Conquer Club

sorry fellas, George Washington could not possibly not be the worst president in history. all answers to all your questions can be revealed here, in an easy to follow educational (and completely true) video that i have posted here before.

(WARNING: may be disturbing to some viewers, especially the British children)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbRom1Rz8OA

suggs wrote:Good on ya you winner.

haha thats wat mommy says when i make an uhoh like bathe fluffy in the waching mashin and dry him in the mikrowave.

And I officially rescind my previous choice of Andrew Johnson as worst Prez. As a replacement, I offer the one and only William Henry Harrison who never even tried to do anything good during his 30-day term. "Boo-hoo. I'm Tippecanoe and Im too SICK to lead. The PNEMONIA is too hard. I'm a wimp and a loser." If Chuck Norris was president, he would never have let death beat him. That's too unamerican.

Well, I changed me mind again. I suppose that Johnson DID have more negatives than positives and his goodboy factor would be negative to WHH's neutral. Still, though, one could make a compelling arguement from the fact that Harrisson was sick his entire term. Perhaps HE should be on the ballot, instead of Jimmy Carter who got screwed over by the Arabs and still pulled off Camp David (damn Reagan to hell for screwing over JC's single good act) or Grant who at least invented 50 dollars (and was the perfect General for Lincoln, although that predated his presidency) Cleenton who, although possibly evil, saved our economy. Almost.

And as for crookedness, I beg you to find me ONE president during the "Gilded Age" from Lincoln to Roosevelt that wasn't giving away government positions to friends. Harding's was bad, but so were theirs, not to mention the fact that your could smell their stagnant social and labor policies from Canada. If anyone should be added to the ballot, it would be WHH.

I'm gonna go with Andrew Johnson, with Bush Jr. as the second worst president ever simply because Johnson literally was not able to do anything and was actually impeached, not just threatened, over purely political reasons.

PhatJoey wrote:Where is Bill Clinton? Jimmy Carter?

They're both still embarrassing us and undermining our credibility.

You think Bush has enhanced US credibility

Clinton was cool, very sensible fiscal policy.

joecoolfrog wrote:

PhatJoey wrote:Where is Bill Clinton? Jimmy Carter?

They're both still embarrassing us and undermining our credibility.

You think Bush has enhanced US credibility

... Is that your measure of a president?

...

MeDeFe wrote:Clinton was cool, very sensible fiscal policy.

Riiight.

His so-called balanced budgets were nothing more than a shell game (which has now been proven) and he just drove us deeper into debt like all the rest of them.

joecoolfrog wrote:

PhatJoey wrote:Where is Bill Clinton? Jimmy Carter?

They're both still embarrassing us and undermining our credibility.

You think Bush has enhanced US credibility

I think he has reminded them not to yank our chain. And to me that DOES equal a certain amount of credibility.

Nobunaga wrote:

joecoolfrog wrote:

PhatJoey wrote:Where is Bill Clinton? Jimmy Carter?

They're both still embarrassing us and undermining our credibility.

You think Bush has enhanced US credibility

... Is that your measure of a president?

...

No not mine !

PhatJoey wrote:

joecoolfrog wrote:

PhatJoey wrote:Where is Bill Clinton? Jimmy Carter?

They're both still embarrassing us and undermining our credibility.

You think Bush has enhanced US credibility

I think he has reminded them not to yank our chain. And to me that DOES equal a certain amount of credibility.

By them do you mean :

Terrorists ....who haven't gone away
The entire Islamic World.....who he has antagonised
Much of the rest of the World including long time supporters such as Britain ...who have been embarassed by US foreign policy under Bush
USA consumers....who are finding their economy shot to pieces and have given him the lowest approval rating of any president in living history
USA tourists ....who have seen their spending power evaporate as the dollar has spiralled downward

joecoolfrog wrote:

PhatJoey wrote:

joecoolfrog wrote:

PhatJoey wrote:Where is Bill Clinton? Jimmy Carter?

They're both still embarrassing us and undermining our credibility.

