Worst President We have ever had

[alkemical]

I would like to know whom you think the worst president we've ever had was, and why you believe that person to be the worst.

[BroncoInferno]

We all know who the worst is, question is who was the best. My vote goes to President Garfield, who probably caused the least amount of damage of any President. Of course, he was rubbed out about a month or two after his inauguration, but still...;D

[Garcia Bronco]

US Grant
James Madison
John Quicy Adams
Franklin Pierce
FDR

[Garcia Bronco]

We all know who the worst is, question is who was the best. My vote goes to President Garfield, who probably caused the least amount of damage of any President. Of course, he was rubbed out about a month or two after his inauguration, but still...;D


I was going to say the same thing...but I figured I'd go straight to hell.

[BRONCCRUSHFAN]

That is a tough one to call. For me it is a tie between the Carter administration, and the current administation. The Carter administration because of the Iran hostage situation, and uncontrolled inflation forcing Ronald Reagan to put the United States in a deep recession for economic recovery. He was a good hearted person, just a very weak Commander in Chief, especially in the foreign policy area. There are those historians who tie the problems that we have with the Islamofacists today, to be directly tied to the Carter administration. With that being said, the current administration is not without fault, and will forever be immortalized in lies and blood. I'm not a Democrat yeah, Republican boo kind of person, because I think that both parties have agendas that are counterproductive to the best interests of the nation and the "average working joe." However, it is in MPO that the current administration has pushed the "if you're not with us, your against us" ideal to the extreme and has segregated the nation to a level not seen since the early 60's.

[BRONCCRUSHFAN]

US Grant
James Madison
John Quicy Adams
Franklin Pierce
FDR
Ooh I forgot about Grant, drunk in the White House while the Army slaughtered thousands of innocent women and children. I believe he called it pacification?

[Ozzy7455]

It may sound terrible, but Kennedy was far and away the worst president. He was consistently sleeping around, had the Bay of Pigs disaster, almost caused a nuclear war, and was killed in office because of possible liability issues. It sounds terrible, but he ma have been killed because our country was in grave danger because of the many mistakes he made. Truman could be considered because of the nuclear bombing of Japan and American concentraction camps we had in California, oh thats right we never treated people unfairly untill BUsh was made president. I know Bush is having issues as well, but many things he has done has been backed by other people and then they turn around and blame him for any problems that arise. I agree this war is getting a little long, but we need to finish what we started. The thing that bugs me is he almost 90 percent backing by congress including Kerry and now they make him out to be a criminal. I voted for Bush both of the last elections and CLinton his last term, so I go with who I beleive in although honestly I regret my Clinton vote more then my Bush votes, man it is crazy how much the media can make people hate someone, not that it is not some of Bush's fault, but man they hate him.

[Garcia Bronco]

Ooh I forgot about Grant, drunk in the White House while the Army slaughtered thousands of innocent women and children. I believe he called it pacification?


I believe that it was...by far the worst President we ever had.

[BroncoInferno]

It may sound terrible, but Kennedy was far and away the worst president. He was consistently sleeping around, had the Bay of Pigs disaster, almost caused a nuclear war, and was killed in office because of possible liability issues. It sounds terrible, but he ma have been killed because our country was in grave danger because of the many mistakes he made. Truman could be considered because of the nuclear bombing of Japan and American concentraction camps we had in California, oh thats right we never treated people unfairly untill BUsh was made president. I know Bush is having issues as well, but many things he has done has been backed by other people and then they turn around and blame him for any problems that arise. I agree this war is getting a little long, but we need to finish what we started. The thing that bugs me is he almost 90 percent backing by congress including Kerry and now they make him out to be a criminal. I voted for Bush both of the last elections and CLinton his last term, so I go with who I beleive in although honestly I regret my Clinton vote more then my Bush votes, man it is crazy how much the media can make people hate someone, not that it is not some of Bush's fault, but man they hate him.

I'm not sure how Kennedy sleeping around plays any factor in how you access him as a President. The other points are debatable.

Bush is responsible for his choices, as is any President. If he listened to what others told him, it his fault for not listening to the right people. The congress trusted what the President told them. That proved to be a mistake.

[Billy Clyde Puckett]

The Best in my lifetime would be Gerald Ford for the reason's stated by Inferno above. While the pardon of Nixon will be viewed as wrong by many, it did end that embarrassment and allow the government to continue on with its business. Continuing to chase Nixon and his fellow idiots would have been a waste of resources at the time. He did bring back at least a little sense of respect and honesty back to the government. Although I don't remember much about it I think Eisenhauer was under rated simply from the point that he unified the country more than any president in this century after the tremendous social and foreign relations upheaval of WW2.

Looking back in history, certainly Grant was one of the worst, along with Madison, Collidge and Hoover. LBJ and Kennedy were no Saints and they commited us to the mess in Viet Nam. One of the worst decisions by a President was Roosevelt's decision to run for a third and fourth term. By that time he was so sick that he could not make good decisions which later came back to haunt us in Russia, Eastern Europe, Israel, China, Korea and the Middle East. At his death he had excluded Truman from so much of the decision making process that Truman was totally unprepared to take office. I agree with what Crush said about Clinton and could add to it.

[W*GS]

We all know who the worst is, question is who was the best. My vote goes to President Garfield, who probably caused the least amount of damage of any President. Of course, he was rubbed out about a month or two after his inauguration, but still...;D

I think Harrison was the best - 41 days as President, then he croaked.

[alkemical]

The reason why i asked was due to this story/op-ed i read:

http://www.strike-the-root.com/52/herman/herman22.html
Worst President Ever? You Might Be Surprised
He shut down newspapers, imprisoned editors, and forced reporters to toe the official US government line long before the PATRIOT Act. Then he attacked US cities and burned them to the ground. Who was he?

He lied to US voters, sided with one European imperial state against another, and plunged neutralist America into a disastrous war that cost 320,000 American casualties. Who was he?

He promised voters the dawning of a new age in America . Instead he secretly dealt with a pair of dictators, providing weapons to both sides (while lying to Americans) and encouraged a murderous war between the two nations that cost nearly a million casualties. He also funded and encouraged repressive Central American regimes that killed thousands, murdering American citizens along the way. He spent trillions of taxpayer dollars on new weapons for enemies that no longer existed. Who was he?

If you answered Lincoln, Wilson and Reagan—among the most “respected” presidents in high school history books-- you know your American history well.



____


I actually think that the fed reserve act was one of the worst acts and i think the cold war was really a PR stunt used to drive both nations (I do think that there was inherent issues, but i think some of it was a bit overstated) -

I think bush1 & clinton really pushed the global agenda as well

[Garcia Bronco]

I think Harrison was the best - 41 days as President, then he croaked.

