IS GEORGE BUSH THE WORST PRESIDENT -- EVER?

Points against him:

He has taken the country into an unwinnable war and alienated friend and foe alike in the process;

He is bankrupting the country with a combination of aggressive military spending and reduced taxation of the rich;

He has deliberately and dangerously attacked separation of church and state;

He has repeatedly "misled," to use a kind word, the American people on affairs domestic and foreign;

He has proved to be incompetent in affairs domestic (New Orleans) and foreign (Iraq and the battle against al-Qaida);

He has sacrificed American employment (including the toleration of pension and benefit elimination) to increase overall productivity;

He is ignorantly hostile to science and technological progress;

He has tolerated or ignored one of the republic's oldest problems, corporate cheating in supplying the military in wartime.

>> reduced taxation of the rich
Shut up.  50K a year ain't rich.  Plus the small business owners whose revenue may be 200K a year, but whose profit is only around 30K.  What about them?

Otherwise, agree.

ADDENDUM:
>>alienated friend and foe alike
Who cares about what they think?

>>2
I'm not sure what you're trying to say. I'll assume you mean that the rich were not the only ones that got a tax cut. Just because the poor got thrown a bone doesn't mean the rich aren't making out like bandits. You're right 50k taxable income ain't rich. Mr. 50k saved about 1k. Mr. 1M saved about 56k, that's more than Mr. 50k made by the way. People making 6k to ~27k were taxed at the same rate. This is w/out regards to things like decline in gov't funding that increase Mr. 50k's spending. This is w/out regards to things like Mr. 1M can hire a nice tax expert to hide income.

People aren't taxed on revenue, but income ie profit. I never said a person making 30k profit was rich. In any case they got the same 3% reduction as Mr. 50k. Enjoy that bone, cuz they'll be taking it back with interest.

worse than buchanan, worse than wilson, worse than carter..

yep, that's a go.

GW is a cocksucker,that is for sure. He is a crooked bastard and a dullard Texan. I want to do a three-way with his daughters, however. Laura could watch.

Wow! I would love to have the twins fighting over my joystick!

Ulysses S Grant was pretty bad.  Maybe William Henry Harrison if you count "dying too early."

>>1
I disagree with most of your points...

Point 1 = Completely wrong. I don't know where you get this idea from.

Point 2 = Hmm, so obviously you like the progressive income tax, which basically punishes people for making more money. Yeah, way to encourage the economy. -_-

Point 3 = I agree.

Point 4 = How? I've asked this in the "Bush Lied, People Died?" thread, and nobody ever gave me a real answer.

Point 5 = As for New Orleans, why is that the president's job? And as for Iraq, yeah, I think he hasn't concentrated enough from actually protecting us from the people we're fighting, because there's definitely sleeper cells in this country.

Point 6 = Ok, I see that you're a socialist now. Retirement and benefits should NOT be the responsibility of the employers. Those are, and I know you don't like this word, INDIVIDUAL responsibilities...

Point 7 = Once again, science and technological progress is not the government's job.

Point 8 = The government has no business asking private corporations to supply the military...

Look, I'm not exactly satisfied with the way this president has handled the country, especially with not securing our borders and protecting us from terrorists HERE.

>>6 "dullard Texan"
Is that why he got better grades than John Kerry at Yale? Get off this damn board.

I too want to fuck the Bush sisters.

The worst president ever was Jimmy Carter... e_e

>>9, I am a different poster from the OP.
1: since Bush has at least alienated several countries, the first point is not completley wrong, and you know it.

2: I'm not going to dignify the idiocy of this one with a response.

3: gj sport.

4: I will leave this for someone else to do.  I can admit when I don't have enough knowledge at my disposal even to do a simple thing like this. 

