Worst. President. Ever.

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Fri May 05, 2006 3:27 pm

Interesting article.

George W. Bush's presidency appears headed for colossal historical disgrace. Barring a cataclysmic event on the order of the terrorist attacks of September 11th, after which the public might rally around the White House once again, there seems to be little the administration can do to avoid being ranked on the lowest tier of U.S. presidents. And that may be the best-case scenario. Many historians are now wondering whether Bush, in fact, will be remembered as the very worst president in all of American history.

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/profil ... in_history

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Fri May 05, 2006 3:30 pm

I'd like to think that jimmah carter has a pretty good stranglehold on that one.

Cicero · Post by **Cicero** » Fri May 05, 2006 3:31 pm

Well, lets see. His term is still 2 years from ending and a President's effect usually get judged at at least 10-15 years after his term his up. I am not fazed by the liberal rags that want to constantly bitch at someone b/c their own dickless party cant get its shit together.

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Fri May 05, 2006 3:34 pm

Bush says he's the "decider"...he's definitely the "divider". Folks either applaud him or detest him. Not a whole lot of wiggle...

Cicero · Post by **Cicero** » Fri May 05, 2006 3:41 pm

And the Dems have nothing to do w/ it, right?

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Fri May 05, 2006 3:43 pm

Cicero wrote:Well, lets see. His term is still 2 years from ending and a President's effect usually get judged at at least 10-15 years after his term his up.

The final verdict of history will not be rendered until we are all old men. If then. Presidents like Chester Arthur, Andrew Johnson and William Howard Taft have all seen their hisorical reputations rise and fall as new facts and interpretations come to light. However, it can be safely said that Bush will never be ranked along side Washington, FDR or Lincoln. In fact, it would be a damned miracle if his reputation was any better than LBJ's 30 years from now.

Cicero · Post by **Cicero** » Fri May 05, 2006 3:54 pm

BSmack wrote:
Cicero wrote:Well, lets see. His term is still 2 years from ending and a President's effect usually get judged at at least 10-15 years after his term his up.
The final verdict of history will not be rendered until we are all old men. If then. Presidents like Chester Arthur, Andrew Johnson and William Howard Taft have all seen their hisorical reputations rise and fall as new facts and interpretations come to light. However, it can be safely said that Bush will never be ranked along side Washington, FDR or Lincoln. In fact, it would be a damned miracle if his reputation was any better than LBJ's 30 years from now.

Oh I agree Bush will not be put in the same sentence as FDR, Washington, Lincoln and Reagan. I didnt know those of us here who support Bush ranked him that high?

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Fri May 05, 2006 3:55 pm

So Bush is a moron but the dems failed to find a way to beat him and take his spot. Kinda makes them a tad stupider, don't it?

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Fri May 05, 2006 3:55 pm

mvscal wrote:
BSmack wrote:However, it can be safely said that Bush will never be ranked along side Washington, FDR or Lincoln.
Who is making that claim?

Like I said.

Terry in Crapchester · Fri May 05, 2006 3:56 pm

smackaholic wrote:I'd like to think that jimmah carter has a pretty good stranglehold on that one.

Not even close, according to most historians.

Most historians rate Buchanan, Nixon, Andrew Johnson and Harding all worse than Carter. Some also include Hoover in that group.

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Fri May 05, 2006 3:57 pm

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:So Bush is a moron but the dems failed to find a way to beat him and take his spot. Kinda makes them a tad stupider, don't it?

Boy, I'll say.

Mondale?
Dukakis?
Kerry?

Are ya fucking KIDDING me?

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Fri May 05, 2006 4:00 pm

And now Billary? Pissed off lesbian feminists just don't make up a large enough voting contigency.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Fri May 05, 2006 4:00 pm

Terry in Crapchester wrote:
smackaholic wrote:I'd like to think that jimmah carter has a pretty good stranglehold on that one.
Not even close, according to most historians.

Most historians rate Buchanan, Nixon, Andrew Johnson and Harding all worse than Carter. Some also include Hoover in that group.

Even the Federalist Society - The Wall Street Journal Survey on Presidents rates Carter ahead of the following

31 Zachary Taylor 2.40
32 Ulysses Grant 2.28
33 Richard Nixon 2.22
34 John Tyler 2.03
35 Millard Fillmore 1.91
36 Andrew Johnson 1.65
37 Franklin Pierce 1.58
38 Warren Harding 1.58
39 James Buchanan 1.33

http://www.opinionjournal.com/hail/rankings.html

I imagine a grouping of non fascists would rank Carter even higher.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Fri May 05, 2006 4:00 pm

It 's not that Kerry and Gore are stupider than Bush. In fact I'm sure they're both a lot smarter.

