who is the worse president in our history?

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Landslide84
Hey everybody, I just joined this forum

As for the worst president in our history...I think that Martin Van Buren needs to be looked at seriously as a bad president. He was even nicknamed "Martin Van Ruin" due to the horrible economic times that he was faced with, not to mention his party (DEMOCRATIC) losing elections during his term. He should be seriously considered for the Worst President in our history. Although, I would not really like to call any president HORRIBLE....they are elected and do take an oath. Without Presidents, lord only knows where our country might be.

Welcome to Debate Politics.

 

[aquapub]

George W. Bush is the first President to start a totally unprovoked war and lie like Satan to get support for the war. QUOTE]




God, get a clue. :roll:

The huge list of "provocations" have been listed on this site over and over again. Whenever one presses you people about the "lies," no actual ones can be found.

Consistently, you are the only ones here lying like Satan. :roll:




Jimmy Carter was definitely one of the worst presidents. (and I have more than radical left-wing drivel to explain that )

You think gas prices are bad now? How about inflation? The economy was an utter disaster under Carter, and his "kiss the enemy's ass into submission" strategy did nothing but subvert our interests against the Soviets and encourage our enemies across the globe.

"Peace at any cost, even if it causes war" should have been his (and today's far left's) motto.

Carter was more interested in not losing than winning, and that's one of the many things that made Reagan such a breath of fresh air-even to Democrats (i.e., the Reagan Democrats).

 

[aquapub]

Bush - Owned by the House of Saud, utter mismanagement of the war on terror, borrow and spend nightmare of a budget killer, right wing Christian stooge, assaulting the 4th amendment, etc.

Nixon- Assaulting the constitution in many ways, broke the bonds of trust between government and governed in a way that has gotten worse rather than gotten better.

Reagan - Sold arms to terrorists, exiled our children's future to the phantom zone of unimaginable debt, ignored the AIDS epidemic for years till it killed a friend of his, was the first of the GOP line that has created the current GOP Noise machine that relies utterly on disinformation and libel/slander. Hugely corrupt administration.

Harding - Almost as corrupt as Regan and the current Bush.

Filmore - his bumbling made the civil war inevitable and destroyed what had been the most powerful party in the US at the time.

Who is the worst Debate Politics debator?

Vandeerveken, for regurgitating left-wing conspiracy theories and hysterics, for perpetuating baseless propaganda, and for having zero grasp of the Constitution.

 

[aquapub]

Bush - Owned by the House of Saud, utter mismanagement of the war on terror, borrow and spend nightmare of a budget killer, right wing Christian stooge, assaulting the 4th amendment, etc.

Nixon- Assaulting the constitution in many ways, broke the bonds of trust between government and governed in a way that has gotten worse rather than gotten better.

Reagan - Sold arms to terrorists, exiled our children's future to the phantom zone of unimaginable debt, ignored the AIDS epidemic for years till it killed a friend of his, was the first of the GOP line that has created the current GOP Noise machine that relies utterly on disinformation and libel/slander. Hugely corrupt administration.

Harding - Almost as corrupt as Regan and the current Bush.

Filmore - his bumbling made the civil war inevitable and destroyed what had been the most powerful party in the US at the time.

Who is the worst Debate Politics debator?

Vandeerveken, for regurgitating left-wing conspiracy theories and hysterics, for perpetuating baseless propaganda, for having zero grasp of the Constitution, and for providing exactly squat for substantive evidence of his obscenely slanted rhetoric.

 

[Vandeervecken]

The huge list of "provocations" have been listed on this site over and over again. Whenever one presses you people about the "lies," no actual ones can be found.

The problem being the main cause we went to war for, as stated over and over again by the Bush administration was A: That supposedly Iraq was completely awash with Weapons of Mass Destruction, B: That Saddam's Nuclear Project was mere weeks from producing truckloads of powerful atomic bombs and that C: Saddam was closely tied with Al-Qaeda.

We now know that not only are those things all false, but that the Bush administration purposefully cherry-picked the intelligence, going so far as punishing those who refused to agree with them to distort the facts. We also know that Saddam had no WMD's nor ability to produce any in a short time frame when we invaded. His nuclear program had been decimated and essentially stopped in thew 1980's when Israel destroyed the Osirik complex, and that there were never any meaningful or collaborative ties between Saddam and Al-Qaeda.

