Chilly Posted June 26, 2005 Posted June 26, 2005 My Best List (I hold all 4 of these presidents in high regards, they'd probably all tie for first, but I figured I'd try to seperate them) -------------- 1.) Truman 2.) Washington 3.) Lincoln 4.) FDR Worst - Carter
BillsGuyInMalta Posted June 26, 2005 Posted June 26, 2005 My Top 5 for Best: 1) Lincoln 2) FDR 3) Jefferson 4) Washington 5) Teddy Roosevelt Worst: LBJ
Buftex Posted June 27, 2005 Posted June 27, 2005 Why Bush? Shouldn't there be some requirement to judge by history? Same reason I won't say Clinton. The effects of a presidency may not be seen for several years. Old Dubya might just end up with a better record than many might think. 368182[/snapback] Well, reasons were not required by the original poster, and at the risk of sounding trite, the reasons are far too numerous to list, and to argue with most of you...the thing that comes most immediately to mind is that our country seems on the verge of a total financial collapse, the American dollar is practically valueless, yet the presidnent, and vice president tell us that this is "a good thing". It might be, using their logic, if this was a country that relied on exporting, rather than importing. One economist (a Republican) has referred to the George Bush era as being the greatest era of fiscal irresponsibility in the history of the republic. We are bent on importing our jobs overseas, for the benefit of corporate big wigs only, while our economy is tanking, China and Saudi Arabia are emerging as the real super powers in the near future. As someone who has always been interested in American polotics, I can say that I have never felt worse about the direction that our country is headed in, and I have to hold George Bush Jr ulitmately responsible for that. I have had my problems with all administrations, but it is gettimg harder and harder to trust this one. In the space of one week, Karl Rove has essentially told us that Democrats who are opposed to the war are undermining the war, are not patriotic, and delight in the death of American troops. Dick Cheney has cavalierly proclaimed that the war is in the "final stages of a weakening insurgency", Condi Rice has picked up the "generational commitment" mantra of her bosses, and Donald Rumsfeld, just this morning, proclaimed that this thing was far from over, and we would be battling it out for years to come. All the while, George Bush Jr can only proclaim "I think about Iraq a lot, I think about it every day." This is all very comforting.... My final reason, is smug, pompous kool-aid drinkers like Silver-n-Red proclaiming that "they'll just refuse to acknowledge it". Jimmy Carter may have been a piss poor president, but I will never acknowledge that his was more embarassing than our current president. Carter became president at a very bad time in America, and could not figure out how to work the country out of its' difficulties. He was a good man, at the wrong time, in the wrong job. I would make the same case against George Bush Jr, although I am becoming less and less sold on the "good man" notion in his case... These may be mostly emotional reasons for giving George Bush Jr the nod as the worst president ever, but they are no less valid for me...the danger of waiting a decade to make judgement is that some dangers are preventable, if you are paying attention....
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 27, 2005 Posted June 27, 2005 Anybody who says Clinton or W is very short sighted and extremely spiteful. You can't judge a president untill they are out of office many years. The true results of most policies aren't even seen until 6, 7, 8 years after they take effect. I have no doubt both Clinton and W will rank in the middle somewhere when it is all said and done, but that can't yet be judged. 368244[/snapback] I think there's been enough time since Clinton's presidency to pass reasonable judgement on it. Personally, I'd give him very low marks - particularly on foreign policy, considering the cornerstone of his foreign policy seemed to be "Let someone else worry about it". This is the guy, after all, that let Unocol and Mavis Leno (????) dictate his Southwest Asia policy...
EC-Bills Posted June 27, 2005 Posted June 27, 2005 Why Bush? Shouldn't there be some requirement to judge by history? Same reason I won't say Clinton. The effects of a presidency may not be seen for several years. Old Dubya might just end up with a better record than many might think. 368182[/snapback] I agree it will be the interesting to see how history views dubya. The part where we may end up in disagreement on is where his record ranks. I am not a big fan of the man and a good portion of his policies. But on the same token I won't say he hasn't had his moments where he has done good either. Same with Clinton: some good, some bad. You know, life was easier years back when I was just part of the HotPockets® crowd. No thinking necessary...