5: It is wrong that your initial response to this point is anything other than indignation at the administration.  Again, you display a basic naivete for how government works, and is supposed to work.  as the Executive branch, the president is the ultimate coordinator.  It was he who appointed Michael Brown, and it was he who was on vacation when it struck.  As the Executive, you have various responsibilities.  Among them: appoint competent people-do your best to arrange things to protect American citizens and interests-etc.  No one government official can completely do everything.  The president, like others, had host of options available to him, which he did not pursue.  And that's just reprehensible.  You are not allowed to reply in the vein that he's a busy man-he's had a lot of vacation.  "But he can do working vacations!", you might reply.  True, but although the president should basically be able to employ power from anywhere in the country, this did not seem to materialize on 9/11.  Have some reading on past incompetence, which, although not limited to Bush, definitely includes him:
http://www.rotten.com/library/crime/terrorism/september_11/
Bush has had two occasions to effect operational relevance and save lives, and has utterly failed.  Could Clinton or Carter have been victims of similar fate?  Certainly.  But in this administration, when it rains, it pours.

6: 1. employer/federal-related retirement plans and capitalism are not mutually exclusive, ass.
Also: attempting to use socialism as an scare-word is so ten years ago.

7: Nobody knows what the fuck you're talking about here.  All you're doing is applying platitudes about the government's role in religion and business regulation into a sphere where the result is nonsense.  It IS the business of the government to legislate certain aspects of new technology (environmental regulations on computer production, piracy, stem cell research), because they get into issues of property rights and human rights.  Whatever opinion people have of all this, the government has a de facto role, and a prepared, appropriate role, as outlined in the preamble of the Constitution. 

8: Here you demonstrate willful ignorance of how the american military works, and is supplied. 

You of all people should know that grades are not a criterion of presidential success.  Carter was a fucking genius, and a poor president.  So, you can't have it both ways.  Overall, you seem to suffer from an adolescent misreading of liberatarianism.

Socialism is great.

>Hmm, so obviously you like the progressive income tax, which basically punishes people for making more money. Yeah, way to encourage the economy.
You act like taxing people that make money will stop them from making money. When those relatively high tax brackets were repealed did you see the economy boom? It did the opposite actually. Taxing rich people will not fuck the economy over. Cutting taxes on the other hand will lead to cuts to federal spending on things like education which actually does play a role in fueling the economy.

>>9
Point 4: Well, you're in luck. Check it now.

i remember the time when republicans was about small government.

>>12, >>13 ,>>14

... Huh. ¬_¬

>>14
Conservatives on world 4ch? lol

>>17
At a loss for words?

>>19
Yes indeed.

>>16
1950's? Reagan was already a big gubmint repuke.

>>20
Well just think of something ridiculous to say or else it looks like you've lost your arguement.

>>22
Uh huh. Keep telling yourself that.

>>23
You can't say anything because you're wrong. I applaud you for at least recognizing this and yielding. Although, I get the feeling when you say you don't like bush it's because he's not radical enough. *shakes head*

You also seem to think this is not an unwinnable war. Is that because you are playing with semantics and saying all wars are "winnable"? and What exactly is "completely wrong"? Why?

>>24
If I actually showed you or anyone like you the bonafide absolute proof that you are 100% wrong, I still don't think you'd buy a lick of it. Why should I bother...

"I applaud you for at least recognizing this and yielding."
But don't fucking gloat your ignorance over me.
What exactly makes you say this war is unwinnable?

This war is easily winnable. Just bomb the whole place flat. The world won't do a thing. Everything is forgotten 5 years later.

On the other hand, we are winning the war. They have MUCH MUCH higher casualties than us and we are not even trying. Most of our troops are in the Pacific.

>>26 "Everything is forgotten 5 years later."

September 11th 2001 never even happened as far as a lot of Americans are concerned these days... And it's gonna happen again, if not something worse, yet this fact seems to escape liberals in particular.

Islam is fucked.

>>25

spoken like a bluff.

>>27
On the other hand, we are winning the war.

Not.

They have MUCH MUCH higher casualties than us

~150,000 versus 26 million. That's 173 of them for every soldier.

and we are not even trying.