Off memory..Garfield was President for six months but spent most of that as an invalid.

[Rascal]

Worst ever...

Grant easily.

I don't understand some of the criticism of the bombing of Japan. Have you studied the actual situation and what more then likely would have happened otherwise? I've actually spent a great deal amount of time into studying that and talking to several Japanese men who lived in Japan during that time. They don't like the idea obviously, but even they recognized the logic behind it and how it was probably better then the US trying to invade which would have caused massive amounts of casualties and destruction.

Anyway. I'm sure we will have a our leftists friends chime in shortly and claim bush but to each their own.

[Billy Clyde Puckett]

Worst ever...

Grant easily.

I don't understand some of the criticism of the bombing of Japan. Have you studied the actual situation and what more then likely would have happened otherwise? I've actually spent a great deal amount of time into studying that and talking to several Japanese men who lived in Japan during that time. They don't like the idea obviously, but even they recognized the logic behind it and how it was probably better then the US trying to invade which would have caused massive amounts of casualties and destruction.

Anyway. I'm sure we will have a our leftists friends chime in shortly and claim bush but to each their own.

Hope it was not my post that was taken as criticism of the bombing of Japan. We had three options at the time and the atom bomb cost the Japanese as well as the Allies the fewest casualties.

[BroncoInferno]

I don't understand some of the criticism of the bombing of Japan.

Any action that results in the deaths of thousands and thousands of civilians is certainly up for criticism. An invasion may have resulted in more combatant casualties, but probably much less in terms of civilian deaths. That's not even taking into account the untold numbers of people who suffered effects from radiation released from the bomb even years afterward.

[Billy Clyde Puckett]

Any action that results in the deaths of thousands and thousands of civilians is certainly up for criticism. An invasion may have resulted in more combatant casualties, but probably much less in terms of civilian deaths. That's not even taking into account the untold numbers of people who suffered effects from radiation released from the bomb even years afterward.

An invasion would have taken more civilian lives than the bomb by far as the civilians would have been forced by the army to join the fight or be killed in resistance. Read about the mind set of the Japanese at that point in history and remember how we react to the beheadings in the middle east right now. They were almost hourly occurances by the Japanese Army. The other option would have basically been to starve them out. The night before the bombing, we destroyed their last significant refinery and we had destroyed the vast majority of their shipping. We could have continued with the B-29 napalm bombing and blockades which were killing thousands of civilians daily. By Aug 1, 1945 most of the housing in Tokyo had been destroyed by napalm. for example

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo_in_World_War_II

"The first such raid on Tokyo was on the night of February 23–24 when 174 B-29s destroyed around one square mile (3 km²) of the city. Following on that success 334 B-29s raided on the night of March 9–10, dropping around 1,700 short tons (1,500 metric tons) of bombs. Around 16 square miles (41 km²) of the city was destroyed and over 100,000 people are estimated to have died in the fire storm. The destruction and damage was at its worst in the city sections east of the Imperial Palace. It was the most destructive conventional raid of the war against Japan. In the following two weeks there were almost 1,600 further sorties against the four cities, destroying 31 square miles (80 km²) in total at a cost of 22 aircraft

[Rascal]

Any action that results in the deaths of thousands and thousands of civilians is certainly up for criticism. An invasion may have resulted in more combatant casualties, but probably much less in terms of civilian deaths. That's not even taking into account the untold numbers of people who suffered effects from radiation released from the bomb even years afterward.

Are you sure it would have caused less civilian deaths? You do realize that we killed more japanese through fire bombing of their cities in one night alone then by the atomic bombings (not together mind you)?

How many people would have suffered from having limbs apputated or what not from being sent into battle. Japan was prepared to send every single male and possibly females into combat to thwart our invasion no matter the consequences. I think it was McCarthur himself who said their causalties alone would have been 5+ million.

[Rascal]

An invasion would have taken more civilian lives than the bomb by far as the civilians would have been forced by the army to join the fight or be killed in resistance. Read about the mind set of the Japanese at that point in history and remember how we react to the beheadings in the middle east right now. They were almost hourly occurances by the Japanese Army. The other option would have basically been to starve them out. The night before the bombing, we destroyed their last significant refinery and we had destroyed the vast majority of their shipping. We could have continued with the B-29 napalm bombing and blockades which were killing thousands of civilians daily. By Aug 1, 1945 most of the housing in Tokyo had been destroyed by napalm. for example

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo_in_World_War_II

"The first such raid on Tokyo was on the night of February 23–24 when 174 B-29s destroyed around one square mile (3 km²) of the city. Following on that success 334 B-29s raided on the night of March 9–10, dropping around 1,700 short tons (1,500 metric tons) of bombs. Around 16 square miles (41 km²) of the city was destroyed and over 100,000 people are estimated to have died in the fire storm. The destruction and damage was at its worst in the city sections east of the Imperial Palace. It was the most destructive conventional raid of the war against Japan. In the following two weeks there were almost 1,600 further sorties against the four cities, destroying 31 square miles (80 km²) in total at a cost of 22 aircraft

Bingo.

[Rascal]

I'm not saying I like the idea of us doing it, but considering the alternatives I think it was the best option available.

Not to mention the fact that if Japan had not surrendered when they did, Russia was prepared to attack (as agreed upon with Stalin and FDR) one week later. Who knows what economic and social impact that would have had on us and Japan with sections of their country being under the control of Russia. Could have changed the entire cold war outcome especially Korea.

[alkemical]

Now i'm guilty of using wikipedia as well - but this is interesting (off topic)

http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/


anyway - the story i posted in posts back -

What about lincoln as the worst president the US has had?

[ak1971]

I really dont care for Chester A Arthur.

[alkemical]

why is he on your shiate list?

[Billy Clyde Puckett]

Wasn't he the fattest president - somewhere around 350. they had to put new bathtubs in the whitehouse because he didn't fit in the old ones.

[ak1971]

bad facial hair....j/k just trying to stir up problems. I was just so bummed when he took over for Garfield.

[alkemical]

Wasn't he the fattest president - somewhere around 350. they had to put new bathtubs in the whitehouse because he didn't fit in the old ones.


I bet they came in handy for clinton/kennedy/whoeverelsewasboinkinpeopleinthewhitehouse

[alkemical]

bad facial hair....j/k just trying to stir up problems. I was just so bummed when he took over for Garfield.


I was going to jokingly say his beard -



I actually liked Ike from what i read - i found out that setup where so many miles of concrete had to be laid for roads incase we needed to land planes - i thought that was a cool thing.....

