Worst USA President

Clam down man

Arrrghus wrote: By far, Baby Bush is the worst in the past 40 years. The other presidents have their flaws, but this man just takes the cake. As honor students in today's school system, my peers and I suffer from Bush's inept use of the budget and the ridiculous No Child Left Behind Act. Because no child can be left behind, no child can get ahead, either. I reviewed the budget Bush approved, and he wants to raise the funds going into the military and (last time I checked) lower most of the funds going into education.

Though I'm a student, I can't really say I know how you feel. I go to prvate school, so the No Child Left Behind policy thankfully doesn't apply, as any student who slacks off can be expelled. However, many of my friends attend public schools and my step-sister is dating a history teacher (the best kind of teacher, they always cut through the media's crap) and I've looked at the budget though I haven't scrutinized it. Class sizes are astronomical, teachers must follow a set in stone curriculum and can't teach outside the box. He, as well as other politicians claim that children are the future yet whenever the government needs money, education is the first thing to go. Back when the US engaged its "whose is bigger" contest with the Soviet Union, education took the fall to pay for more nuclear weapons. Now, money for books, even teacher training, is siphoned off to God knows where because the troops certainly aren't seeing that money (lack of armor, supplies, etc.)

As for worst president, I'd probably give it to Andrew Jackson for his refusal to listen to the legislative and judicial branches and for his near eradication of many Native Americans inhabiting the Southeastern United States where I live. After him I'd put Harding for his many scandals then Buchanan for the Dred Scott ruling and his utter failure to do anything to prevent the Civil War.

Clinton gets a nod for wiping out the Brach Davidians at Waco, though I could care less what occurred under his desk.

Reagan is on the fence with me. On one hand, he helped out the middle class. On the other, he drove the lower-middle and lower classes staright into the ground. I also don't consider him to have a significant role in the fall of the Soviet Union; the Soviet Union had a significant role in the fall of the Soviet Union.

Bush II is in my 5 worst. His economic plan took all of the negative aspects of Reaganomics and somehow managed to avoid the positive aspects. The war in Afghanistan was justifued but the Iraq conflict wasn't. George, here's a clue to tell if a country has WMDs: if you invade them, and they don't use any in defense, they do NOT have WMDs. He is doing what Johnson did in the 60s; he refuses to withdraw because it would make him look weak. That decision ruined Johnson's reputation (after all, he almost single-handedly secured Civil Rights in teh US) and it will ruin Bush's.
    

Edited by 1800iareyay - January 03 2007 at 20:23

micky wrote: E-Dub wrote: micky wrote: E-Dub wrote: . The fact is the administration is trying. I shutter to think how this would be handled if, say, September 11th happened during Clinton's administration. The man who single handedly depleted our military power would be dribbling in his BVD's. Although I sort of like Clinton now (I view him as the dirty minded uncle you hardly talk about, but find kind of cool), he really had no backbone. That is a fact. E hmmm...  let's keep our facts straight...Blame Clinton all you want for assine choices in his married.. and PERSONAL life...and recognized that the drawdown in the military... was under the first Bush.  Ever heard of the peace dividend... the result of the public and the politicians recognizing that after the cold war.. spending priorities needed to be shifted to the domestic front.  Trust me... I was part of the downsizing..other than that... nice post... and Clinton was no weakling... suggest you read up on your history a bit hahhaha Yes, you are correct; but, not to the extent of the Clinton administration. So much so that it even damaged morale. Which Clinton wasn't a weakling? A statement like that has to be more specific because Hilary is one scary lady. And I never really cared for 'I suggest you do such and such so you can be worthy enough to debate a person of my knowledge' posts. I've never claimed to be wisest, but I'm not a moron either. E       first off... my intent was to correct your ...incorrect information. Bush and subsequent Presidents have all downsized the military.  Look at Rumsfeld's doctrine for 21st century battles... a smaller leaner fighting force.  hahah. Anyway...If I came across as 'talking down to you' it was not intended. However... don't sell that crap.. I'm not buying it. I was in the military during this period.  He did not damage morale. Feel free to voice your opinions... just be prepared to have it corrected if ... it simply is not correct. No hard feelings...

With all due respect, Micky, it's a documented fact that morale was pretty low during this period. After he downsized the military by 15%, troops were either leaving or considering it.