EC-Bills Posted June 27, 2005 Posted June 27, 2005 he also called a special session of congress after ratification of the 16th amendment to implement a federal income tax 368041[/snapback] And to think all this time I just blamed you for having to pay taxes because you're a French loving Picard groupie. Well, I apologize for wrongly blaming you on the taxes part, but you're still a ponce for being a Picard groupie...
EC-Bills Posted June 27, 2005 Posted June 27, 2005 They'll just refuse to acknowledge it. Refuse to acknowledge it?!? Better hope whomever is pouring your koolaid doesn't come to a sudden stop. Worst - Probably Grant, although Jimmy Carter is the most embarrassing. 368183[/snapback] Out of curiosity, what was so embarrassing about Carter?
SilverNRed Posted June 27, 2005 Posted June 27, 2005 Refuse to acknowledge it?!? Better hope whomever is pouring your koolaid doesn't come to a sudden stop. 368399[/snapback] The liberal answer to Reagan's work was that "the Soviet Union was going to collapse anyway." There's a precedent. Any good that comes from Bush's policies will be downplayed anyway. Liberals hate W so much that there's no chance they'll ever give him a fair shake no matter how things turn out. Out of curiosity, what was so embarrassing about Carter?Pretty much everything he's done since he left office. Including cuddling with Michael Moore at the Democratic National Convention. Holding hands with the anti-American propagandist - how very Presidential.....
Buftex Posted June 27, 2005 Posted June 27, 2005 The liberal answer to Reagan's work was that "the Soviet Union was going to collapse anyway." There's a precedent. Any good that comes from Bush's policies will be downplayed anyway. Liberals hate W so much that there's no chance they'll ever give him a fair shake no matter how things turn out. Pretty much everything he's done since he left office. Including cuddling with Michael Moore at the Democratic National Convention. Holding hands with the anti-American propagandist - how very Presidential..... 368428[/snapback] So, it appears that Michael Moore is the "hot pocket" for the neo-com set. What is more embarassing, an ex-president "holding hands" with someone who he happens to agree with, politicaly, on a number of different issues, or a pesident who holds hands with people like Kenneth Lay, Dick Chenney, and any number of other white collar crooks? Your assertion that Moore, and Carter by association, is an "anti-American propagandist" is part of what is so friegtenting about your little cult...question the wizard, and you are anti-American. Just imagine, if you can, what you would all (by that I mean the rightys on this board) be saying if Clinton had been president, and he was the one who gave the okay to let the Bin Laden family leave the country. I know, I know, you will say it was Richard Clark who let them go, but guess who Clark was working for at the time! George Bush Jr is a child of priveledge who doesn't seem to realize that the world he grew up in has little in common with with the world most Americans grow up in. I always think of Carter as being a "progressive" and the longer this BS goes on, George Bush Jr is the embodiment of the "regressive" thinker. He has been "looking into this global warming thing" for 4 friggin' years now. All of the major oil companies in the world (except Exxon) are acknowledging that there is a problem, but GW is not quite so sure yet...finding better ways to take care of the world is not part of his politcal agenda....and not likely the best thing for the family...
SilverNRed Posted June 27, 2005 Posted June 27, 2005 Michael Moore is the guy who called the insurgents in Iraq "Minute Men." He also declared (over a year ago) that they were going to win (barely able to contain his glee). He does everything he can to undermine the war effort. And Carter, former POTUS, former Commander in Chief, embraces him. If that isn't embarassing. I don't know what is.
SilverNRed Posted June 27, 2005 Posted June 27, 2005 So, it appears that Michael Moore is the "hot pocket" for the neo-com set. 368438[/snapback] Nicely done. You can't even declare MM a 'hot pocket' without using one of your own (Neo-con).
