Yes, George Bush is by FAR the worst prez ever elected. Have you not noticed all the choas caused by his desisions? Global warming, war, immagration, etc etc. He is the worst prezzzie America has ever seen.
2006-07-29 11:40:31
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
In my lifetime that would be carter or clinton. Carter actually did more for the country, even though it all turned out very badly. Clinton didn't do ****, except sweeping it under the rug continuously. He passed off a country officially in a recession with jobs losses to overseas starting in 1997.
Bush will be lauded, not many will have handled things as well as he has. He wants to address things once, not shuffle it off to the next administration. He has courage and backbone. He is creating jobs, we have a 4.7% unemployment rate, we are reducing the debt in spite of the Iraq war. I have only good things to say about this President.
2006-07-29 11:46:07
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Carter and Clinton have to be in the top 3.
Reagan was a great president. In fact, there are only two serious choices for best president of the 20th century: Reagan and FDR. Reagan helped bring down the former Soviet Union without firing a shot. The nod goes to Reagan in my mind.
2006-07-29 11:42:03
·
answer #3
·
answered by Carl 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
George W. Bush is not even close. There is Nixon who would have been impeached. Hoover who was president when the depression started, James Buchanan who did practically nothing when the south began to succede from the Union before Lincoln became President, John Adams Alien-Sediction acts were hugely unpopular. Bush is not nearly as bad as these guys.
2006-07-29 11:48:42
·
answer #4
·
answered by bumpocooper 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think the worst president we've ever had has definitely got to be Hilary Clinton. How many presidents were getting their rocks off before Slick-Willy's stand-in in office? A bunch of
'em, and everybody knew it, but nobody said much, not like with the "infamous stained dress". Who cares if you couldn't keep hubby happy, Hil...All Hilary had to do was blow him...2nd worst pres we've had, the dude off 24 who now does car insurance commercials. Guess we couldn't handle having a black man in office....
2006-07-29 18:24:51
·
answer #5
·
answered by Bite Me 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
I would guess Bill Clinton was the worst as he turned the Oval Office into a whorehouse and simultaneously ignored "Al Qaeda," although he was well aware of the threat and their continued growth. But I guess he was distracted by his staff on her knees and as long as "Al Qaeda," was not going after her-he had no problems! LOL But seriously I don't know that much about Presidents of America as I'm Canadian-not American ..sorry!!
2006-07-29 11:44:01
·
answer #6
·
answered by MAK 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Regan was undoubtadly senile and unintelligent but he appeared to get things done well for some reason. It is my strong beleif that your currect president is the worst ever. He represents the most unsightly elements of the USA. The founding fathers would be embarrassed and ashamed.
2006-07-29 11:41:29
·
answer #7
·
answered by peaco1000 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
All you have to compare is the damage he has done to the world and you have your answer. Yes, I think he is the worst president we have ever had. But, I also think he serves more as a figure
head. I don't think the people around him allow him to do much. The guy can't even chew with his mouth shut.
They tell him what he thinks and he is the puppet.
2006-07-29 11:43:08
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
The criteria is how do you define worst?
Dubya may not actually be the wrost, but he is in the bottom 5.
I susally give it to Warren G. Harding. What did he do (aside from shag Nan Brittan in the linen closet of the White House?)
2006-07-29 11:41:08
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
no longer to any extent further adverse than the different President. they are ALL ineffective puppets of a device plenty greater than any of em. All you truly gotta be is a solid used motor vehicle salesman with a view to pass your self off as a solid President. Clinton did not greater advantageous, and did merely as plenty harm common, he merely bought his tale slightly greater advantageous. comparable with Reagan, he wasn't truly that extremely greater advantageous than Bush, he merely bought it greater advantageous. whether you utilize the actuality that Clinton balanced the value variety and left Bush with a surplus as "info" that he became greater advantageous, it does not truly remember because his common habit ended up dropping the white homestead to the Republicans, so all that artwork ended up being for no longer something because we at the instant are added in debt than we've ever been through fact the founding of this u . s .. comparable ingredient with Reagan, in case you supply him credit for ending the chilly conflict, you may no longer overlook the actuality that he became the only customarily in charge for arming the very human beings we are at conflict with at present. So he ended one conflict by planting the seeds for the subsequent one. interior the tip, that's all any of those Presidents are solid for....passing the greenback to the subsequent President. They blame the final President for each and all of the failings they gotta restore, and then push all that stuff off for the subsequent President to difficulty approximately in any case.
2016-10-01 05:55:17
·
answer #10
·
answered by xerxes 4
·
0⤊
0⤋