|
Post by skyhint on May 25, 2006 0:32:19 GMT -5
So, if you don't think George Bush is the worst, then who is and why?
I'm too young and Canadian to know much about US Presidents so I can't make an informed opinion.
|
|
|
Post by sushiboat on May 25, 2006 9:16:03 GMT -5
Here is an excerpt from another article on Bush by a scholar who participated in a recent expert poll that ranks U.S. Presidents. It is titled Under the Cold Eye of History. There is much agreement by scholars as to the greatest presidents; they are Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, George Washington and Theodore Roosevelt, with Harry Truman, Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson not far behind. These great leaders provide a standard by which all presidents are measured -- and clues as to how Bush measures up. From the great presidents we know that the country is well-served by leaders who exhibit the following traits:
• Humanity, compassion, and respect for others • A governing style that unifies, not divides • Rhetorical skills and the ability to communicate a clear, realistic vision • Willingness to listen to experts and the public • Ability to admit error, accept criticism and be adaptable • Engaged and inquisitive, with a sense of perspective and history • Integrity, inspiring trust among the people • Moral courage in not shrinking from challenges
Unfortunately, Bush's presidency has been the polar opposite of this list. This brings up the matter of who are our worst presidents. Again, scholars are in agreement, listing Warren Harding, Andrew Johnson, Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan.
|
|
|
Post by Buzzz on May 25, 2006 9:48:44 GMT -5
Yeah mix the ineptitude of Pierce and Buchanan with the corruption of Harding and you've got Gee Dubs!
Fact: Franklin Pierce is the great great grand-uncle of George W. Bush.
|
|
|
Post by GreenFerret on May 25, 2006 11:44:34 GMT -5
Yeah mix the ineptitude of Pierce and Buchanan with the corruption of Harding and you've got Gee Dubs! Fact: Franklin Pierce is the great great grand-uncle of George W. Bush. And by fact you mean...fact? Innnnnnteresting! Sounds like Americans need to stop picking the fruit off that family tree.
|
|
|
Post by Samantha on Jul 13, 2006 7:44:15 GMT -5
One thing in his favour, he is absolute comedy gold. The internet will be a poorer and much duller place with his passing.
|
|
|
Post by randall on Jul 20, 2006 8:44:44 GMT -5
He may not be the *worst* president but there's no way in hell he's a good one. It should be illegal for incompetent idiots to hold positions of power.
|
|
|
Post by steplightly on Jul 23, 2006 16:44:36 GMT -5
I totally agree that he is the worst president. Not only are we involved in a war for unjustified reasons, but there appears no solution to this morass and Iraqi citizens are being killed by the hundreds. The situation at home is worsening steadily as Bust continues to curtail our personal freedoms for totally unjustified reasons by using "terrorism" scare tactics. He frightens the devil out of me!
|
|
walls
Junior Member
Posts: 68
|
Post by walls on Jul 23, 2006 22:39:57 GMT -5
IMHO, it is impossible for us to call Bush the worst *ever* in comparison against those under whom we did not live (worst within our lifetimes, otoh, my be a fair assessment). For example, Truman once experienced 22% approval rates; yet history holds him to be one of our better leaders..
Bush is digging our country into a deep hole, no doubt. However, it was his predecessors who started that hole going.
Jimmy Carter--whom many actually consider to be among the worst of our presidents--was prescient enough to say that this country was consuming too much and needed to develop alternative energies in order to sustain such consumption. Unfortunately his advice was not heeded and his successors (Reagan, Bush, Clinton, they all deserve blame) kept the consumption train rolling while our planet's oil supply has become increasingly precarious.
I think our leaders know that an oil 'crisis' (I use the term loosely, I'm not a doomsayer) is imminent. In terms of our immediate future, what is vital is firstly a supply of affordable oil, and, on almost equal footing, but secondly is the development of alternative (renewable, preferably) energy sources.