And I'm not a crap peddler. I don't believe you are either, but let's both try to keep this civil.

No hard feelings on this end, either. We're not changing each others minds, so the thread probably should be closed.

E
    

E-Dub wrote: micky wrote: E-Dub wrote: . The fact is the administration is trying. I shutter to think how this would be handled if, say, September 11th happened during Clinton's administration. The man who single handedly depleted our military power would be dribbling in his BVD's. Although I sort of like Clinton now (I view him as the dirty minded uncle you hardly talk about, but find kind of cool), he really had no backbone. That is a fact. E hmmm...  let's keep our facts straight...Blame Clinton all you want for assine choices in his married.. and PERSONAL life...and recognized that the drawdown in the military... was under the first Bush.  Ever heard of the peace dividend... the result of the public and the politicians recognizing that after the cold war.. spending priorities needed to be shifted to the domestic front.  Trust me... I was part of the downsizing..other than that... nice post... and Clinton was no weakling... suggest you read up on your history a bit hahhaha Yes, you are correct; but, not to the extent of the Clinton administration. So much so that it even damaged morale. Which Clinton wasn't a weakling? A statement like that has to be more specific because Hilary is one scary lady. And I never really cared for 'I suggest you do such and such so you can be worthy enough to debate a person of my knowledge' posts. I've never claimed to be wisest, but I'm not a moron either. E

first off... my intent was to correct your ...incorrect information. Bush and subsequent Presidents have all downsized the military.  Look at Rumsfeld's doctrine for 21st century battles... a smaller leaner fighting force.  hahah. Anyway...If I came across as 'talking down to you' it was not intended. However...

don't sell that crap.. I'm not buying it. I was in the military during this period.  He did not damage morale. Feel free to voice your opinions... just be prepared to have it corrected if ... it simply is not correct. No hard feelings...

I'm afraid this thread is well on its way to descending into name-calling and other such objectionable behaviour. I'm perfectly aware that the subject lends itself to acrimonious discussion, and that neither party will change their minds. However, my friends, please remember to keep it civil, or this thread will follow into the footsteps of so many others... that is, it will be closed very shortly.

E-Dub wrote: <<Of course, but the way you're talking is irrational in my view.>> And those who plotted the attacks on New York or even the London subways (to name a couple) are irrational. Maybe you fight fire with fire. E

E-Dub wrote: Micky, True, but they have already achieved that goal. We can turn a blind eye, but they've directly and indirectly altered our way of life and policies the very second those planes were hijacked over U.S. air space. The fact is the administration is trying. I shutter to think how this would be handled if, say, September 11th happened during Clinton's administration. The man who single handedly depleted our military power would be dribbling in his BVD's. Although I sort of like Clinton now (I view him as the dirty minded uncle you hardly talk about, but find kind of cool), he really had no backbone. That is a fact. Essentially, what we're dealing with are animals with zero regard for human life...including their own. I firmly believe that their 'cause' is secondary, and what really matters is blowing stuff up. I really do. Their insanity is matched only by their gutlessness in going after the defenseless. E

hmmm...  let's keep our facts straight...

Blame Clinton all you want for assine choices in his married.. and PERSONAL life...

and recognized that the drawdown in the military... was under the first Bush.  Ever heard of the peace dividend... the result of the public and the politicians recognizing that after the cold war.. spending priorities needed to be shifted to the domestic front.  Trust me... I was part of the downsizing..

other than that... nice post... and Clinton was no weakling... suggest you read up on your history a bit hahhaha

E-Dub wrote: darksinger wrote: E-Dub wrote:   I shutter to think how this would be handled if, say, September 11th happened during Clinton's administration. The man who single handedly depleted our military power would be dribbling in his BVD's. E   he already did that with monica lewinsky... I just wonder if that was before or after the blue dress. E

Clinton loved Monica's dress as soon as he spotted it.

progismylife wrote: E-Dub wrote: progismylife wrote: Where are all the good US Presidents? It seems all the ones in the past century have been horrible except FDR. Although it was the mid 1800's, there will never be another president like Lincoln. You want to study a man of integrity and pure honesty, he was the blueprint. E      I wonder what would have happened if Lincoln wasn't assassinated.

markosherrera wrote: IN THE FUTURE USA COULD HAVE A HILLARY (GOOD CHOICE I BELIEVE).