That's a lot of money for "not even trying". The government is spending the future away.

>>31
Wait, there are 26 million Islamist terrorists in the world? Where are you getting this?

look you people need to shut the fuck up

the only reason we haven't bombed the hell out of iraq is because of all the fucking politicians saying "aww, it's inhumane" and shit like that

>>27
But there ARE worthy casualties. Worthy as "educated people with a brain, a spouse, and the will to live". Namely, Westerners and Asians. "Freeing" that muslim shithole is not worth killing just one civilized person. Just retreat at once, stop killing good people, let the shiite fuck itself and nuke them if they become too dangerous.

>>32
Nah, dude, there are 26 million Iraqis. The vast majority of them aren't terrorists.

But some of them have friends and family who are. Guess what happens when you kill their family? Now, if you keep killing them as they pop up, guess what the end result if that is?

Horrible simplification, but a lot more accurate than assuming ZOMG WE"RE KICKING TERRORIST BUTT!!1!

>>31
That is a weird way to count casualties...the actual way is our deaths vs. their deaths.

>>27
Tell that to the friends and relatives of those who died throughout this war.  Plus, I thought we supposedly "won" this war back in 2003 (remember "Mission Accomplished").

Those that defend the way the war is going with quotes like "more people died on D-Day, or during Antietam or Gettysburg, than have died in this war" have to stop thinking of this war as some kind of game like Command and Conquer or Battlefield 2.  These troops are people, with lives, and once the war is over, those that died won't respawn with 100 health and $5000.  And while we're losing troops at a rate that I'm sure nobody here has lost relatives and friends (unless you belong to the O`Doyle family, you probably haven't experienced five members of your family dying at one time when the family car exploded), the Iraqis are experiencing deaths of their fellow countrymen (the ones supposedly on the U.S.'s side, both non-combat and those involved in fighting, not counting the insurgents) at a far higher rate (it's just never reported as prominently in the U.S.).

Also, look at Vietnam, Stalingrad, Bunker Hill, or the Alamo.  The side that technically won had a much higher casualty rate (in regards to those that were killed).  Winning a war is not always based on killing more of them than us.  It's about completing some form of strategic objective.

And in the case of the "war" in Iraq, this objective can never be completed (there are no WMDs); and if you want to give the current administration a little more leeway, their "secondary" objective (the whole "democracy and freedom" racket) hasn't been going so well either.  Freedom usually doesn't include the opportunity to enjoy daily mortar attacks and roads paved with IEDs, and democracy usually doesn't involve a body of law that is heavily-influenced by religion which also restricts womens' rights.

good thing im not president. i would bomb the bullshit out of iraq just to decrease the surplus population.

>>36
I think you missed the point: counting casualties gives no indication of the state of this war. Claiming you're winning because of it is deluded.

You can get 10 to 1 or 50 to 1 kill ratio and still lose. Take a look at Vietnam.

good thing im not president. i would draft all you right wing clowns to iraq.

gawd, you are all a bunch of pussies. america can't take losing form a bunch of sandniggers. the super power of the world just doesn't do that okay

>>40
I'd consider that to be a good thing if a president drafted only war supporters to fight.  Theoretically, it sounds like a great idea, since war supporters would be supposedly very willing to fight and die for the cause of the war.
Unfortunately, in actuality, a disturbingly large amount of them aren't actually willing to fight by choice (thus the "chickenhawk" term), and would therefore, due to their fear, not be a dependable source of decent soldiers (or competent military personnel in general).

While many of these "war supporters" own guns, I wouldn't be suprised if the majority of them, give or take knowledge of basic operation and trigger discipline, even knew how to use their weapons to a degree acceptable within the armed forces.

The bottom line: whether or not they make effective soldiers, sending war supporters would force them to back up their talk, and their most certain failure would establish a much different precedent amongst the public on which wars we think it's in our best interests to fight.