[W*GS]

I thought Grover Cleveland was the fattest/biggest President.

My bad - it was Taft. All 352 lbs of 'im.

Now our Presidents make a show of running around, to prove they're in shape. Heh.

[BroncoInferno]

I'm not saying I like the idea of us doing it, but considering the alternatives I think it was the best option available.

Not to mention the fact that if Japan had not surrendered when they did, Russia was prepared to attack (as agreed upon with Stalin and FDR) one week later. Who knows what economic and social impact that would have had on us and Japan with sections of their country being under the control of Russia. Could have changed the entire cold war outcome especially Korea.

I guess I should have been clearer...I meant that it's valid to criticize, not that I necessarily have made my mind up. The reality was ugly to be sure; stories of survivors watching loved ones run to water as their skin peeled right off their bodies. It's something to think about, anyway. The worst thing the allies did was the fire bombing of Dresden. The war was all but over, yet Churchill ordered the attack for revenge of the London bombings. 250,000 German civilians paid with their lives.

[Mile High Shack]

US Grant was by far the most corrupt and worst president in the history of the US

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/georgesays-2072.jpg

[gunns]

I would like to know whom you think the worst president we've ever had was, and why you believe that person to be the worst.

Worst?

Ulysses S. Grant
James Buchanon
Millard Fillmore
Woodrow Wilson
Herbert Hoover
Warren Harding
Lyndon Johnson
Gerald Ford
Ronald Reagan
George H. W. Bush
George W. Bush

The Best? She hasn't been elected yet.

[gunns]

I bet they came in handy for clinton/kennedy/whoeverelsewasboinkinpeopleinthewhitehouse

How about the majority.

[errand]

Any action that results in the deaths of thousands and thousands of civilians is certainly up for criticism. An invasion may have resulted in more combatant casualties, but probably much less in terms of civilian deaths. That's not even taking into account the untold numbers of people who suffered effects from radiation released from the bomb even years afterward.

You leftists cannot stomach the loss of 2,000 American soldiers in 2.5 years of war...what makes you think you clowns would be able to stomach hundreds of thousands of American troops being killed? Imagine today's liberal Democrats going back in time to the '40's....wonder what they'd be saying then? Probably nothing, because their God FDR was the one calling the shots to use the nukes.

[errand]

The Best? She hasn't been elected yet.

Geena Davis is an actress, dude....she's playing a role. It's not reality...........

[errand]

I guess I should have been clearer...I meant that it's valid to criticize, not that I necessarily have made my mind up. The reality was ugly to be sure; stories of survivors watching loved ones run to water as their skin peeled right off their bodies. It's something to think about, anyway. The worst thing the allies did was the fire bombing of Dresden. The war was all but over, yet Churchill ordered the attack for revenge of the London bombings. 250,000 German civilians paid with their lives.

...and of course in his typical "taking the sides of our enemies" way he conveniently leaves out the number of Londoners killed. Nor does he mention the number of civilians murdered by the Japanese during their occupation of China. Instead he weeps for those that directly or indirectly enabled the London blitz and Rape of Nanking to happen.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Worst:

Bush 43
Hoover
Adams (the federalist precursor to today's neocon cult - tried to lie America into an unnecessary war just like Bush 43.)
Grant
Red Ink Reagan (who laid the groundwork for the sort of "greed is good" corporatocracy Dim Son is now putting the finishing touches on.)
LBJ (Warmongering, war profiteering slimebag and sock puppet of the military/industrial complex who probably played a part in the conspiracy to assassinate JFK.)
Nixon
Bush 41

Best:

FDR
Lincoln
Kennedy
Clinton
Washington
Eisenhower (the last decent Republican president)

[errand]

Now i'm guilty of using wikipedia as well - but this is interesting (off topic)

http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/


anyway - the story i posted in posts back -

What about lincoln as the worst president the US has had?

Yeah, why not nominate the guy who preserved the US and ended slavery as the "worst" president of all time. :crazy:

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Imagine today's liberal Democrats going back in time to the '40's....wonder what they'd be saying then?

Um, how about "errant's attempt to compare Bush's Iraq handjob to WWII is really stupid and misinformed?"

(Do I win anything?)

:D

[BRONCCRUSHFAN]

I thought Grover Cleveland was the fattest/biggest President.

My bad - it was Taft. All 352 lbs of 'im.

Now our Presidents make a show of running around, to prove they're in shape. Heh.
Taft was so large that they actually had to modify 2 chairs to make his chair for the Oval office.

[BRONCCRUSHFAN]

Yeah, why not nominate the guy who preserved the US and ended slavery as the "worst" president of all time. :crazy:
It's not the end result that is questioned, it is the means that were used to obtain that result that is often questioned. I for one don't put him as the worst, but what else besides the civil war and his assasination, is the Lincoln administration known for?

[SoCalBronco]

Worst:
Grant
Hoover
Kennedy
Reagan

Best:
Nixon
FDR
Lincoln
Truman
Teddy Roosevelt

Solid:
LBJ
Ike

[BroncoInferno]

...and of course in his typical "taking the sides of our enemies" way he conveniently leaves out the number of Londoners killed. Nor does he mention the number of civilians murdered by the Japanese during their occupation of China. Instead he weeps for those that directly or indirectly enabled the London blitz and Rape of Nanking to happen.

You piece of ****, the London blitz was evil...but you don't respond to evil with an evil act of your own. It goes without saying that the Axis powers did horrible things. And if you're keeping score, they did far more horrible things than the allies did. But we should be above such unconscienable acts. The firing bombing of Dresden served no purpose. Churchill did for revenge, plain and simple. The allies had the war won, everyone knew it. I doubt the 250,000 German civilians who died had a whole lot of say in what the Nazis did. Right wing ****s like you have no compassion for human life unless they play for your team (even then the compassion is negligible).

[BroncoInferno]

Worst:
Grant
Hoover
Kennedy
Reagan

Best:
Nixon
FDR
Lincoln
Truman
Teddy Roosevelt

Solid:
LBJ
Ike

Surprised to see Reagan on your worst list and FDR on your best list, SoCal. Most conservatives hate FDR for the the New Deal, and most praise Reagan as having sparked a revolution and for ending communism in Eastern Europe and Russia. Just curious, what are your reasons for each pick?

[Montaq]

I thought Grover Cleveland was the fattest/biggest President.

My bad - it was Taft. All 352 lbs of 'im.

Now our Presidents make a show of running around, to prove they're in shape. Heh.

Taft once got stuck in a White House bathtub.

Hoover was a pretty ****ty president.

