Thread: Who's the worst American president ever?

Originally Posted by god hand

Who's the worst American president ever? And please dont say Bush

What if you really believe he is?

Originally Posted by NeilPearson

What if you really believe he is?

Then your an idiot

who gives a fuck

In my time...

Clinton.

Just and only for the fact that he opened the free trade with China
instantly selling out formerly protected technology,
and later caused the liquidation of US jobs

Fucking Sucks!

If you want to see really, really horrible leaders, look at the Canadian Prime Ministers.

Originally Posted by NeilPearson

If you want to see really, really horrible leaders, look at the Canadian Prime Ministers.

Look at France right now. They can't control a bunch of 13 year olds who run around burning cars at night. March on their country with sharpened cro-magnon tools and it's a coup.

George W. Bush.....There is no doubt about it...especially in my liftime, Im only 23...

Originally Posted by Bazooka Tooth

George W. Bush.....There is no doubt about it...especially in my liftime, Im only 23...

why? you have to give a reason. It is to easy to say "so and so". Say why you think that.

Originally Posted by P-funk

why? you have to give a reason. It is to easy to say "so and so". Say why you think that.

Why do we have to give a reason?

Originally Posted by P-funk

why?

because the bandwagon said so

Originally Posted by gococksDJS

Look at France right now. They can't control a bunch of 13 year olds who run around burning cars at night. March on their country with sharpened cro-magnon tools and it's a coup.

Makes sense - Canadian Prime Ministers pretty much need to get the French vote to get elected.

Originally Posted by clemson357

because the bandwagon said so

Come on Clemson, jump on the Top 25 bandwagon.

Originally Posted by gococksDJS

Why do we have to give a reason?

for the reason that Clemson just gave.

If you know what you are talking about then giving a reason as to why so and so is not a good president in your opinion shouldn't be that hard. If you are uneducated and just saying it because the bandwagon said so or your dad told you what to think it is another story.

I was just playin' P

Originally Posted by NeilPearson

If you want to see really, really horrible leaders, look at the Canadian Prime Ministers.

Damn Straight. It is disgusting the options we have.

Hilary Clinton

bush

Originally Posted by god hand

Then your an idiot

Drop that Atittude son.

Originally Posted by P-funk

why? you have to give a reason. It is to easy to say "so and so". Say why you think that.

because I dont trust him at all, also I just dont see a reason why anyone would like him....you dont have to hate him or blame him for everything, but what is there to like? honestly? I havent seen or heard of him doing anything positive at all.

Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George Bush Sr. , Bill Clinton, George Bush Jr....all sucked ass.

What about Blair? He licks Bush.

http://www.wildnesswithin.com/worst.html
America's Top 10 Presidents


vs.

'The Worst President in All of American History'

Sorry, I'm gonna change the rules a bit. Instead of naming the worst person, I'm gonna tell you what I think was the worst mistake. (This one may surprise those of you who know how much of a conservative Republican I am.)

George Bush #1 not going into Iraq and getting rid of Saddam after liberating Kuwait in Gulf War I. We were already there. It would have been nothing to just keep marching a few more miles to finish the job. Instead, we abandoned the Iraqi citizens and left them to deal with this murderous maniac who brought instability to the entire region. There are Iraqi people who don't trust us to this day because we abandoned them after the first Gulf War. He should have learned his lesson from the history books and what Patton wanted to do in Europe after WWII. Same scenario, same mistake. I know, I know, that wasn't part of the UN resolution. So freaking what? The UN has proven time and time again to be nothing more than a cover for a gigantic embezzlement machine.

Of 415 historians who expressed a view of President Bush’s administration to this point as a success or failure, 338 classified it as a failure and 77 as a success. (Moreover, it seems likely that at least eight of those who said it is a success were being sarcastic, since seven said Bush’s presidency is only the best since Clinton’s and one named Millard Fillmore.) Twelve percent of all the historians who responded rate the current presidency the worst in all of American history, not too far behind the 19 percent who see it at this point as an overall success.
http://hnn.us/articles/5019.html

Herbert Hoover and the Great Depression

I would have to go with GW Bush. I liked Reagan and the first Bush, liked Clinton as well. I also don't want to say someone who I was not alive for was the worst president because it would be based on other's testimony. Here are my reasons...

1)Iraq. Regardless of if he didn't mislead, he certainly didn't go ahead and confirm the "facts" before jumping into a war, prolly something you should do when other people's lives are at stake.