>>42
joining the army means supporting any war that the current government decides to wage. i wish people would get that in their heads.

>>43
well, this war's been going on for years now.  supporters have had their chance to sign up if they actually had the balls.  those that haven't during these past two or three years is who we're talking about.

and public opinion leads to political repercussions (votes).  that's how the public can indirectly decide on which fights to pick and which ones to walk away from.

POLITIICKSSSSSS

I want to assfuck those slutty Bush twins.

You traitors.

The only problem with this question is that those responding to it can not answer it. It is like asking a child to explain what it is like to grow up to be 40 years old. The child can only speculate because they are not 40 years old. In order to answer the question as to "I George Bush the worst President ever" you would have to find a person who has lived under all previous presidents. Even then, you could not generalize to the entire population based on any one persons perspective. You would need thousands of people to respond.
In summation: NO, he is not the worst President ever.

Technically, you can't tell until he's actually out of office.  I mean, before he leaves office, he theoretically could become his polar opposite, maybe start efforts to protect the environment, achieving peace in the Middle East, leading us into the post fossil-fuel age by subsidizing research into alternative fuels (also a way to start the pursuit of the former), becoming a vocal proponent of the seperation of church and state and an advocate of tolerance and the pursuit of knowledge.

And, of course, maybe he'll catch Bin Laden.

And maybe it'll snow in Hell, too.

>>48
In that sense, you can't actually answer the question, but when they do such analyses, in which they take a bunch of historians from thoughout the political spectrum, and from all different fields of academics, they usually come to a relatively common consensus.  Unfortunately, GW hasn't been a contender in any of these studies yet, due to the fact stated above.

I still believe that history won't be very kind to George W. Bush, and the next administration, whatever political affiliation it may be, will spend the vast majority of its tenure dealing with the long-term repercussions of the Bush administration's decisions.

>>49
He's already put into law subsidies for alternative fuel research. And I'm not sure how finalizing emissions-reduction agreements with other countries, especially those exempted from the worthless Kyoto treaty, equates to destroying the environment.

Catching bin Laden is neither here nor there at this point. True, getting him alive would be a public relations boon, and might yield some useful intelligence, but he can't exactly be an effective leader with thousands of people ready to blow him to bits if he ever drops a clue as to his position. If he's even alive, that is. Killing and capturing those actually fighting, such as those blowing shit up in Iraq, and continuing to take measures against regimes that support and harbor Islamist terror, like Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia (although we could stand do to more there) will be much more effective.

Bush is the graetst president EVER!  He kicked the ass of Al Kida and the Franch and should nuke meka.  Fuck you LIEberal hippys.  My whole town in Misisipi voted for Bush in the electin, not for Hanoy John Kerry, who lied about figting in Vietnam. 
I hope all you gey hippys LIEberals from San Fransico like FOUR MORE YEARS OF THE GRAETEST PRESIDENT EVER MORANS!  Bush is the best frend to Cristians who don't like homos and babykillers.  He is the best frend to us who enjoy are right to bear arms from the 1st Amendmint.  He is the GRAETEST PRESIDENT EVER!

>>50

The Kyoto treaty is worthless? Only because the biggest polluter in the world didn't join.

The USA made the Kyoto Treaty useless. It is useless because the biggest polluter still pollutes (and now it has less competitive opponents, so they're even more encouraged to pollute), and countries buy pollution quotas from shitty countries. If the rest of the world, namely Europe, Japan, China, Russia and Oceania threatened the USA with cold war and economic block, the USA would be forced to comply.

>>53

The Kyoto treaty made the Kyoto treaty useless. It demanded we pay more than our share yet let #2 polluter (China)get off the hook.

It also fails funamentally because it does not make an effort to prevent the pollution that may soon surpass ours coming from China, India, and Brazil. The Institute for Public Policy Research in the UK has already stated that even if the Kyoto treaty is fully implemented greenhouse emmissions will still rise 70%.