Jimmy Carter was definitely one of the worst presidents. (and I have more than radical left-wing drivel to explain that )

You think gas prices are bad now? How about inflation? The economy was an utter disaster under Carter, and his "kiss the enemy's ass into submission" strategy did nothing but subvert our interests against the Soviets and encourage our enemies across the globe.

"Peace at any cost, even if it causes war" should have been his (and today's far left's) motto.

Carter was more interested in not losing than winning, and that's one of the many things that made Reagan such a breath of fresh air-even to Democrats (i.e., the Reagan Democrats).

You seem to forget the horrible economy Carter inherited from Ford. In fact inflation went down every year that Carter was in office. I still have one of Ford's WIN (Whip Inflation Now) buttons.

You also seem to forget that Carter ordered the military to perform a rescue mission on the hostages in Iran, and guess what? The military utterly and completely screwed the pooch. The very interesting thing I have found is that when you look into the planners of the disastrous rescue mission with the fatal smash up at Desert One, you will see many of the same names that appear under Reagan in the Iran-Contra scandal. Secord, North, and others. Coincidence? Given the secret ties and negotiations between the Reagan campaign and the Iranians, I would doubt it.

 

[Vandeervecken]

Who is the worst Debate Politics debator?

Vandeerveken, for regurgitating left-wing conspiracy theories and hysterics, for perpetuating baseless propaganda, for having zero grasp of the Constitution, and for providing exactly squat for substantive evidence of his obscenely slanted rhetoric.

Once again when you cannot rebut any of the points I make, you merely call me names. This is telling. What is even more funny is you seem to think that repeating this nonsense will somehow make it more true.

You have learned well from the pillars of the Right Wing Noise Machine, Coulter, Limbaugh, Savage, and the like. When the facts don't fit, call names. Call them early, call them often.

Too bad that only sways the utterly ignorant.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by aquapub
Who is the worst Debate Politics debator?

Vandeerveken, for regurgitating left-wing conspiracy theories and hysterics, for perpetuating baseless propaganda, for having zero grasp of the Constitution, and for providing exactly squat for substantive evidence of his obscenely slanted rhetoric

I've only seen a few of his posts and he's not one of the worst. He's actually pretty good.

 

[-Demosthenes-]

The problem being the main cause we went to war for, as stated over and over again by the Bush administration was A: That supposedly Iraq was completely awash with Weapons of Mass Destruction, B: That Saddam's Nuclear Project was mere weeks from producing truckloads of powerful atomic bombs and that C: Saddam was closely tied with Al-Qaeda.

Leaving out a large part of the rationale for war certainly creates the appearance of a strong argument, but those who are educated on the subject are left to wonder if you are truly serious.

Once again when you cannot rebut any of the points I make, you merely call me names. This is telling. What is even more funny is you seem to think that repeating this nonsense will somehow make it more true.

Why won't anyone rebut any of my points?

You seem to forget the horrible economy Carter inherited from Ford. In fact inflation went down every year that Carter was in office. I still have one of Ford's WIN (Whip Inflation Now) buttons.

I like this philosophy, if fact we can trace the blame all the way to King George the 3rd.

I've only seen a few of his posts and he's not one of the worst. He's actually pretty good.

Aquapub disagrees with him and you agree with him. I'd like to point out that agreement is separate from the objective strength of his argument.

 

[Vandeervecken]

Leaving out a large part of the rationale for war certainly creates the appearance of a strong argument, but those who are educated on the subject are left to wonder if you are truly serious.

These were the three main reasons Bush & Co cited again and again for the war. WMD's being BY far the overriding reason. Anything else was an afterthought and later an excuse.

Why won't anyone rebut any of my points?

Make some.

I like this philosophy, if fact we can trace the blame all the way to King George the 3rd.

Nonsense. These people time and again blame President Carter for high inflation during his term as if it were his fault. When he took office inflation was at one of the nation's all time high rates. He inherited that mess from Ford and Nixon. (Remember Nixon's desperate and unconstitutional Wage & Price freeze he tried to desperately slow it? Remember Ford's Whip Inflation Now program?). The fact is after being handed the worst inflation of all time in modern US history Carter brought that rate steadily down throughout his entire term. There are many things you can blame Carter for. He was, at best, a lower mediocre President. But it is facetious and revisionist, indeed outright propaganda to blame him for high inflation during his term.