[alkemical]

Yeah, why not nominate the guy who preserved the US and ended slavery as the "worst" president of all time. :crazy:


Lincoln only used freeing the slaves to kill the south's labor market - he didn't care about the slaves, it was about economics. Not to mention other policies he had used.

[Billy Clyde Puckett]

Lincoln only used freeing the slaves to kill the south's labor market - he didn't care about the slaves, it was about economics. Not to mention other policies he had used.

That's really stretching as at the time the economy was so fragmented that there was very little Federal involvement and even less understanding about how the economy did/could work. Some of the states still had their own currency at this time.

[alkemical]

without the slave labour, the south had nothing - then of course torching cities to the ground helped that issue too -

Most of lincoln's history is from the 'north' - as it's often said "he who wins the war, rights the history books"

[Garcia Bronco]

I really dont care for Chester A Arthur.

He was actually a good President caught between parties...and not having been elected to that office...he did a pretty good job.

[Rascal]

I guess I should have been clearer...I meant that it's valid to criticize, not that I necessarily have made my mind up. The reality was ugly to be sure; stories of survivors watching loved ones run to water as their skin peeled right off their bodies. It's something to think about, anyway. The worst thing the allies did was the fire bombing of Dresden. The war was all but over, yet Churchill ordered the attack for revenge of the London bombings. 250,000 German civilians paid with their lives.

Dresden was nothing compared to what Hitler did to do the Jews and what the Japanese did to the Chinese and are own soldiers. But like you said later still no reason to retaliate with evil against evil.

IMO the reality of our boys invading (both for them and us) would be dramatically worse then two nukes. I talked to an old man in Japan when I stayed there for 6 weeks (father of the host dad I was staying with) and they were prepared to send every able person armed with a rifle or nothing at all and not allow us to invade. They were prepared for casualties of more then 60% at least in his village alone and they were on the west side of the island.

Sure the nukes killed 1000's of innocent civilians, but compared with the alternatives we easily saved 10x that amount of lives on their end alone and not counting how many soldiers we would have lost. I don't like the use of nukes either obviously, but in this case the means justified it.

[Garcia Bronco]

Dresden was nothing compared to what Hitler did to do the Jews and what the Japanese did to the Chinese and are own soldiers. But like you said later still no reason to retaliate with evil against evil.

IMO the reality of our boys invading (both for them and us) would be dramatically worse then two nukes. I talked to an old man in Japan when I stayed there for 6 weeks (father of the host dad I was staying with) and they were prepared to send every able person armed with a rifle or nothing at all and not allow us to invade. They were prepared for casualties of more then 60% at least in his village alone and they were on the west side of the island.

Sure the nukes killed 1000's of innocent civilians, but compared with the alternatives we easily saved 10x that amount of lives on their end alone and not counting how many soldiers we would have lost. I don't like the use of nukes either obviously, but in this case the means justified it.

What was it called...shinto-ism? They weren't going to stop...we had to put them down.

[Rascal]

Yeap. Fortunately McCarthur was smart enough to realize that the seperation of their religious beliefs from their politics was needed to prevent further situations such as WWII.

[alkemical]

it's odd how america doesn't see that

[Rascal]

it's odd how america doesn't see that

Christianity caused WWII :poke:

[alkemical]

Christianity caused WWII :poke:


no, but the increasing polarization of forging christianity with 'right-wing' politiks, as well as extreme-left beliefs are causing those in the middle who aren't forged into either side are being pushed into the 'less desirable' pile by each end of the spectrum.

I firmly believe that a form of civil strife is not to far off - the problem is that the dead ideals of the 60's - have 'hangers on' that keep muddying up the waters and the extreme right wingers are to busy walking on everyone's back to care that eventually, the system and abuses of power turn on them.

[Billy Clyde Puckett]

no, but the increasing polarization of forging christianity with 'right-wing' politiks, as well as extreme-left beliefs are causing those in the middle who aren't forged into either side are being pushed into the 'less desirable' pile by each end of the spectrum.

I firmly believe that a form of civil strife is not to far off - the problem is that the dead ideals of the 60's - have 'hangers on' that keep muddying up the waters and the extreme right wingers are to busy walking on everyone's back to care that eventually, the system and abuses of power turn on them.

I agree that the polarization of our society is very alarming, but I think it goes much deeper than just the christians vs the left wing. The political part all boils down to money. The guy that gets the money wins the election (usually) and to get attention and money he has to create News. Wedge issues, those that get attention but have very low relavence to to the responsibility of the Federal government, are being used to tear the country apart in the name of getting elected. I don't care if the president wants to work at his ranch rather than in DC. I don't care if some fat intern gives the pres a BJ. I care that the government carries out the will of the people withing the powers set forth in the constitution.

[Rascal]

no, but the increasing polarization of forging christianity with 'right-wing' politiks, as well as extreme-left beliefs are causing those in the middle who aren't forged into either side are being pushed into the 'less desirable' pile by each end of the spectrum.

I agree with that. This board only seems to focus on the right wing nut jobs and not the left wing nut jobs.

[alkemical]

I agree that the polarization of our society is very alarming, but I think it goes much deeper than just the christians vs the left wing. The political part all boils down to money. The guy that gets the money wins the election (usually) and to get attention and money he has to create News. Wedge issues, those that get attention but have very low relavence to to the responsibility of the Federal government, are being used to tear the country apart in the name of getting elected. I don't care if the president wants to work at his ranch rather than in DC. I don't care if some fat intern gives the pres a BJ. I care that the government carries out the will of the people withing the powers set forth in the constitution.


I think the political part is BEYOND money. As in, i don't think the R/D's that are in power are really any different. I think it's for the most part a charade. I think that useful idiots like those carried on clearchannel AM radio and those used by liberal media The problem is, i think that beyond the party to 'root and cheer' for most people don't see the 'big' picture.

[fdf]

I would like to know whom you think the worst president we've ever had was, and why you believe that person to be the worst.
Jimmy Carter.

1. Tanked the economy. Carter's economy was several times worse than any other post-depression economy in America. The young'ns here don't remember jimmy's 13% inflation, 10% unemployment, and 15% interest rates. I do.

2. Appeased the soviets, leading to the invasion of Afghanistan.

3. Promised the soviets benefits if they would do something to help him defeat Ronald Reagan.

4. Let his snit over slights from the Shah of Iran drive his foreign policy, which resulted in the first (and longest duration) extremist Islamist regime and brought the charming Ayatollah Khomeni (and his progeny) to power. Destabilized the entire middle east for forty years.

