not admit it, and perhaps they are only half way there, but anyway their beliefs mesh with government can fix anything and industries should be turned over to government in order to fix it. They have little confidence in the free market and they generally have a severe dislike of business and corporations. So what conclusion am I susposed to draw, blatham?

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Technically, I am going to give this one to you, blatham, as you understand the term from historical usage. I am making my own judgement as it is claimed by certain figures in the U.S. of late. When they claim progressive, my antenna go up, because it is a buzzword for socialist and communist sympathies. They would not admit it, and perhaps they are only half way there, but anyway their beliefs mesh with government can fix anything and industries should be turned over to government in order to fix it. They have little confidence in the free market and they generally have a severe dislike of business and corporations. So what conclusion am I susposed to draw, blatham?

It's been my observation that some "progressives" seem to have more of an affection for gay marriage than anything else.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Technically, I am going to give this one to you, blatham, as you understand the term from historical usage. I am making my own judgement as it is claimed by certain figures in the U.S. of late. When they claim progressive, my antenna go up, because it is a buzzword for socialist and communist sympathies. They would not admit it, and perhaps they are only half way there, but anyway their beliefs mesh with government can fix anything and industries should be turned over to government in order to fix it. They have little confidence in the free market and they generally have a severe dislike of business and corporations. So what conclusion am I susposed to draw, blatham?

Someone may have told you that progressive is a buzzword for communism or communist sympathies, but that would be false information. No one I know believes government can "fix anything" and certainly no one I know holds that industry ought to be turned over to government control. Many, like myself, hold that government has a responsibility to moderate the excesses of a free market (eg the recent Justice Department case against tobacco companies) while allowing as much freedom to the markets to operate as possible without endangering citizens and with an eye to preventing monopolies. Even Pat Buchanan, for example, analogizes corporate behavior to that of sharks.

0 Replies

I think, anyone with a decent knowledge of history and/or following the news over a couple of years will have noticed that their progressives on the left as well as on the right.

Personally and without looking it up, I associate 'progressive' more with the right side of the party spectrum, like in Canada and Ireland (An Páirtí Daonlathach), the UKIP in the UK etc etc

0 Replies

Who is this organization? Where are they located and why should anyone believe that the contents of this "memo" has any validity to the current political situations?

************************************

National Alliance of Republican American Conservatives (NARAC)

It being essential to achieve our program that the conservative elements of the Republican Party dominate the Executive Branch throughout the coming century, we adopt the following objectives:

1. Encourage factionalism within the ranks of those who envision an America at odds with those principles in which our strategy is rooted. Political special interest groups will inevitably clash over ends and means. The resulting enmity will prevent effective political consolidation behind a single viable candidate. No candidate can satisfy all competing demands, and promises to do otherwise destroy the candidate's credibility with mainstream voters. Thus, campaigns on "the issues" of greatest interest to the opposition work in favor of that Party which cleaves to only to the most fundamental issues; national security and foreign threat, the economy and prosperity, core American values and an optimistic vision of America's place in the world. Let the opposition indict America as uncaring, selfish, unjust, imperial-minded and blinded by blood lust. Opposition to America in Europe and by terrorist groups around the world will, in the long run work to our advantage in future elections. Every effort by the opposition to portray the despotic regimes of North Korea, Syria and Iran as benign further reduces the credibility of opposition to the national security effort. We, on the other hand, will speak for the great majority of American voters who have a more positive view of America's place in the modern world. Our positive views will stand unshaken by a clamorous, but divided opposition who has only negative views about America.

2. Keep the focus of the opposition on the past, the inconsequential, and irrelevant. The continual focus of the opposition on the person and policies of the Bush Administration are a gigantic plus for our candidate in the 2008 election. While the opposition is focused on the past, our candidate will be free to enunciate a vision for the future without serious challenge. The opposition's efforts to make gay-marriage and abortion major issues will, at best, only divide their forces. The focus on utopian schemes that play to the disenfranchised and powerless will not win many votes, because the numbers of disenfranchised and powerless in the United States isn't great. Arguments over whether a votes are made on one machine or another is best will sap the opposition's energy when confronted by real and substantive issues of grave interest to the mainstream voter. Fear mongers and conspiracy theorists are our allies, in that they bring ridicule and disbelief to the opposition's efforts.

0 Replies

The Worst President in History?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know