Aquapub disagrees with him and you agree with him. I'd like to point out that agreement is separate from the objective strength of his argument.

Actually Billo and I disagree about as much as we agree. He merely recognizes that factual and logical debate trumps name calling. Most educated people do. It seems time and again the people I disagree with think that calling me names and vomiting up profanity will somehow lend credence to their arguments. Take Aquapub's post aimed at me. It contained not one word aimed at rebutting anything I said. It contained not one word in support of any claim he had made. He actually seemed to think that posting it twice would somehow lend credence to it. Sad really. Extremely funny when you consider it was a post attacking someone else debate style.

 

[LeftyHenry]

God, get a clue. :roll:

The huge list of "provocations" have been listed on this site over and over again. Whenever one presses you people about the "lies," no actual ones can be found.

Consistently, you are the only ones here lying like Satan. :roll:


Jimmy Carter was definitely one of the worst presidents. (and I have more than radical left-wing drivel to explain that )

Huh, that's funny! I don't recall ANY list of "prevocations". All I remember is that cons would completely ignore the complaint of there being no prevocations or they would pull a McCarthy like you're doing now
:roll:

At least Carter tried to end the situation peacefully and not waste 2000+ GI's lives.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by aquapub

God, get a clue.

The huge list of "provocations" have been listed on this site over and over again. Whenever one presses you people about the "lies," no actual ones can be found.

Consistently, you are the only ones here lying like Satan.


Jimmy Carter was definitely one of the worst presidents. (and I have more than radical left-wing drivel to explain that )

What the hell are you talking about. I even started a thread "Proof Bush Lied about Iraq". It's all there in light-blue and black. Go for it.

 

[easyt65]

So your against the Patriot Act. Good for you!

Are you saying that the Patriot Act is worse alone than ALL the things I posted about Clinton, making Bush a worse President than Clinton? PLEASE clarify that before I am forced to assume anything - I really would like to know what you mean here, sersiously.

As far as the Patriot Act goes, I think 9-11 FORCED America to have to change in its way it deals with terrorists and handles its business. I don't like it, but that is a fact. I do not want it to be made permanent in any shape, form, or fashion - once you either give any amount of money or control to the U.S. Goverment, you NEVER get either back. As far as creating a whole new Goverment organization called 'Homeland Security', I don't think we needed it. If you take the shackles off the FBI, CIA, and NSA, allow them - even MAKE them if you have to - work together, along with local Law Enforcement, you could accomplish the same thing. The heads of the FBI, CIA, and NSA could be made to answer to a Cabinet-Level position - 1 man, called Chief of Homeland Security.

And for any of the posters STILL claiming the Bush father-&-son team are still the 1-2 punch of the worst Presidents ever, thank you for ignoring my post above :roll: , and/or please read the Bill-Clinton-$crewed-America post above (again)! I KNOW Democrats hate the Bushes, but not to include Clinton even in the top 3 is Uber Liberal! :rofl

 

[SixStringHero]

If Bush's term ended today, I think he would go down in history as the worst president ever. How's that?

Fair enough.

I still think time will tell.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by easyt65
Are you saying that the Patriot Act is worse alone than ALL the things I posted about Clinton, making Bush a worse President than Clinton? PLEASE clarify that before I am forced to assume anything - I really would like to know what you mean here, sersiously.

As far as the Patriot Act goes, I think 9-11 FORCED America to have to change in its way it deals with terrorists and handles its business. I don't like it, but that is a fact. I do not want it to be made permanent in any shape, form, or fashion - once you either give any amount of money or control to the U.S. Goverment, you NEVER get either back. As far as creating a whole new Goverment organization called 'Homeland Security', I don't think we needed it. If you take the shackles off the FBI, CIA, and NSA, allow them - even MAKE them if you have to - work together, along with local Law Enforcement, you could accomplish the same thing. The heads of the FBI, CIA, and NSA could be made to answer to a Cabinet-Level position - 1 man, called Chief of Homeland Security.

And for any of the posters STILL claiming the Bush father-&-son team are still the 1-2 punch of the worst Presidents ever, thank you for ignoring my post above , and/or please read the Bill-Clinton-$crewed-America post above (again)! I KNOW Democrats hate the Bushes, but not to include Clinton even in the top 3 is Uber Liberal!

