English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

29 answers

Well, many have already said Lincoln and it's hard to argue against that choice when the Civil War broke out on 'his shift'. However, those problems were already brewing when Lincoln took office, he was a 'moderate' compared to the others running against him and he worked hard to bring the nation back together again.

In Bush's case, 9/11 happened on 'his shift' and the country was, for a short time, very united in the aftermath. Angry and defiant, but unified and unafraid. Bush carried that unity forward when he said in the State of the Union, "you're either with us, or with the terrorists". But wait, that was unifying only on the surface. The other message, the one beneath the surface, was a message of divisiveness. A message that said there is no middle ground, there is no room for critical thought and no room to criticise the government's actions. The ones who would do so, must be with the terrorists, they must be un-American, they must hate their country. See how unifying that is?

What happened to the voices that said "they didn't win, we're not afraid!" so bravely? They were silenced by an agenda of fear. We heard "If we don't fight them there, they'll follow us home"... said against a backdrop of lies and images of a mushroom cloud. There was no "yellow-cake" and no nukes, except our own depleted uranium... now Iraq has their very own Al Qaeda. Here, take my civil liberties... I won't need 'probable cause' or 'due process of law' if I'm not doing anything wrong. Right?? Executive Privilege used as a shield against accountability doesn't follow that same premise, it's 'different' and 'necessary' for so much more than classified information. More "my way or the highway", more "do as I say, not as I do"... more divisiveness.

In comparison of Lincoln to Bush, Lincoln took us from divisiveness through war and into reconstruction. Bush has taken us from post-9/11 unity into two ongoing wars (one justified, the other a 'quagmire'), escalated strained relations with a third (Iran) and up to our current state of polarization. Therefore, I think Bush wins the dubious distinction as most polarizing.

2007-08-17 10:09:02 · answer #1 · answered by sagacious_ness 7 · 1 1

no longer even close. Worst in modern-day historic past is Carter. checklist extreme inflation, gas strains, checklist extreme expenditures of pastime, brought about the Iran/Iraq project, offered the Panama Canal, hostage disaster and so forth and so forth. and that's in ordinary terms a initiate. Ask everybody who lived for the period of that era. below Bush we've been risk-free because 2001 and we've seen the inventory marketplace hit an all time height of 14,000. No president has accomplished this. i do unlike lots of the Bush policies, yet by using staying out of the financial equipment we observed wonderful boost. this is, till the democrats won congress. Now the marketplace is extremely over 8,000. those modern-day scandals by using senate democrats has relatively harm the financial equipment. yet liberals write the historic past books, so do no longer assume the certainty to be uncomplicated to discover.

2016-12-15 18:11:57 · answer #2 · answered by schebel 4 · 0 0

No, Lincoln definately takes that award.

What kind of man knows what his election will cause and still goes ahead and shoots for the presidency?

FDR did a good job of polarizing the country too, as did pretty much any other president that did anything. You cant accomplish things without pissing people off.

2007-08-17 09:43:45 · answer #3 · answered by Showtunes 6 · 1 1

I'm not sure that George W. Bush is smart enough to polarize anything.

However, I think it's the whole political process now days that has polarized itself and the people of the United States.

Whatever happened to "United We Stand, Divided We Fall"???

2007-08-17 09:47:06 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

Yes, he has been in my lifetime. Nixon was rotten and corrupt but he ended the war and tried to help the middle class with wage and price controls, As I remember this did slow down runaway inflation and helped the middle class some. GWB on the other hand has slammed the middle class not only financially but also in the erosion of their rights, especially with regards to the workplace (OSHA, DOL, etc.). It would be hard to argue that divide between the middle and upper classes has not widened substantially in the past 7 years.

2007-08-17 10:00:56 · answer #5 · answered by HP 4 · 2 0

I would have to say Lincoln was the most polarizing no way anything else comes close. Civil War is the definition of polarizing.

2007-08-17 09:39:52 · answer #6 · answered by Reston 3 · 1 4

I'm pretty sure Lincoln was the most polarizing - you can't get much more polarizing than a civil war.

2007-08-17 09:36:29 · answer #7 · answered by AC Knock 2 · 7 2

No. Name one personal attack that Bush has made.
Go on, name 1.

You can't. But I can post a list a mile long of sick, traitorous, personal attacks that the Democrats and our media have made on President Bush.

Bush has begged the Democrats to join him in the fight against the terrorists to save American lives. And all he gets from them is name calling and insane conspiracy theories.

Democrats are the divisive scum bag traitors.

2007-08-17 09:45:56 · answer #8 · answered by Aegis of Freedom 7 · 1 3

This country is more screwed up than Lindsay Lohan locked up in a Liquor Store!

Email me if you're interested in my recipe for "Booger Bread"

Trash the Vote! Vote for "Happy The Clown" for President in 2008

Always remember + never forget:
Booze + Drugs + Unprotected Sex = Retarded Babies

2007-08-17 09:40:38 · answer #9 · answered by Schizo Clown 3 · 2 3

Abe Lincoln was I believe, North and South?

2007-08-17 09:42:51 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

fedest.com, questions and answers