Forums Index >> General >> The Worst President in History?
Page : <1> :
Hmmm sad isn't it that Andrew Jackson who ignored the supreme court and illegally ordered the "Cherokee Trial of Tears" is not on that list. I fear that W will have the same fate. A bastard that history somehow forgets.
Is interesting reading. Will be interesting to see what the opinions are in 50 years.
Scientists had long warned that global warming was intensifying hurricanes, but Bush ignored them
Another sensationalist distortion by the media. The hurricanes go in multi-decade cycles. We were due. There is no scientific reason to link "global warming" to the hurricanes. There's a lot of garbage in the media to sift through. Just because one viewpoint is popular doesn't imbue it true. I like Hoover and think FDR was the worst President ever.
Having said that, there are plenty of things not to like about Bush. I have no reason to believe that I'll like the next President either.
Last edited: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 at 8:55:08 PM
You think FDR was the worst president? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah hah...
No, seriously? You do?
Why?
Hahaha! Careful what you ask BC for Nyarl. FDR committed the most egregious of all sins: he stood between the plunderers and the plundered.
The horror!
That SOB gave away half of the free world to the USSR's slavery at Yalta. He was also a nasty socialist who saw no reason why some shouldn't be sacrificed to others.
Was a racist as well, although that wasn't as much of a sin back then. Or am I thinking of Wilson? :S
One of them was.
^ Wilson.
Thanx for clarification. Knew it was one of the wartime presidents, but couldn't remember which one. Since the topic was FDR, naturally thought it was him.
Wasn't FDR into eugenics, like many of his contemporaries?
Hurricane cycles? What do you mean hurricane cycles, no such thing. It was the presidents' fault. Same thing with economic cycles too.....
BC: Global warming and climate change is real. The UN World Weather Organization is now using 17,000 thermometers and 10 satellites, compiling all available records in history (earliest is 1660's in London).
Hell I'm reading an awesome scientific book on this - not just the paper's hearsay.
Ever heard about the Hadley centre for Climate Prediction and Research? I guess not.
http://www.metoffice.com/research/hadleycentre/
They have the most advanced global circulation model.
This stuff is real, dude. And it's looking bad.
Every political leader ignoring this will be seen as a criminal in 2100.
Even in Canada we're now stuck with our own moronic PM ignoring the scientific evidences of generations of researchers.
Anyone denying climate change I will simply label an ignorant. Even if I like him. :P
Under questioning by members of the Senate Commerce subcommittee on disaster prevention and prediction, he shrugged off the notion that global warming played a role, saying instead it was a natural cycle in the Atlantic Ocean that fluctuates every 25 to 40 years.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9417904/
For the same reason people believe in original sin, some are all too eager to embrace global warming. They feel guilty about being alive. Its the guilt de jour.
Last edited: Thursday, April 20, 2006 at 4:45:10 AM
"For the same reason people believe in original sin, some are all too eager to embrace global warming. They feel guilty about being alive. Its the guilt de jour."
I detect a pungent mustiness in this excuse for status quo.
One thing you fellas need to know before continuing to discuss politics with BC: everything he knows he learned from ayn rand. Think capitalism uber alles. It explains his dislike of FDR, and his intransigence on Global Warming among other anachronisms.
I'm not saying this as a blanket attempt to discredit him, but to give you a frame of reference.
BC, Nuts, and W remind me of Slinkies." Not good for anythiny, but still brings a smile to your face when you push them down a flight of stairs.
{WalMart free for over 24 months!}
@Stink
So, giving away half the free world to Stalin was a good thing then? Stick to the issues and quit with the ad hominem attacks please.
@ Flea
Lol, I dare ya.
Flea: :)
BC: another sissified and over-blown complaint of ad hominemism. I thought it was a point of pride with you that you echo ms rand at every opportunity?
I don't know what happened at yalta. Perhaps you have a valid point. I suspect, given every other criticism you've ever expressed, that your real problem with FDR is that he was an impediment to the free market.
I believe a frame of reference is helpful for others unfamiliar with your arguments, as they appear to come out of nowhere, so long has it been since anyone else paid attention to ms rand. This explains why no one takes you seriously: they have no idea what you are talking about (think about it: the only protracted discussion you've ever had in the forums was with me --- and only then because I took the time to try and figure out what the hell you've been yammering about these past two years ). To many, your comments seem apropos of nothing at all; non-sequitors. I'm providing an FYI to those who may dismiss you as cracked: there is a method to your madness.
It's still madness though. Methodical madness. :)
Ok I'm not gonna even try further re. Climate change. Ever heard of Anthropocene? Ok there are cycles, but what's happening now is that those cycles are tranformed by mankind's influence. Get your science right before saying it's not happening.
To not want it to happen is different than to say it's not actually happening.
In regard to Yalta: Stalin had 300 divisions and a direct line of supply. Brits / US had maybe 75 divisions with sea supply. USSR had air parity, better tanks and better land doctrines. If anything it's pretty cool they did not steamrolled all the way to the Atlantic. The Russian made it to Paris in 1814 - why wouldn't they in '45?
Look BC found Wikipedia web cite .
Oops
My bad...