You think Bush has enhanced US credibility

I think he has reminded them not to yank our chain. And to me that DOES equal a certain amount of credibility.

By them do you mean :

Terrorists ....who haven't gone away
The entire Islamic World.....who he has antagonised
Much of the rest of the World including long time supporters such as Britain ...who have been embarassed by US foreign policy under Bush
USA consumers....who are finding their economy shot to pieces and have given him the lowest approval rating of any president in living history
USA tourists ....who have seen their spending power evaporate as the dollar has spiralled downward

and anyone who thinks science is important, or grammar, or articulate speech...

You should have added, "yank, yank"...

Andrew Jackson. I dont know if 'andrew johnson' was supposed to be andrew jackson, but he was a really bad president killed tons of people and almost kept this nation from having half of its land it has now

GabonX wrote:Where is the Jimmy Carter option?

I hope meggy read this and KICKED YOUR ARSE.

joecoolfrog wrote:

PhatJoey wrote:

joecoolfrog wrote:

PhatJoey wrote:Where is Bill Clinton? Jimmy Carter?

They're both still embarrassing us and undermining our credibility.

You think Bush has enhanced US credibility

I think he has reminded them not to yank our chain. And to me that DOES equal a certain amount of credibility.

By them do you mean :

Terrorists ....who haven't gone away
The entire Islamic World.....who he has antagonised
Much of the rest of the World including long time supporters such as Britain ...who have been embarassed by US foreign policy under Bush
USA consumers....who are finding their economy shot to pieces and have given him the lowest approval rating of any president in living history
USA tourists ....who have seen their spending power evaporate as the dollar has spiralled downward

Terrorists ....who haven't gone away
> Down 40% since 2001 (since "War on Terror" began)

The entire Islamic World.....who he has antagonised
> Says who? You? Show me somebody antagonized who isn't a terrorist or a supporter of them.

Much of the rest of the World including long time supporters such as Britain ...who have been embarassed by US foreign policy under Bush
> Your embarrassment is not our concern.

USA consumers....who are finding their economy shot to pieces and have given him the lowest approval rating of any president in living history
> And Congress' approval (they are primarily Democrats) is yet lower, at 13% . They love to spend money they don't have while taking ours (note how I use the classic Liberal dodge here by changing focus... )

USA tourists ....who have seen their spending power evaporate as the dollar has spiralled downward
> Weak economy - see previous, and add US government failure to get serious about oil and energy, but I'm none too concerned with fat Americans facing a pinch while spending luxury time in Europe.

...(... and I don't even like President Bush).

...

Terrorists are down 40%?! Damn, I'd say it's time to buy stock in al-qaeda.

In all seriousness: really? 40%?

Neoteny wrote:Terrorists are down 40%?! Damn, I'd say it's time to buy stock in al-qaeda.

In all seriousness: really? 40%?

... Deaths caused by terrorist attacks, yes.

... The story came out in the Canadian press yesterday, but it has some rather peculiar conditions on its findings. For example, Iraqis blown up by car bombs don't count, since they are technically casualties of a real war and not victims of terrorist attacks.

... Just threw that out there cause' to hear Brits talk with such authority on things while offering nothing to support their arguments generally irritates me. I at least gave some data (as slanted as it might be). Besides, for them it's like living in a house made of sh*t and yelling about a turd on the other side of the Atlantic.

...

The Rolling Stone is one of the most Bias magazines when it come to politics. For the last 15 issues one column is dedicated to knocking off Hillary, McCain, Giuliani, or the entire republican party.

I don't think alternative media can really count as "biased", they're generally targeted to a niche audience who mostly just wants to read what they agree with ideologically. Although the Rolling Stone did have P.J O'Rourke for a while, remember.

Bush or Nixon

Andrew Jackson are you kidding? He killed a LOT of Native Americans and came damn close to making SC leave the Union. But he was juat a hard ass. I don't think he was a good president by any means, but he certainly did increase the strength of the federal government and revolutionized the idea of "democracy" as the first true "people's president." He was notoriously above capitol politics.
And Bush? He's no hero.