It's just that Bush is stupid in a way that appeals to a lot of people who like stupid.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Fri May 05, 2006 4:03 pm

I'd rather be stupid with bode than smarts sans bode. And by bode, I simply mean...getting the job.

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Fri May 05, 2006 4:03 pm

Bush is dumb, but his cabal is smart.

Terry in Crapchester · Fri May 05, 2006 4:05 pm

Mikey wrote:It 's not that Kerry and Gore are stupider than Bush. In fact I'm sure they're both a lot smarter.

It's just that Bush is stupid in a way that appeals to a lot of people who like stupid.

Rack.

Cicero · Post by **Cicero** » Fri May 05, 2006 4:06 pm

Smarter than anyone here. Even PSUFAN and Dins.

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Fri May 05, 2006 4:07 pm

Dins ain't here, man.

U&Lwife went yard on his ribpack

Terry in Crapchester · Fri May 05, 2006 4:10 pm

Cicero wrote:Smarter than anyone here.

You're joking, right?

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Fri May 05, 2006 4:14 pm

I've often wondered if W lost a lot of wattage in his wild years. He's a pretty dim bulb...but perhaps he wasn't always that way.

mothster · Post by **mothster** » Fri May 05, 2006 4:21 pm

nixon deserves props for helping to end the cold war big time

coolidge anyone?

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Fri May 05, 2006 4:22 pm

Um...how did Nixon help to end the cold war?

mothster · Post by **mothster** » Fri May 05, 2006 4:27 pm

for one------he forced the russkies to man up a million soldiers on the chink border thus using up resources and cayshe they coulda used elsewhere

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Fri May 05, 2006 4:29 pm

PSUFAN wrote:Um...how did Nixon help to end the cold war?

By stepping aside to allow the exceedingly brilliant foreign policy egg-spurt Gerald Ford to take over.

Sincerely,

Totally baked Rush fan

Terry in Crapchester · Fri May 05, 2006 4:33 pm

PSUFAN wrote:I've often wondered if W lost a lot of wattage in his wild years. He's a pretty dim bulb...but perhaps he wasn't always that way.

If the rumors about what he used to do are true, that's probably a pretty reasonably conclusion.

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Fri May 05, 2006 4:42 pm

Nonsense. Even if the rumors about what he used to do are true, they pale in comparison to my younger days. And I’m still sharp as a tack.

No, honestly. I really am. :wink:

Eaglebauer · Post by **Eaglebauer** » Fri May 05, 2006 5:04 pm

mvscal wrote:
Mikey wrote:It 's not that Kerry and Gore are stupider than Bush. In fact I'm sure they're both a lot smarter.
I see no evidence of that. All three are silver-spooners of mediocre intellect and academic achievement.

Articulation does not equal intelligence.

Yeah, Georgie might be the deep, confused, introspective type, and we just haven't been giving him credit for it.

I'll take the guy who can at least speak over the one who can neither speak (yet is required to) nor think.

Spinach Genie · Post by **Spinach Genie** » Fri May 05, 2006 5:15 pm

If things play out with Iran in the direction they appear to be heading, Bush may rate rather favorably down the road. He will have had to deal with the largest foreign attack on the American continent perhaps ever, he will have taken steps to gain leverage against a dangerous growing world power in the middle east and have taken direct action against long-building terrorist elements. So far, the economy is doing rather well...all things considered. Where he will hurt is how he tried to do a PR end-around on Iraq, he refused to take on borders as a major issue and he thus far has chosen to play friendly with opposition when a harder line probably would serve better. He'll either rate very well or very poorly depending on where the situation in the middle east proceeds. Personally, I think the next elected president will be under far more intense fire than this one, as the war we're in becomes a little more conventional and clear to everyone.

Atomic Punk · Post by **Atomic Punk** » Fri May 05, 2006 5:27 pm

We are there to set up shop to take down Iran and Syria. If not, the Israelis will. What happens in the future? No fucking idea. W may suck but this was going to happen down the road anyway.

MuchoBulls · Post by **MuchoBulls** » Fri May 05, 2006 5:35 pm

Atomic Punk wrote:We are there to set up shop to take down Iran and Syria. If not, the Israelis will. What happens in the future? No fucking idea. W may suck but this was going to happen down the road anyway.

RACK that!

If Israel is provoked any further by Iran, and I think they will be, then they will not sit back and wait.