(it seems in need to work on my ad hominem)
Peace
RE: FDR
Man, he was a fun one for the historians, wasn't he? His socialistic tendencies is exactly what brought down the long-standing steel monopolies. A truly free market promotes monopolies and an unbalance of wealth, so like it or not, sometimes the government has to step in to prevent too much of the money getting collected into one place. Many considered him a hero to have the balls, others call him a bull-headed socialist. Both are right.
As for the foreign policy: he was great at strategy and concept. He knew it would be a long and deadly way if America were to "go it alone." (a pity Bush didn't pick up on that). However, I'm guessing that FDR sucked at playing poker and haggling, because Stalin really managed to weasel a lot out of FDR. FDR walked out of the Yalta conference feeling he had accomplished the impossible with little cost, when in reality Russia already had no love for the Asians, and would've battled for much less than what Stalin got.
I'll grant he was one of the biggest movers and shakers of the presidents, but not everything he touched was gold. But, in the end, you have to admit that he had a pretty clear idea on how to protect America and the people within it.
In my opinion, the best Presidents are the ones you hear the least about. Historians are like news reporters: they don't write much about smooth and peaceful operations.
Bomb...James Bomb
^^^ Good response, HB. When Truman spoke privately with Stalin about the US having "a new weapon", the only other person present was a translator who claimed that Stalin seemed unfazed by this calculated admission. Soviet Intelligence had compromised the American nuke program to a sufficient extent that the reason Stalin seemed unfazed (and unintimidated) is that he already knew. Critics of how Roosevelt and Truman directed an end to the war are able to do so because their ancestors didn't die in an ultimate phase of WW II.1.
I also feel that those who think in terms of white guys having the right or authority to carve up the world, to give away that which is not theirs to give (or take), will not yield to a more sympathetic understanding of complexities observable in every place on earth where there has been an imposition of Imperialism.
With regard to the topic of this thread, we've finally found something for which I'd vote for Bush...only I'd want to extend the idea to include Cheney too. Hate, Greed, Deceit, Malice, Avarice, Stupidity, Poor Marksmanship. May not be the most inept vp, but gets my vote for worst for America. (Agnew would be relieved.)
Worst Administration in American History? Hard to think of any more destructive.
04/20/06 FOX Poll: Gloomy Economic Views; Bush Approval at New Low
You know the Decider-In-Chief is in trouble when even his last refuge posts these numbers: Bush at 33% approval.
His support amongst republicans finally dropped below 70%.
FDR also started social security and many other socialist agendas when he was prez. Look at all the unneccessary taxes we pay now. Good post BC.
KKB, have you ever read an essay by Einstein called "Why Socialism?"? It is included in a collection of his writings called...get ready, "Essays in Humanism" (shudders). Check it.
The Worst President in History?
...And they only established this within the past few weeks? :o
A lot of people knew all along...
Does anyone know what the lowest approval rating in history is?
Bush is lower now than clinton was when.
Gloomy Economic Views; Bush Approval at New Low
(Of course, we can't really trust this article. Look at the source.) ;)
Shouldn't the title contain word US? :rolleyes:
You can't really claim him to be the worst, because his presidency time is not yet over. Yes, he may have done bad choices and good choices(neutral comment don't pick on it). All the negative and positive accomplishments that Bush have done won't show up immediately. The results will show up after a decade or two. Same goes for his public image as people aren't thinking too personally anymore.
Atleast FDR had good quotes, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.".
You don't have to let go of one rope before grabbing the other. But you'll have to let go of one if you want to swing forward.
"the only thing we have to run on, is fear itself"
GOP adaptation of the FDR line for the 2006 election.
Best also the closest thing to black
The worsest and the one that resembles that monkey curious george
You're right Rabban, I wouldn't trust it. His approval rating is probably lower than that.
That isn't doctoring. That's from a pre-interview years ago. I've seen the clip somewhere.
Newest latest.
CIA Warned Bush of No Weapons in Iraq
Reuters
Saturday 22 April 2006
Washington - The CIA had evidence Iraq possessed no weapons of mass destruction six months before the 2003 US-led invasion but was ignored by a White House intent on ousting Saddam Hussein, a former senior CIA official said according to CBS.
Tyler Drumheller, who headed CIA covert operations in Europe during the run-up to the Iraq war, said intelligence opposing administration claims of a WMD threat came from a top Iraqi official who provided the US spy agency with other credible information.
The source "told us that there were no active weapons of mass destruction programs," Drumheller said in a CBS interview to be aired on Sunday on the network's news magazine, "60 Minutes."
"The (White House) group that was dealing with preparation for the Iraq war came back and said they were no longer interested," he was quoted as saying in interview excerpts released by CBS on Friday.
"We said: 'Well, what about the intel?' And they said: 'Well, this isn't about intel anymore. This is about regime change'," added Drumheller, whose CIA operation was assigned the task of debriefing the Iraqi official.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/042206Y.shtml
Yawn. Old news, eh? Right JJ? Right chief? ( I know you turds are lurking!)
How can you trust Reuters? XO
Curious george does look at how closley he resmbles monkeys at times
Page : <1> :
: :
An essay by one of America's most distinguished and respected historians...
...in this month's issue of Rolling Stone
Last edited: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 at 3:29:34 PM