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.