Buftex Posted June 27, 2005 Posted June 27, 2005 Nicely done. You can't even declare MM a 'hot pocket' without using one of your own (Neo-con). 368444[/snapback] Sorry Silvio, so kick me out of your little club, I can take it...you guys don't likely have much fun anyways...sometimes I have to remind myself that we are all Bills fans inside, deep down... In your case, the term fits perfectly! So, you don't care much for Michael Moore, that is fine, there are many on both sides of the aisle that would agree with you. But, I am not sure that he is any more an embarassment for Dems, as some of the people that the president has associated himself with. I don't agree with you at all that Moore is anti-American, but he is definitely anti-Bush. I have followed him pretty closely over the years, and don't ever recall him not being able to "contain his glee" because he thought insurgents were going to win in Iraq. However, if he did say that, he has not yet been proven wrong. There have been numerous reports over the last few months that Amercian officials wrongfully identified the city of Fallujah as an insurgent hide out, when in fact, much of the resistence there was coming from every day citizens, who did not want Bush's liberty sprinkled into their city, or their country. Chenney tells us the insurgency is in its' final stages, Rummsfeld, within 48 hrs, tells us we could be in Iraq for another dozen years or so. Who to believe? It is clear that the president's cabinet communicates as well amongst themselves as the president does with us...everytime I hear one of them speak I get the feeling that they are falling in over their heads further and further...
Alaska Darin Posted June 27, 2005 Posted June 27, 2005 Sorry Silvio, so kick me out of your little club, I can take it...you guys don't likely have much fun anyways...sometimes I have to remind myself that we are all Bills fans inside, deep down...In your case, the term fits perfectly! So, you don't care much for Michael Moore, that is fine, there are many on both sides of the aisle that would agree with you. But, I am not sure that he is any more an embarassment for Dems, as some of the people that the president has associated himself with. I don't agree with you at all that Moore is anti-American, but he is definitely anti-Bush. I have followed him pretty closely over the years, and don't ever recall him not being able to "contain his glee" because he thought insurgents were going to win in Iraq. However, if he did say that, he has not yet been proven wrong. There have been numerous reports over the last few months that Amercian officials wrongfully identified the city of Fallujah as an insurgent hide out, when in fact, much of the resistence there was coming from every day citizens, who did not want Bush's liberty sprinkled into their city, or their country. Chenney tells us the insurgency is in its' final stages, Rummsfeld, within 48 hrs, tells us we could be in Iraq for another dozen years or so. Who to believe? It is clear that the president's cabinet communicates as well amongst themselves as the president does with us...everytime I hear one of them speak I get the feeling that they are falling in over their heads further and further... 368480[/snapback] Vice President Cheney (note the correct spelling) says the insurgency is in its final stages. Secretary Rumsfeld says we could be in Iraq for another dozen years. Both are probably correct but YOUR confusion on the issue makes THEM idiots? Yeah, OK. As usual, the military is paying for decisions made by politicians (HUMINT policy that set us back decades on asset recruitment). As far as "numerous reports go", there isn't a media source in America that is giving anywhere close to the story of what's going on in Iraq. Fallujah? Please.
Buftex Posted June 27, 2005 Posted June 27, 2005 Vice President Cheney (note the correct spelling) says the insurgency is in its final stages. Secretary Rumsfeld says we could be in Iraq for another dozen years. Both are probably correct but YOUR confusion on the issue makes THEM idiots? Yeah, OK. As usual, the military is paying for decisions made by politicians (HUMINT policy that set us back decades on asset recruitment). As far as "numerous reports go", there isn't a media source in America that is giving anywhere close to the story of what's going on in Iraq. Fallujah? Please. 368486[/snapback] The all knowing and mighty Oz has spoken! Please note that I never said that Chenney or Rumsfeld was an idiot, you are putting words in my mouth, trying to change the intent of my post. I was merely pointing out the continuing pattern of contradiction that the two men seem to engage in. I am not "confused" about what they said. Bush, Chenney, Rummsfeld and Rice all contradict eachother on a regular basis, giving me zero confidence that they have any sort of plan. Yeah, OK? You should stick to one liners and zingers, you are much more effective, and occaisionaly entertaining. As far as the American media's portrayal of what is going on in Iraq, seriously, how the f**ck do you know anything more than anyone else AD? Did you know that there is currently an American soldier who is "blogging" from the front lines in Fallujah, and his portrayal of the situation is far different than what we are being told? There are reporters from various parts of the world, in Iraq, reporting what is going on there. From the sounds of it, our troops are more than a little disillusioned by what is going on over there, and about the direction (or lack thereof) they are receiving. I will agree with you, our military personel are getting screwed. I currently have two cousins that has been in Iraq better part of a year and a half, and I really am starting to wonder if anyone will see them again.
