maybe for the future too...in other words (as Bush says) maybe for the future...The future is where tomorrow is...
thanks for great use of a Bushism
2007-08-14 06:54:31
·
answer #1
·
answered by Ford Prefect 7
·
1⤊
2⤋
Each and every one of your points has a clear positive note to it. Or at the vary least, has change little sinse the Reagan administration. C'mon, job loss ? Lowest and most continuous unemployment trend (currently 4.7%) since 1982 where it approached 10%. Hardly major. You have fallen into the thick media fog. Don't be a mere sheep, follow along blindly, and contribute to the misrepresentation. You have a personal responsibility to look into this yourself and clear away the mist and shed light on the actual truth of things. If you think the media is not biased against everything Bush, your mistaken.
2016-05-17 21:17:07
·
answer #2
·
answered by ? 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes.. he has been one of the worst; and I am considering all the presidents.
He won't listen... he won't compromise... he is not that smart in a political sense or he is too lazy to understand anything political or about the world. He has polarized the nation and he clings onto his attorney general who has been a dismal failure and a embarrassment... He did this with Rumsfield for 2 years before dumping him... He cares more for his friends and his own pride than the nation's (which is VERY dangerous for a war-time president to have)... to explain how bad a president this man is would take too much time.
He is the worst president ever.
2007-08-14 07:01:40
·
answer #3
·
answered by cattledog 7
·
4⤊
0⤋
It is tempting, considering the depth of Mr. Bush's revealed ignorance, to agree. That would, however, deny the existence of that immortal Republican Warren Gamaliel Harding, whose administration was as woefully corrupt as any that ever existed.
Granted, Mr. Harding failed to embroil us in any foreign conflicts either winnable or otherwise, but that was because he was too busy drinking and playing poker with Interior Secretary Harry Daugherty and his other bagmen. Only the President's untimely death saved him from indictment along with Daugherty, who was convicted of accepting bribes to transfer the teapot Dome national oil reserve to the Rockefellers. Ironically, John. D. Rockefeller was acquitted of paying the bribe in a lovely example of blind justice.
While George W. Bush is undoubtedly the most uninformed man to be President since then, to say he is the worst would deny Mr. Harding his just reputation as the most dishonest, whose actions had enormous long term consequences the country is still paying for.
Certainly Mr. Bush should be awarded extra points for his partisan behaviour and refusal to compromise with others in an effort to satisfy the wishes of the majority. The treatment of Valerie Plame was obviously retaliation against her husband, who had complained that the President had misrepresented the contents of his intelligence reports. The vengeful nature of Ms. Plame's outing, and the shameless cover up after the fact, place Mr. Bush in a far worse light ethically than Richard Nixon. Nixon, on the other hand, was an otherwise capable President. His competence in office removes him from serious consideration.
President James Buchanan, a Democrat who immediately preceded Abraham Lincoln, headed an administration every bit as partisan and viscious and that of George W. Bush. Not content to attack and persecute its perceived opposition in the Republican party, the Buchanan White House spent its entire effort ensuring that Stephen Douglas was not the Democratic candidate in 1860. That this entailed splitting his own party and actively supporting the Southern seccessionists meant nothing to Buchanan, many of whose cabinet members were shipping war materiels to Southern depots in anticipation of war.
It takes more than a little obstruction of justice to top that.
To criticize Jimmy Carter is unfair. His government ran fairly well and he made a peace between Egypt and Israel that exists to this day. His honesty and integrity rank among the highest we have ever enjoyed. That we as an electorate blamed him for Iran reflects more on us than him. We are wiser than that today, I hope.
To sum this up: George W. Bush ranks among the worst, but unless he can really screw up the next year, or unless some worse wrongdoing comes to light, he cannot be ranked lower than third worst. To sink below Harding he would need horns and cloven hooves.
2007-08-14 07:25:07
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
W will go down, I am confident, as the worst President we have ever had, against some stiff competition (e.g., Harding). The damage he has done -- diplomatic, social, financial, military -- will take generations to correct. He richly deserves to be impeached, or even tried as a war criminal
btw, fast eddie ... its interesting you bring up American history ... if Bush knew any he wouldn't have made half of the mistakes he's made
2007-08-14 06:58:41
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
0⤋
I wouldn't want to perjure myself by agreeing, as I haven't studied up on the terms of every President the country's ever had.
But since I started paying attention to politics, I can say I'm not happy with what has happened since he took office.
2007-08-14 07:04:05
·
answer #6
·
answered by Lily Iris 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
Yes. and by that I mean, Yup.
What's up with the Carter bashing? Carter, Like Bush, Sr. didn't have enough time to screw stuff up...not much can happen in 4 years...plenty can happen in 8....thanks to the idiot son of an asshole, we're in trouble for many, many years. Thanks Georgie-Boy...you f*cking moron!
2007-08-14 10:18:17
·
answer #7
·
answered by Grand Poobah 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
Nope. That dubious honor probably belongs to Jimmy Earl Carter
2007-08-14 07:09:24
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
5⤋
How many more time is this question going to be posted here?
Give it a rest!
2007-08-14 06:56:59
·
answer #9
·
answered by From Yours Trully 4
·
4⤊
1⤋
No, Jimmy Carter.
2007-08-14 06:58:33
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
4⤋