A vote for the Patriot Act is a vote against our Constitution.

 

[Vandeervecken]

A vote for the Patriot Act is a vote against our Constitution.

This is worth repeating.

It deeply saddens me how few people realize this.

 

[easyt65]

This is worth repeating.

It deeply saddens me how few people realize this.

A vote for any current DEMOCRAT is currently against our onstitution:

- The Dems, as historically documented, said in mass numbers that Hussein had WMD during the Clinton Administration and called for a leadership change - then now screams how it was wrong to go in when our new President does something the other was too gutless and crooked to do - act to protect us and save American lives. One of the reasons America rejected the Democrats in 2000 and 2004 was because the Democrats have no conviction and no backbone to make the right choice and stick to it! Making a POPULAR stand then waffling back and forth according to what the polls say is more important to a Democrat than picking the right choice, often the hard choice, and sticking to it - John F*ing Kerry is the Poster-Child for the Democratic party on this one!

- Kerry advocated handing over OUR defense to the U.N., only to be made to look like an Idiot by the crooked U.N. in the aftermath of the oil-For-Food Scandal.

- Dick Durbin calls our troops Nazis and genocidal regemists.

- Kerry calls our troops terrorists.

- The Democrats commit treason, aiding and abetting our enemy, by slandering our troops and trying to take down the only President in the last 17 YEARS who has taken any action against the repeated attacks by terrorists during that 17 year period!

- Dean endorsed a member of the Socialist party for the Senate, for Pete's Sakes!

- Christianity is on the verge of being outlawed as a whole.

- The Federal Govt. has declared that the govt can seize your personal property and hand it over to a private contractor if he can make more money than YOU can with it.

- The Dems, so pro-abortion crazy, has made it possible for a stranger to take my under-aged child to go have an abortion during school without ever having to notify me!

- On a late night talk show about a year ago, Kerry explained his plan for America, had he his way: Every American could make as much money as they could, spending it any way they wanted without ever having to pay taxes, but explained that EVERYTHING they owned - all their money and possesions - would go to the Federal Govt. when they die!?! :shock:

And I am TOTALLY shocked by those who say THEY are shocked at anyone who doesn't speak out about the Patriot Act -- During Bill Clinton's Administration, he illegally gathered FBI FILES on every GOP Senator and Congressman and all his adversaries to use against them! Clinton not only authorized/ordered 'illegal' wire tapping - the same type Bush has ALSO stated was his Presidential right, as Clinton claimed - but he also ordered/authorized the Govt. to 'illegally' enter a business or person's home, the search of, and seizure of ANYTHING without a warrant of any kind, something Bush has not even done! WHERE WAS YOUR OUTRAGE ABOUT OUR VIOLATED CONSTITUTION THEN?

And yet you guys say that the Patriot Act, that Dems and GOP alike voted into existence, providing LEGAL justification for the acts outlined in the Patriot Act, is worse than the many times/ways Bill Clinton illegally trampled on our Constituion, most of the time for his own personal gain! What friggin' hypocrisy! :doh

 

[-Demosthenes-]

True moderate liberals and liberals are being sadly associated with the pseudo-liberal democratic party. Not that the Republican party is doing all that great, but people who actually call themselves "liberal" should distance themselves from the democrats to avoid this negative reputation.

The betrayal of the democrats to the liberal population is similar to the republican betrayal of the conservatives. The patriot act? Doesn't that give more power to the federal government, sound conservative? No child left behind... must I say more?

 

[LeftyHenry]

And for any of the posters STILL claiming the Bush father-&-son team are still the 1-2 punch of the worst Presidents ever, thank you for ignoring my post above :roll: , and/or please read the Bill-Clinton-$crewed-America post above (again)! I KNOW Democrats hate the Bushes, but not to include Clinton even in the top 3 is Uber Liberal! :rofl

No one listened because it was just a post of conservative ranting.

Thing is, under Clinton your average American wasn't effected as hard as they are now.

Gas with clinton could be found as low as $0.89 a gallon, now it can be as high as three dollars. heat costs more and Bush's war is to blame.