5. Was more concerned about getting a Nobel prize than being a good president. And on and on and on.

6. Lowered the nationwide speed limit to 55 mph.

There is not even a close second to this mendacious, self-righteous, and incompetant man. At least Nixon and Clinton (my other two candidates for worst modern president) had some accomplishments and were pretty much self-admitted rogues. Carter thought he walked on water.

[Atlas]

Yeah, why not nominate the guy who preserved the US and ended slavery as the "worst" president of all time. :crazy:

I feel GW will be right up there by the time his disastrous 2nd term is over.

The worst President was Warren Harding his administration was riddled with scandals. If anyone is familar with the Teapot dome affair. It was a huge scandal. It involved what else?? OIL. BRIBES. In fact many cabinet membere actually did time for it.

Abe Lincoln was the greatest President... Hell, he kept the country together, ended slavery and if He wouldn't have been assassinated the South's transition back into the Union would have went much smoother.

[alkemical]

I agree with that. This board only seems to focus on the right wing nut jobs and not the left wing nut jobs.


Well the 'right wing' nut jobs are the ones steering the boat at the moment - trust me - when clinton was in office i did the same things in terms of lookign at information - i still abohr clinton for the millenium copy right act and finalizing nafta (which really helped the black market)

[alkemical]

I feel GW will be right up there by the time his disasterous 2nd term is over.

The worst President was Warren Harding his administration was riddled with scandals. If anyone is familar with the Teapot dome affair. It was a huge scandal. It involved what else?? OIL. BRIBES. In fact many cabinet membere actually did time for it.

Abe Lincoln was the greatest President... Hell, he kept the country together, ended slavery and if He wouldn't have been assisinated the South's transition back into the Union would have went much smoother.


Find out about the trail of tears and lincolns policy on indians and find out about his economics of the south that lead to the freeing of slaves. He didn't care about slavery, he used it as a two tool'd effort: One to remove the vast labor force of teh south, and two to pull the union into an ideal for war. Learn some history that wasn't taught in a gov't school.

[alkemical]

Jimmy Carter.

1. Tanked the economy. Carter's economy was several times worse than any other post-depression economy in America. The young'ns here don't remember jimmy's 13% inflation, 10% unemployment, and 15% interest rates. I do.

2. Appeased the soviets, leading to the invasion of Afghanistan.

3. Promised the soviets benefits if they would do something to help him defeat Ronald Reagan.

4. Let his snit over slights from the Shah of Iran drive his foreign policy, which resulted in the first (and longest duration) extremist Islamist regime and brought the charming Ayatollah Khomeni (and his progeny) to power. Destabilized the entire middle east for forty years.

5. Was more concerned about getting a Nobel prize than being a good president. And on and on and on.

6. Lowered the nationwide speed limit to 55 mph.

There is not even a close second to this mendacious, self-righteous, and incompetant man. At least Nixon and Clinton (my other two candidates for worst modern president) had some accomplishments and were pretty much self-admitted rogues. Carter thought he walked on water.



I'd like to say a couple of things:

Presidental econ policy takes 10-20years for the true effects to be knows... so some say that we now would be in bushI econ policy and moving to clinton policy -



But the rest i can see your point on.

[Atlas]

Find out about the trail of tears and lincolns policy on indians and find out about his economics of the south that lead to the freeing of slaves. He didn't care about slavery, he used it as a two tool'd effort: One to remove the vast labor force of teh south, and two to pull the union into an ideal for war. Learn some history that wasn't taught in a gov't school.

Slavery wasn't his main purpose saving the Union was. One of Abe Lincolns people that he looked to for advice was freed slave Frederick Douglass. Although they had many spirited debates on what should happen and how or when it should happen they respected each other. When Douglass died he only had two pictures hanging in his house one of his first wife and one of Lincoln.

It's funny you judge Lincoln by today's morals. One thing you'll learn is that in history you can't do that. You have to put yourself in that persons shoes at the time he is living. Lincoln was often criticized for his moderate stanz on slavery and in fact lost elections because of it. He then had to adjust and take a harder line against blacks. He did this to get elected. Let's face it. Lot's of people in the North didn't want blacks to be free. He walked a very thin line.

And by the way I have a degree in history so up yours!! LOL

[Atlas]

Find out about the trail of tears and lincolns policy on indians and find out about his economics of the south that lead to the freeing of slaves. .


By using this logic. Washington, Jefferson or any of the early Presidents weren't any good because they all owned slaves. The fact is that is the world they lived in. It's easy to judge and criticize using todays morals and standards but that is no way to judge ones character.

By the way the Indians have been mistreated and abused by all presidents up to GW Bush. So I guess they were all horrible leaders.

[alkemical]

Slavery wasn't his main purpose saving the Union was. One of Abe Lincolns people that he looked to for advice was freed slave Frederick Douglass. Although they had many spirited debates on what should happen and how or when it should happen they respected each other. When Douglass died he only had two pictures hanging in his house one of his first wife and one of Aberham Lincoln.

It's funny you judge Lincoln by today's morals. One thing you'll learn is that in history you can't do that. You have to put yourself in that persons shoes at the time he is living. Lincoln was often criticized for his moderate stanz on slavery and in fact lost elections because of it. He then had to adjust and take a harder line against blacks. He did this to get elected. Let's face it. Lot's of people in the North didn't want blacks to be free. He walked a very thin line.

And by the way I have a degree in history so up your!! LOL




You are the one who brought up him freeing the slaves as why he was one of the greatest. I brought up that he only did it because he wanted to use it to bring down the south. Having a history degree doesn't make you smart in history, it only means that you have memorized enough to pass tests.

Now, knowing history you should know that he also reduced states rights, and was for centralized banking, which are opposites of what this republic was founded on.

[alkemical]

By using this logic. Washington, Jefferson or any of the early Presidents weren't any good because they all owned slaves. The fact is that is the world they lived in. It's easy to judge and criticize using todays morals and standards but that is no way to judge ones character.

By the way the Indians have been mistreated and abused by all presidents up to GW Bush. So I guess they were all horrible leaders.



Wouldn't you classify violations of civil rights as being a canidiate for a horrible leader?

I'm not using 'today's' morales - even franklin stated owning a slave was wrong - or did you miss that day in history class?

[Atlas]

You are the one who brought up him freeing the slaves as why he was one of the greatest. I brought up that he only did it because he wanted to use it to bring down the south. Having a history degree doesn't make you smart in history, it only means that you have memorized enough to pass tests.
.