2)Economy. I don't think cutting taxes for the rich is an appropriate way to bring our economy out of the crapper. Regardless of who's fault the bad economy was (Some say Clinton, some say outside factors ie. Bin Laden), I don't think reducing the gov'ts intake of cash is the right way to pay for a war on terror. I could definitely be wrong though, not a big economics guy.

3)All the goddamned religion. Nuff said.

4)Not being able to admit a mistake when it is blatantly obvious that one occured.

Now, I don't think this is is all of his fault, the whole gov't is in the shitter. How else can you explain congress taking the Schiavo case and MLB steroid stuff when there are far worse concerns.

Clinton wasn't great, but when weighing the shit he did, he is a distant second to Bush, Jr.

Maniclion doesn't care for Bush people.

President Bush Is 'Average,'
But Far From Ordinary
By JAMES TARANTO
September 12, 2005; Page A17

Ask someone to describe the presidency of George W. Bush, and "average" is not a word you're likely to hear. Mr. Bush's detractors treat him with a level of vituperation unseen since the days of Franklin D. Roosevelt; some even blame him for bad weather. His admirers don't go so far as to credit him when the sun shines, but their affection for him is palpable.

So it may come as a surprise that in a new survey of scholars ranking the presidents, Mr. Bush finishes almost exactly in the middle of the pack. He ranks No. 19 out of 40, and he rates 3.01 on a 5-point scale, just a hair's breadth above the middlemost possible figure. But this is no gentleman's C. Mr. Bush's rating is average because it is an average, of rankings given by 85 professors of history, politics, law and economics.

Most such scholarly polls have a strong liberal bias, reflecting academia's far-left tilt. But this survey -- conducted by James Lindgren of Northwestern University Law School for the Federalist Society and The Wall Street Journal -- aimed at ideological balance. The scholars were chosen with an eye toward balancing liberals and conservatives, and Mr. Lindgren asked each participant about his political orientation, then adjusted the average to give Democratic- and Republican-leaning scholars equal weight.

Mr. Bush's rating thus reflects the same sharp partisan divide that gave him a shade under 51% of the popular vote last year. GOP-leaning scholars rated Mr. Bush the 6th-best president of all time, while Democratic ones rated him No. 35, or 6th-worst. Even Bill Clinton -- 13th among Democrats, 34th among Republicans -- isn't as controversial.

If this result reflects the passions of the moment, how will history judge George W. Bush? Today's opinion polls are no guide: Warren G. Harding was a lot more popular when he died in office than Harry S. Truman was when he left, yet Harding now rates as a failure and Truman as near great.

Here's one way of thinking about the question: The three great presidents -- Washington, Lincoln and FDR -- all faced unprecedented challenges, all responded to them boldly, and all succeeded. Mr. Bush has met the first two of these criteria: The 9/11 attacks were his unprecedented challenge; setting out to democratize the Middle East was his bold response. Will he succeed -- not just in bringing stability and representative government to Iraq but in beginning a process that spreads freedom throughout the region? That will determine whether he joins the top tiers of presidents.

If he falls short, he may still get credit for trying. The lowest-ranking presidents tend to be not those who aimed high and missed, but those whose administrations were plagued by scandal (Harding, Nixon) or who were passive as crises built (Buchanan, Carter).




If Mr. Bush's vision turns out to have been overambitious, the more salient precedents may be the presidencies of Woodrow Wilson and Lyndon B. Johnson. Both had bold, forward-looking agendas, and both suffered enormous setbacks. Wilson sought to make the world safe for democracy, but America instead turned inward, leaving the world decidedly unsafe for democracy until after World War II. Johnson waged war both in Vietnam and on poverty, with one loss and one draw.

Yet neither one is judged a failure in the survey: Wilson is above average at No. 11, and Johnson is average at No. 18. Like Mr. Bush, both are more highly regarded within their own party. Wilson finishes 7th among Democrats and 23rd among Republicans; LBJ, 9th among Democrats and 31st among Republicans.

One thing that is sure to prove irrelevant to Mr. Bush's legacy is the intensity of today's Angry Left. FDR faced an Angry Right in his day, but Republicans in the survey rank him the 5th-best president. Even Ronald Reagan, out of office less than two decades, ranks a respectable 14th among Democrats. Mr. Bush is a polarizing figure today, but if his policies prove successful over time, even his detractors will grudgingly come around.