Syria is someone who needs to be dealt with.

Eaglebauer · Post by **Eaglebauer** » Fri May 05, 2006 5:38 pm

mvscal wrote:you are easily impressed by superficial appearance.

Yeah, being able to speak in correct English sentences is just SO superficial.

mothster · Post by **mothster** » Fri May 05, 2006 5:43 pm

PSUFAN wrote:Um...how did Nixon help to end the cold war?

next question?

Terry in Crapchester · Fri May 05, 2006 5:50 pm

mvscal wrote:
Mikey wrote:It 's not that Kerry and Gore are stupider than Bush. In fact I'm sure they're both a lot smarter.
I see no evidence of that. All three are silver-spooners of mediocre intellect and academic achievement.

Articulation does not equal intelligence.

I don't think it's terribly relevant to measure intelligence in 60-something men strictly on college grades they received before most of this board was even born.

It appears to me that since that time, Kerry and Gore both have learned more about the world around them than has Bush. And certainly, both Kerry and Gore display more intellectual curiosity than does Bush.

Eaglebauer · Post by **Eaglebauer** » Fri May 05, 2006 5:58 pm

mvscal wrote:Yeah, it is.

Tom Cruise is articulate, but I don't think you'll be finding him on Mensa's membership list any time soon.

Not sure which is more pathetic.

You being so intellectually dishonest as to defend your figurehead's inability to speak as bearing no indication on his lack of intelligence, or you correctly pointing out that even a boob like Tom Cruise is in fact smarter than him.

Any reasonable and at least semi-intelligent person (you don't qualify I guess) knows that the ability to articulate thoughts, albeit not the end-all be-all of intelligence, is *a* indicator of intelligence.

But if you want to represent that George is too deep and complex to be articulate, feel free to make an even bigger ass of yourself.

Terry in Crapchester · Fri May 05, 2006 6:03 pm

Eaglebauer wrote:
mvscal wrote:Yeah, it is.

Tom Cruise is articulate, but I don't think you'll be finding him on Mensa's membership list any time soon.
Not sure which is more pathetic.

You being so intellectually dishonest as to defend your figurehead's inability to speak as bearing no indication on his lack of intelligence, or you correctly pointing out that even a boob like Tom Cruise is in fact smarter than him.

Any reasonable and at least semi-intelligent person (you don't qualify I guess) knows that the ability to articulate thoughts, albeit not the end-all be-all of intelligence, is *a* indicator of intelligence.

But if you want to represent that George is too deep and complex to be articulate, feel free to make an even bigger ass of yourself.

[mvscal]George W. Bush is a man of action. He doesn't have time for all them sissy things like readin' and learnin' and wordsmithin' and speakin' all grammatical.

Dumbfuck.[/mvscal]

mothster · Post by **mothster** » Fri May 05, 2006 6:11 pm

mvscal wrote:
Eaglebauer wrote:Any reasonable and at least semi-intelligent person (you don't qualify I guess) knows that the ability to articulate thoughts, albeit not the end-all be-all of intelligence, is *a* indicator of intelligence.
The ability to clearly articulate has absolutely nothing to do with intelligence. Actors and newsreaders are all articulate and are also among some of the stupidest people on planet Earth.

This isn't even subject to debate. You might as well try to argue that water isn't wet...or that you aren't a total dumbfuck.

vr, william hurt in 'broadcast news'

M2 · Post by M2 » Fri May 05, 2006 6:14 pm

mvscal wrote: total dumbfuck.

mvscal must be looking in the mirror again

m2

Eaglebauer · Post by **Eaglebauer** » Fri May 05, 2006 6:21 pm

mvscal wrote:
Eaglebauer wrote:Any reasonable and at least semi-intelligent person (you don't qualify I guess) knows that the ability to articulate thoughts, albeit not the end-all be-all of intelligence, is *a* indicator of intelligence.
The ability to clearly articulate has absolutely nothing to do with intelligence. Actors and newsreaders are all articulate and are also among some of the stupidest people on planet Earth.

This isn't even subject to debate.

Actors and newsreaders aren't speaking extemporaneously, asshat.

That's what we're talking about. Not the ability to "read aloud".

Go on trying to find "dumb" articulate people all you want and it only makes George that much worse. I mean we all *know* he's not a thinker, if he can't at least *speak* in front of people what good is he? Having his last name, I guess.

Cicero · Post by **Cicero** » Fri May 05, 2006 6:22 pm

So, you're telling me Hollywood actors are smarter than the President?