You missed my point. Freeing the slaves was a great moment in U.S. history. Lincoln however had much opposition in doing this. He wanted to free the slaves at the begining of the war but was talked out of it by his advisors that it would be a very bad thing and it would even fracture his alliance in the North. He had to wait and some maybe said he waited to long(Douglass) but he had to wait until the people of the North would be in favor of this. When he did gave his Emancipation Proclamation in 18963 itr was a great rallyting cry in the North as white people were now seeing thousands of African Americans coming north fleeing the war. They now saw them as really people as humans. After Lincoln freed the slaves there was never a doubt the North would win the War. The were determined.

As far as knowing history. It's not about knowing facts and dates it's about knowing details, it's about knowing people. When you put yourself in Lincoln's shoes and face what he had to face you would realize that he was a great man.

[Atlas]

Wouldn't you classify violations of civil rights as being a canidiate for a horrible leader?

I'm not using 'today's' morales - even franklin stated owning a slave was wrong - or did you miss that day in history class?

You didn't answer my question. Is every leader that ever owned a slave horrible? Lincoln never owned a slave and was against slavery his whole career but he had to make sacrifices to get elected.

As far as states rights one of the best things Lincoln ever did was limit states rights. The states were too powerful and often didn't listen to the federal government. If the states refused to pay their taxes or wanted to cecede they could just do that.

[alkemical]

You missed my point. Freeing the slaves was a great moment in U.S. history. Lincoln however had much opposition in doing this. He wanted to free the slaves at the begining of the war but was talked out of it by his advisors that it would be a very bad thing and it would even fracture his alliance in the North. He had to wait and some maybe said he waited to long(Douglass) but he had to wait until the people of the North would be in favor of this. When he did gave his Emancipation Proclamation in 18963 itr was a great rallyting cry in the North as white people were now seeing thousands of African Americans coming north fleeing the war. They now saw them as really people as humans. After Lincoln freed the slaves there was never a doubt the North would win the War. The were determined.

As far as knowing history. It's not about knowing facts and dates it's about knowing details, it's about knowing people. When you put yourself in Lincoln's shoes and face what he had to face you would realize that he was a great man.


I deem him irresponsible in terms of his use of states rights and this concept of him being so anti-slavery - when he treated blacks and indians as nothing more and nothing less than just second class citizens.

[alkemical]

You didn't answer my question. Is every leader that ever owned a slave horrible? Lincoln never owned a slave and was against slavery his whole career but he had to make sacrifices to get elected.

As far as states rights one of the best things Lincoln ever did was limit states rights. The states were too powerful and often didn't listen to the federal government. If the states refused to pay their taxes or wanted to cecede they could just do that.


Lincoln was NOT against slavery his whole career, if he were his treatment of indians and his actions that freeing the slaves was only to remove the south's labour market -

If you did own slaves you were a bad person - it's a morality issue - that's like saying "well cannibals are used to eating people, so is it wrong to eat people"


I see that this conversation is over with you, because you don't understand what the republic of the USA was. It was not about centralized government, which you favor. It's fine, you are more of a socialist in terms of political thought. I am a libertarian.

[Atlas]

I deem him irresponsible in terms of his use of states rights and this concept of him being so anti-slavery - when he treated blacks and indians as nothing more and nothing less than just second class citizens.

Well your not living in his time and your not seeing his position. Like I have said. These guys weren't good Presidents. According to you.
Lincoln
Washington
Adams
Jefferson
Roosevelt
ect.... ect.... ect....

Your lists of great Presidents is going to be very small. You have to live in their world to judge them. Put yourself in his place.There are plenty of auto biographies on Lincoln and they state the good the bad and the ugly. I suggest your read one.

If you were President in 1860 what would you have done. First you have to know if you run on the campaign promise to free the slaves you'll never get elected. So What are you going to do???

[alkemical]

Well your not living in his time and your not seeing his position. Like I have said. These guys weren't good Presidents. According to you.
Lincoln
Washington
Adams
Jefferson
Roosevelt
ect.... ect.... ect....

Your lists of great Presidents is going to be very small. You have to live in their world to judge them. Put yourself in his place.There are plenty of auto biographies on Lincoln and they state the good the bad and the ugly. I suggest your read one.


PS - I'm not nor am I ever going to be president in 1860. I'd rather focus on getting back civil liberties and states rights now. I don't believe in centralized banking either, which lincoln also instituted - and don't get me started about the fed. reserve act of 1913.



If you were President in 1860 what would you have done. First you have to know if you run on the campaign promise to free the slaves you'll never get elected. So What are you going to do???


I said good people, not nec. good presidents. The founding fathers had issues with owning people. My issue with lincoln was the removal of the republic.

But again, you want to cling to your schooling, that's fine. You are a left-leaning person who believes in large government and not the foundation that was setup in the constitution. That's fine, i understand that - that's why i don't wish to carry it further - because i see where you stand.

[Atlas]

I said good people, not nec. good presidents. The founding fathers had issues with owning people. My issue with lincoln was the removal of the republic.

But again, you want to cling to your schooling, that's fine. You are a left-leaning person who believes in large government and not the foundation that was setup in the constitution. That's fine, i understand that - that's why i don't wish to carry it further - because i see where you stand.

Well, you don't know what you are talking about either. The Central governement needed more power because the States were refusing to pay taxes and they were leaving the Union. The Articles of Confederation were a disaster. Everyone agrees with that. The states were all their own little countries and in fact the Federal governement had to beg for the states to supply them with troops and money to stay afloat. The Federal governement didn't even have an effective army because the states were unwilling to do their fair part, especially the south. You can't run a country like that.

[alkemical]

Well, you don't klnow what you are talking about either. The Central governement need ed more power because the States were refusing to pay taxes and they were leaving the Union. The Articles of Confederation were a disaster. The states were all their own little contries and in fact the Federal governement had to beg for the states to supply them with troops. The Federal governement didn't even have an effective army because the states were unwilling. You can't run a country like that.

*shakes head*

[Billy Clyde Puckett]

The problem is, i think that beyond the party to 'root and cheer' for most people don't see the 'big' picture.

And that is why I think the parties are the problem. Washington and Adams both walked away from public life because the two party system was forming. Jefferson would have also except in most cases he was a thinker, not a doer.

[alkemical]

And that is why I think the parties are the problem. Washington and Adams both walked away from public life because the two party system was forming. Jefferson would have also except in most cases he was a thinker, not a doer.


Jefferson's principles are sort of what libertarianism is formed on - but i do agree - i remember being told in econ/gov - that the two party system keeps stability - but stability for whom?

[Garcia Bronco]

Jefferson's principles are sort of what libertarianism is formed on - but i do agree - i remember being told in econ/gov - that the two party system keeps stability - but stability for whom?


Read federalist paper 10 and see what the father of our consititution thought about political factions.