Bill from NYC Posted June 27, 2005 Posted June 27, 2005 So, it appears that Michael Moore is the "hot pocket" for the neo-com set. What is more embarassing, an ex-president "holding hands" with someone who he happens to agree with, politicaly, on a number of different issues, or a pesident who holds hands with people like Kenneth Lay, Dick Chenney, and any number of other white collar crooks? Your assertion that Moore, and Carter by association, is an "anti-American propagandist" is part of what is so friegtenting about your little cult...question the wizard, and you are anti-American. Just imagine, if you can, what you would all (by that I mean the rightys on this board) be saying if Clinton had been president, and he was the one who gave the okay to let the Bin Laden family leave the country. I know, I know, you will say it was Richard Clark who let them go, but guess who Clark was working for at the time! George Bush Jr is a child of priveledge who doesn't seem to realize that the world he grew up in has little in common with with the world most Americans grow up in. I always think of Carter as being a "progressive" and the longer this BS goes on, George Bush Jr is the embodiment of the "regressive" thinker. He has been "looking into this global warming thing" for 4 friggin' years now. All of the major oil companies in the world (except Exxon) are acknowledging that there is a problem, but GW is not quite so sure yet...finding better ways to take care of the world is not part of his politcal agenda....and not likely the best thing for the family... 368438[/snapback] >>>>I always think of Carter as being a "progressive"<<<< Think of him as you will, but this thread was about presidents in office (or so I thought), so that is what I will address. Under Carter, there was HUGE unemployment. The intrerest rates were so high that mortages were approaching 20%. Gasoline almost tripled during his 4 years. Iran held American hostages as Carter sat idle, like a confused coward. When he DID try to do something about it, the mission was a dismal failure. Only when Reagan was being sworn in did Iran wisely free these Americans. When Reagan took over, there were jobs galore. Interest rates dropped, and people purchased homes. He drove the Soviet Union to collapse, and won the hearts of many Americans. He was re-elected by a landslide against Mondale, who of course was the VP in the Carter Administration. In any event, my answer, based on my lifetime would be easy.... Best: Reagan Worst: Carter
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted June 27, 2005 Posted June 27, 2005 Best (Old School): Lincoln, TR Worst (Old School): FDR, Grant Best (New School): Reagan Worst (New School): Carter
Dave in VA Posted June 27, 2005 Posted June 27, 2005 Best: D-Kennedy, FDR, Clinton R-Reagan Worst: Gotta be Nixon (I'm no crook). Funny how the neocons won't name the trickester as the worst ever.
VABills Posted June 27, 2005 Posted June 27, 2005 Best: D-Kennedy, FDR, Clinton R-Reagan Worst: Gotta be Nixon (I'm no crook). Funny how the neocons won't name the trickester as the worst ever. 368530[/snapback] Actually history has shown Nixon to be one of the better presidents ever.
/dev/null Posted June 27, 2005 Posted June 27, 2005 Actually history has shown Nixon to be one of the better presidents ever. 368532[/snapback] he was one of the more environmentally friendly presidents, had a decent foreign policy, made that little trip to china but... but... but... i've heard of Watergate! DING! gotta go
Buftex Posted June 27, 2005 Posted June 27, 2005 Worst: Gotta be Nixon (I'm no crook). Funny how the neocons won't name the trickester as the worst ever. 368530[/snapback] The problem is, what Nixon did is minute, compared with what goes on in modern politics...he was hardly the least effective president (that honor belongs to Carter in the modern era), yet his legacy seems to be that he made us all suspicious of the presidential office, and established a certain level of dishonesty as being acceptable in elected officials. He wasn't the first "trickster" in the white house, just the first to get caught. Some historians seem to think if JFK had lived, he would left lots of dirty laundry in the machine.
Recommended Posts