The Iraq War is flawed for several reasons. First of all, it makes more sense to develop alternative energy supplies than it does to spend energy finding oil (the US military is the #1 oil-consuming entity in the world). Second, Iraq does not afford that great an advantage when it comes to oil. I believe Bush&Co over-estimated the oil reserves in Iraq and they over-estimated the influence it would allow us to achieve in that oil-rich region.
If one takes an honest look at the oil situation, it becomes clear that a strong American presence is essential in the Middle East for the next 20 yrs or so.
I should also add that, Bush is by any means not the only one to blame for this fiasco. Almost all members of Congress are at fault as well.
|
|
|
Post by zaab on Jul 24, 2006 0:00:53 GMT -5
For me, judging W as the worst, aside from approval ratings, is what I perceive his presidency may be setting us up for. If an oil crisis is imminent and we have no viable alternatives in place to mitigate it, then a recession or worse proceeds. And if that happens what do we do about the massive debt nearing 10 trillion? What if the lenders call it in? What if the house of cards collapses? Bush has made us into a pariah nation when we may be approaching a time when we need other nations the most. Hopefully the new administration can heal those rifts, but what if the world isn't so quick to forgive us?
Then the scandals, the virtual upheaval of the constitution, ignoring environmental crises, mishandling everything they touch, the lies piled atop lies, wars and rumors of wars. Previous presidents in recent history have had their bad moments, but they're looking more and more trivial compared to W's. It might be premature to call this the worst presidency ever, but I think its a good guess. I'd put just about all my chips down on this presidency being considered the worst.
|
|
|
Post by MrNice on Jul 24, 2006 21:40:16 GMT -5
after reading the peak oil stuff and some information about financial policies starting around 1970, I am not so convinced that bush is much worse then whoever might have been in his place it sounds like we are heading towards a disaster and there is not much anyone can do about it the oil must flow they can't call it in, because if they do then the dollar will collapse and no one will get anything everyone is tied to the dollar the oil is sold for dollars but of course this can not go on forever www.financialsense.comthis website has alot of interesting articles www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/this one is a good one about peak oil i have been talking to people about this, but the reaction from everyone is 'whatever, they will think of something' well, with this kind of attitude, its not gonna look good
|
|
|
Post by zaab on Jul 24, 2006 22:08:20 GMT -5
If bad times are ahead, Bush has put us in the worst possible position, economically, diplomatically, environmentally, to ride them out. I agree, a different administration probably would not have made a dent in a possible future energy crisis, but I can't imagine how they could of done worse than W has. This is a great lecture by the late RE Smalley, a nobel prize winner, that is harrowing and hopeful at the same time depending on how much of an optimist you are (Its the one entitled "Our energy challenge"): smalley.rice.edu/
|
|
walls
Junior Member
Posts: 68
|
Post by walls on Jul 24, 2006 22:36:55 GMT -5
after reading the peak oil stuff and some information about financial policies starting around 1970, I am not so convinced that bush is much worse then whoever might have been in his place it sounds like we are heading towards a disaster and there is not much anyone can do about it the oil must flow they can't call it in, because if they do then the dollar will collapse and no one will get anything everyone is tied to the dollar the oil is sold for dollars but of course this can not go on forever www.financialsense.comNo it won't contune at all. In fact, Russia recently suggested switiching to a currency 'basket' rather than the $.. www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/HG18Ag01.htmlWhat I don't understand is this: I'm sure the Bush administration grasps the threat of the oil crisis. Thus the Iraq invasion is somewhat justified in order to influence the supply-side of the oil equation. However, why not also influence the demand-side by raising CAFE-standards and developing alternative energy sources, ie, doing more than simply declaring that 'america is addicted to oil'?
|
|
|
Post by MrNice on Jul 24, 2006 22:46:16 GMT -5
read the big peak oil article its not that simple i was shocked myself but it makes sense
|
|
|
Post by zaab on Jul 24, 2006 23:06:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by MrNice on Jul 24, 2006 23:21:39 GMT -5
iraq has the second biggest oil reserve its a matter of survival I don't know if it helped, but fear is a big motivator
|
|