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.

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.