Your facts show that "terrorism" is down from 2001, which i find surprising since we weren't even in Iraq then. Oh wait, 2001 would include that one time that TWO OF THE WORLD's TALLEST BUILDINGS WERE UTTERLY DESTROYED. I nearly forgot. And there was a bit i heard about not counting Iraqi citizens? THAT'S not slanted at all...

Indeed, he has not antogonized the entire Islamic world though. Only about half of it. The other half keeps selling us oil and is rather happy to do so. My brother is a soldier outside of Basra atm, and the kids love him. They even picked up an english phrase: "Meesta, you got anny socca balls?" We're trying to send him some this summer. However, to say that he hasn't antagonized any would be a lie, if not to others than to oneself. And to say all he antagonized are terrorists and whatnot would by biggotry.

I am insulted by your slander of Liberals, Nobunaga. The economy got worse under the republican congress, remember? Bill Clinton fueled the economic bubble of the 90s, and Bush SHOULD have been prepared for it to pop. He should also have appeased the Arabs for their oil, got down on his knees and begged like every damn president before him. He should not have pissed off Hugo Chavez who is no saint, but shows a closeness with his people few in South America can. He was elected too, you know. The embarassment of our allies is too our concern.

Logic dictates that you are a conservative because you go through life believing what you are blindly told to believe by the MAN. You do this without concern for the opinions or rights of others and you type with a southern drawl too which means you are also mildly illiterate (which means you can't read). Just sound it out: ill-lit-er-it. illiterate. See? I can make sweeping generalizations too. Note how I use the classic asshole doge here by being an asshole.

And if you think it's great to slander Americans as fat I'm OK with that too cause americans get to say everybody else has no backbone. Well, no we dont but we do it anyway. And you smell funny.

And I dont particularily like President Bush. But he does do what he feels it right when it comes to foriegn conflict, and if that means rushing headlong against the vicious American press and handling the topics poorly fine at least he's got balls, eh? He tries, and you know what I'm a Liberal (not necessarily democrat) and I'm all for staying in Iraq. Revamping how we're there and managing things differently for sure, but that is another topic for another day. I think Bush has been a bit of a numskull, but he does his best and only in the future will we see how things turn out. At least the country's in one peice, we have an economy to speak of, and we can live happy lives without lying to ourselves. Things ARE getting worse, but then compare that to someplace like Sudan or Thailand and your perspective might change. Bush does not suck that bad.

bedub1 wrote:You can't pass judgment on Bush for another 100 years. The founding fathers would have been "worst presidents ever" if the revolution had failed. Instead it worked, and they are great. I liked the quote about the poll telling more about the current crop of "historians" than bush.

I do believe that one should wait for about 10 years after a president leaves office before assessing their legacy. Many people who thought Bill Clinton should have been impeached would probably think differently now that time has passed. I think that there was a rush to judgment against him and now I see that same sort of rush to judgment against Bush. Probably most of the votes against him are by people who are sore that he won 2 terms and their guy didn't get in. Whoever the worst president turns out to be he's still got to be better than Ron Paul. I'm so sick of hearing about all these crazy theories and how bankers are taking us over secretly and slowly.

CoffeeCream wrote:Whoever the worst president turns out to be he's still got to be better than Ron Paul. I'm so sick of hearing about all these crazy theories and how bankers are taking us over secretly and slowly.

Wooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooorrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrd.


QFT.

Sure, a little perspective is nice, but saying that Bush hasn't lowered us to developing-nation status is a pretty weak endorsement, especially as our rationales for rating presidents are skewed too heavily towards things they can't control (i.e. the economy) anyways. I liked Clinton, but he gets waaay too much credit for the late-90's boom for a man never having been misquoted to say he invented the Internet

I just voted for Harding.

I have to say, any President that says "I am not fit for this office" or "I don't understand this whole tax issue" deserves my vote for worst President ever.

InkL0sed wrote:I just voted for Harding.

I have to say, any President that says "I am not fit for this office" or "I don't understand this whole tax issue" deserves my vote for worst President ever.

At east he was honest about it.