>>54
China can't pay for it. You can. And you have polluted far more than China did through History, so I don't care if you have to pay more. I'm still up for a mass international block to force the USA to comply.

>>55
I see. So the US should go ahead and lose 20 billion dollars a year and an estimated 10 million jobs for a maximum of a 7% greenhouse gas reduction internationally? Really an ingenious idea.

 China can use the money from all their counterfeit products that cost the US billions of dollars per year to help out.

>>56
I wonder who made those "estimations".

>>57
Well I got the cash estimation from a presidential speech and the 7% reduction from the BCC who were reporting on what British scientists had to say on the matter. The Autralian (newspaper) showed the same figures.

Besides global warming is just paranoia. If you're interested read this article.
http://www.climatesearch.com/newsDetail.cfm?nwsId=126
I'm usually not crazy about Canadians but they're right on this one. US and many UK researchers are reporting the same thing.

>>58
I got the cash estimation from a presidential speech
The Autralian (newspaper)
HAHAHAHAHA!

the 7% reduction from the BCC who were reporting on what British scientists had to say on the matter
I believe this number. And 7% is good for a start, BTW.

Besides global warming is just paranoia.
Is that so? There's proof that shit is happening, too. While we can't be 100% sure about it; we cannot take risks. The world risks getting screwed just because Amerika wants to make $0.35 more here and there so it may reduce taxes on gas so you can visit your auntie living 100 Km away in your V16 riced Mustang.

>>59
There's no doubt global warming happens, despite reports that Europe is getting a hell of a lot colder, and that the ice caps in Antarctica are actually getting thicker... It's a natural cycle of the earth, it gets hotter, it gets colder, it gets hotter, it gets colder. Duh. Hoever, there's very little convincing/intelligent evidence that this is happening because of human activities. Acid rain and smog, yeah, ok. Global warming? Uh uh...

I say start drilling for oil in Yellowstone.

Hoever, there's very little convincing/intelligent evidence that this is happening because of human activities.

John knows of what he speaks.

Oh, wait...

>>60
Here's something you can try at home. Put your hand in front of a piece of ice and blow over the ice onto your hand. Notice how the air is cold? Yet, at the same time, the ice is melting from the warmth of your breath. Saying that global warming = everywhere hot lol shows a distinct ignorance of simple physics.

>>62
So I guess you think you do, then?

>>63
Um, I never said that. And thus, you demonstrate your ignorance of simple conversation structure.

Oh hey, the ice caps are getting thicker. Now how on earth could this be? Oh, right, global warming.
http://www.jefflindsay.com/snippets/warming.shtml

Europe is getting colder? Well, the media would tell me that it's global warming, so I guess being the liberal that I'm not, I'll go along with that!
http://blog.nam.org/archives/2005/12/another_wrench_1.php

Oh, damn, I just sneezed. Hmm, must be global warming.
*Scratches an itch on his ass caused by global warming*

we are all going to die.

>>66
nice pointless comment. if the end result is death anyway, why not spur it forward? you first.

arguing about the reality of global warming shouldn't have any effect on policy.

Everything that the reality of global warming would imply ought to be done in and of itself already.  The main points are depopulation, lowered consumption, and lower emissions.  So, the tacit conservative implication that we can proceed 'as usual' if global warming were false is inadmissable, because we encounter other, more obvious social and environmental ills as scarcity increases.

I keep saying this and nobody fucking gets it.

I keep saying this and nobody fucking gets it.

Yes, but it would be nice if we did it voluntarily, you know? It's nice to sit in an ivory tower and pontificate about natural cycles related to scarcity, but in reality you might be the person dying.

Not that we'll ever learn to do it voluntarily. Everyone seems to thing they have a right to consume, whether they be the stinking rich (Western societies), or the stinking poor (hey, all the rich people do it!).

>>69

Nobody said that what ought to be done will actually be done.  only that it ought to be done.

we are all going to die.