[gunns]

Geena Davis is an actress, dude....she's playing a role. It's not reality...........


Yeah and unfortunately these men running things is reality.

I'd say it's time to try a woman. The men have surely f'cked things up, women couldn't do any worse and would probably do better.

[gunns]

1. Tanked the economy. Carter's economy was several times worse than any other post-depression economy in America. The young'ns here don't remember jimmy's 13% inflation, 10% unemployment, and 15% interest rates. I do.

I do too and I also remember Gerald Ford started it, Carter just didn't fix it.

[ak1971]

cant we get back to talking about Chester A Arthur?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Washington and Adams both walked away from public life because the two party system was forming. Jefferson would have also except in most cases he was a thinker, not a doer.

Adams was run out of town on a rail when Jefferson, et al, exposed federalism as a con job designed to turn America's clock back to aristocratic rule (sound familiar?)

[BroncoInferno]

*shakes head*

Sorry, Josh, I've studied the period extensively, and he's correct. I don't like a big, bloated federal gov't either, but there has to be a balance, and many states (particularly in the South) went too far in the other direction. They refused to cooperate with the federal gov't on practically anything, including areas of vital national concern. Todays gov't is too far in the other direction, but there needs to be a blance of cooperation there for the Republic to survive.

[bendog]

Hey, Arthur wasn't that bad a potus. He actually cut down on graft, which pissed his backers off bigtime.

[alkemical]

Sorry, Josh, I've studied the period extensively, and he's correct. I don't like a big, bloated federal gov't either, but there has to be a balance, and many states (particularly in the South) went too far in the other direction. They refused to cooperate with the federal gov't on practically anything, including areas of vital national concern. Todays gov't is too far in the other direction, but there needs to be a blance of cooperation there for the Republic to survive.


See i disagree - and Atlas was trying to use the argument that freeing the slaves was a moral choice - where it was a decision to win the war by removing the south's labour market - also it was about economics more than anything -

[bendog]

The emancipation proclamation was in effect Lincoln saying there could not be a peaceful negotiated end to the war. Up until then, there'd still been hope that there could be a reapproachment with the Union being preserved. It had little to do with morality, and Lincoln may well have wanted to send the former slaves back to Liberia.

[alkemical]

That's what my response is bendog. It had nothing to do with the actual morality of freeing slaves, it was a policy stating that "this is how it's going to be done". So i agree with your post. You just wrote it better than i have.

that being said, freeing the slaves was a great thing in terms of stating that people could not own people, only the state can :)

[Rascal]

I always find it interesting when those who never meet somebody try to determine their motives (especially during a time and situation such as Lincoln).

[alkemical]

Well i got that information from reading up on why he did the emancipation proc.

Gettysburg is right near where i live, so i've taken interest in the civil war - i read alot of 'southern' history on the war - and found that to really give another shade or side to the story - and after going through and understanding that it was for the economics side of weaking the southern workforce - i understood why Abe did it - but his treatment of indians and other letters and such provied lincoln wasn't the kindest to non-whites.

[bendog]

What battle immediately preceeded the emancipation? Wasn't it Gettysburg?

[Rascal]

Yes. It is believed that Lincoln was waiting for a victory.

[bendog]

That's what I recalled. And, after that victory, he torpeoded the "peace talks" between the McClellen wing of the democrat party and the South. The slaves were really only an issue to the rich in the South. Even before the war, the plantations in the East where tobacco had been a slave product were selling the slaves to the West for cotton and the emerging rice crop. The proclamation was in effect bankrupting the political leaders of the rebellion and announcing total war. And then, to McClellen's constarnation, the army voted for Lincoln in 1864 and "volunteered" to fight to the death.

[alkemical]

Yep.

One thing i've learned about history is the romance that can be attached afterwards.

that being said, i do think the OVERALL effect of the civil war was more benificial than harmful in the long run - just that lincoln's use of presidential powers made the patriot act look feeble and centralized banking IMO was a bad thing (that opened the door for the fed. reserve)

[Rascal]

I don't know if I would consider the emancipation as the announcement for total war.

I don't know what was I thinking but it was in January of 1863 when Lincoln gave the emancipation, not after Gettysburg which was in June-July of 1863. McClellen was replaced after his slow movements in December of 1862 in the battle of Fredericksburg (sp??).



****how embarrasing.

Okay Lincoln replaced McClellan in November after Antietam after he failed to pursue Lee after his withdraw there.

Burnside was the replacement and lost his first battle at Fredericksburg after attacking that stone wall numerous times resulting in huge amounts of casualties on the Union side.

He then replaced Burnside with Hooker in January shortly after the emancipation.

[Rascal]

And Lincoln defeated McClellan in November of 1864 after a series of victories and the outcome of the war all but secured.

[enjolras]

Jefferson's principles are sort of what libertarianism is formed on - but i do agree - i remember being told in econ/gov - that the two party system keeps stability - but stability for whom?

You only need to look to Europe to see why a two party system is rather ideal. There power is brokered BETWEEN the parties (see Germany for the most recent example) as there is no clear mandate for ANY party to rule. So you have an election...lots and lots of little parties are elected... and then they get together and form voting alliances to figure out who actually assumes power. It removes the voters by a step from any real power in the process.

That's one of the major reasons Spain's election was so easily swayed after the train bombings. A powerful party was in power at the time, but the bombings splintered the votes along the workers party and lots of little parties that togehther formed a coalition that removed the sitting party from power.

In short.. if you think our government gets logjammed by politics go take a look at a typical European democracy. They are rendered virtually powerless by the coalition building and near constant shifting political climate. Its worse than an episode of survivor really.

[alkemical]

You only need to look to Europe to see why a two party system is rather ideal. There power is brokered BETWEEN the parties (see Germany for the most recent example) as there is no clear mandate for ANY party to rule. So you have an election...lots and lots of little parties are elected... and then they get together and form voting alliances to figure out who actually assumes power. It removes the voters by a step from any real power in the process.

That's one of the major reasons Spain's election was so easily swayed after the train bombings. A powerful party was in power at the time, but the bombings splintered the votes along the workers party and lots of little parties that togehther formed a coalition that removed the sitting party from power.

In short.. if you think our government gets logjammed by politics go take a look at a typical European democracy. They are rendered virtually powerless by the coalition building and near constant shifting political climate. Its worse than an episode of survivor really.


So having two powerful parties that control and make things worse, is better than possiblity of change?

I guess some people fear change.

[bendog]

It was issued after Antietam, which incidentally was the Union's best chance of crushing the ANV and ending the war but where McClellen failed to move even after having Lee's actual battle plan and KNOWING the AVA was split and where it's marching lines would be. That was the final straw for Lincoln with McClellen.

The political effect was three-fold. One, it was popular abroad. Two, it was popular with the abolitionists who were the backbone of the republican party. Three, it was aimed directly at the states in rebellion, not in border states. I do think it was an annoucement to the south that total war, or total econ destruction of the ruling elite, would be the result of rebellion.

http://www.nps.gov/anti/freedom.htm

[BroncoInferno]

So having two powerful parties that control and make things worse, is better than possiblity of change?

I guess some people fear change.

That's the point though, the European system is calamitous and actually results in less change than the two party system because there is never any clear mandate from the people and it becomes hard to get things done when you are constantly having to build and tear apart alliances. Hell, look at Germany right now. It's a mess.

[enjolras]

So having two powerful parties that control and make things worse, is better than possiblity of change?

I guess some people fear change.

1) It would be hard to argue that the two parties have made things worse given our current state of overall prosperity. Maybe they haven't made things OPTIMAL, but certainly not worse.

2) The snide 'I guess some people fear change' really just shows an incredible lack of knowledge of American political history. We've had a two party system for the great majority of our time as a country, yet the makeup of those parties has changed MULTIPLE times.

Hell, simply trace the growth of the Republican party from the 1850's to present. The Republican party of the 1850's primary issue was restricting the growth of slavery. They where hated in the south, and enjoyed no southern support for the whole of the 19th century. In the middle to late 20th century Republican philosophy gradually shifted to being more conservative and much more value based thanks to the great desertion of the southern conservative democrat (expemlified by Strom Thurmond) from the now more liberal Democrat party.

In short, the two parties of today look rather different than the two parties of 50 years ago, which looked rather different than the makeup of the parties before them. The system doesn't discourage change, instead it encourages more orderly change on which a strong government can be truly built.

In todays political landscape there is a definite chance for change. With the democrats absolutely reeling, there is a real chance for that party to become redefined with a more centrist philosophy (such as a form of libertarianism). Its happened before after all.

[alkemical]

See i don't believe it will happen due to the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

that's in each parties pockets at the moment, there's no incentive to change.

[Billy Clyde Puckett]

See i don't believe it will happen due to the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

that's in each parties pockets at the moment, there's no incentive to change.

Bingo It's all about the cash

[BroncoInferno]

Bingo It's all about the cash

I doubt if there has been any time in US political history that big money and special interests did not play a significant role.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Bush embarrasses himself at Beijing press conference

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/20/AR2005112000211_pf.html

BEIJING (Reuters) - Irked by a reporter who told him he seemed to be "off his game" at a Beijing public appearance, President George W. Bush sought to make a hasty exit from a news conference but was thwarted by locked doors.

At the end of a day of meetings with Chinese President Hu Jintao and other Chinese officials, Bush held a session with a small group of U.S. reporters and spoke at length about issues like religious freedom, Iraq and the Chinese currency.

The final reporter he called on critiqued Bush's performance earlier in the day when he stood next to Hu in the Great Hall of the People on Tiananmen Square to deliver a statement.

"Respectfully, sir -- you know we're always respectful -- in your statement this morning with President Hu, you seemed a little off your game, you seemed to hurry through your statement. There was a lack of enthusiasm. Was something bothering you?" he asked.

"Have you ever heard of jet lag?" Bush responded. "Well, good. That answers your question."

The president then recited a list of things of that he viewed as positive developments from his Beijing meetings, including cooperation on North Korean nuclear disarmament and the ability to have "frank discussions" with his Chinese counterpart.

When the reporter asked for "a very quick follow-up," Bush cut him off by thanking the press corps and telling the reporter "No you may not," as he strode toward a set of double doors leading out of the room.

The only problem was that they were locked.

"I was trying to escape. Obviously, it didn't work," Bush quipped, facing reporters again until an aide rescued him by pointing to him toward the correct door.

_________________________________

God, how embarrassing is it to have this moron representing America?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/ap/20051120/capt.chnd12711201255.bush_asia_chnd127.jpg
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/duncanblack/bd5.jpg

[Atlas]

Bush embarrasses himself at Beijing press conference

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/20/AR2005112000211_pf.html

BEIJING (Reuters) - Irked by a reporter who told him he seemed to be "off his game" at a Beijing public appearance, President George W. Bush sought to make a hasty exit from a news conference but was thwarted by locked doors.

At the end of a day of meetings with Chinese President Hu Jintao and other Chinese officials, Bush held a session with a small group of U.S. reporters and spoke at length about issues like religious freedom, Iraq and the Chinese currency.

The final reporter he called on critiqued Bush's performance earlier in the day when he stood next to Hu in the Great Hall of the People on Tiananmen Square to deliver a statement.

"Respectfully, sir -- you know we're always respectful -- in your statement this morning with President Hu, you seemed a little off your game, you seemed to hurry through your statement. There was a lack of enthusiasm. Was something bothering you?" he asked.

"Have you ever heard of jet lag?" Bush responded. "Well, good. That answers your question."

The president then recited a list of things of that he viewed as positive developments from his Beijing meetings, including cooperation on North Korean nuclear disarmament and the ability to have "frank discussions" with his Chinese counterpart.

When the reporter asked for "a very quick follow-up," Bush cut him off by thanking the press corps and telling the reporter "No you may not," as he strode toward a set of double doors leading out of the room.

The only problem was that they were locked.

"I was trying to escape. Obviously, it didn't work," Bush quipped, facing reporters again until an aide rescued him by pointing to him toward the correct door.

_________________________________

God, how embarrassing is it to have this moron representing America?

The guy is a buffoon

It would be funny but it's more embarrassing than anything.
I'm sure if a TV movie was ever made about GW Jim Carry would play him.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I'm sure if a TV movie was ever made about GW Jim Carry would play him.

:laugh:

It would be sort of like "Dumb and Dumber" and "Liar Liar" rolled into one character, huh?

:D

[BroncoInferno]

The guy is a buffoon

It would be funny but it's more embarrassing than anything.
I'm sure if a TV movie was ever made about GW Jim Carry would play him.

Actually, my pick would be Will Ferrell. He does a spot on Bush.

[BRONCCRUSHFAN]

Actually, my pick would be Will Ferrell. He does a spot on Bush.
Dana Carvey does the best Bush

[ak1971]

you ever see the guy who does Zell Miller..he quits breathing and his head looks like an apple...hillarious

[GonzoLays]

If you want a great, detailed listing of how FDR knew and actually PROMOTED the bombing of Pearl Harbor to enter the United States in World War 2, then here you go:

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/pearl.html

If this is true, then FDR gets my vote.