 

[The Real McCoy]

Gas with clinton could be found as low as $0.89 a gallon, now it can be as high as three dollars. heat costs more and Bush's war is to blame.

No, increasing demand (particularly in China) coupled with a lack of refining capacity and a few hurricanes that devastated our domestic oil production are to blame. Iraq has very little to do with high gas prices.

 

[SixStringHero]

The fact that neither party has done virtually nothing in the way of getting legislation passed that we start building refineries is a huge cause of the rising oil costs.

We haven't built a refinery in this country in nearly 30 years. Now why is that?

 

[LeftyHenry]

No, increasing demand (particularly in China) coupled with a lack of refining capacity and a few hurricanes that devastated our domestic oil production are to blame. Iraq has very little to do with high gas prices.

Maybe but the hurricanes mostly missed our rigs and the increase of demand in China is due to trickle down economics and free trade. This is so because the tax cuts for the rich are invested in factories that will be built where it is cheaper to produce. Oil is needed to run these factories and thus a demand for it abroad is created. Also OPEC is always a cause for oil prices increasing. Countries like Venezula aren't happy with us and thus will release less oil to us.

 

[easyt65]

Liberals want cheap gas and dependency on foreign oil cut; however, they don't want refineries in their back yards and no drilling because they preach that oil wells in Alaska will destroy all of Alaska and hurt the wildlife, which is a lie. Technology today makes the footprint of the operation very small, and animals actually gather around the pipeline in Alaska because it is ewarmer there.

Also, no Dem/Liberal has demanded that we start taking steps to get off oil ansd start finding alternatives because 1) politicians from both sides of the aisle have been getting oil money for their campaigns and 2) it cost a great deal of money, time, and effort to make the switch, which could affect the economy thus affecting votes for these politicians. Every decision is designed for 1 simple thing - what will keep ME IN POWER?

 

[doughgirl]

Lets see.....Truman started the Korean War. Did North Korea attack us? No (55,000 lives were lost)

Kennedy started the Vietnam War. Did they attack us? No

Johnson turned that War into a fiasco (58,000 lives were lost)

Clinton went to war in Bosnia without U.N. or French consent. Did Bosnia attack us? No

Clinton had ample opportunity to get Bin Laden. Did he? No

Lets see, Clinton….the guy with the great sex habits…..The one who lied under oath……impeached………..found in contempt of court….lost his license to practice law…..
Hid in the USSR to avoid the draft…..

But Clinton did…

Pardon friend Marc Rich the criminal, pardon sixteen members of the FALN terrorist organization. (If you remember these men belonged to a Puerto Rican freedom terrorist group, which was responsible for planting over 130 bombs in public places in the U.S. They killed six people and injured seventy.) OOOps I forgot he pardoned his brother Roger.

In my opinion Clinton was a disgrace. You think Bush was responsible for 9-11?………

http://www.angelfire.com/md2/Ldotvets/Bubba_99_4.html

http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2001/838.shtml

Take your pick………Clinton did two things real well; unzip his pants and give out pardons to criminals. He failed at everything else.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by easyt65
Liberals want cheap gas and dependency on foreign oil cut; however, they don't want refineries in their back yards and no drilling because they preach that oil wells in Alaska will destroy all of Alaska and hurt the wildlife, which is a lie. Technology today makes the footprint of the operation very small, and animals actually gather around the pipeline in Alaska because it is ewarmer there.

Disagree........

Originally Posted by easyt65
Also, no Dem/Liberal has demanded that we start taking steps to get off oil ansd start finding alternatives because 1) politicians from both sides of the aisle have been getting oil money for their campaigns and 2) it cost a great deal of money, time, and effort to make the switch, which could affect the economy thus affecting votes for these politicians. Every decision is designed for 1 simple thing - what will keep ME IN POWER

Agree.........

 

[The Real McCoy]

Maybe but the hurricanes mostly missed our rigs

Do yo have how many idea how many platforms were destroyed/shut down? Not to mention the gulf coast refineries that were out of commission.

the increase of demand in China is due to trickle down economics and free trade. This is so because the tax cuts for the rich are invested in factories that will be built where it is cheaper to produce.

No, the increased demand from China stems from an exponential growth in automobiles in that country, it has almost nothing to do with Bush's tax cuts.

Oil is needed to run these factories and thus a demand for it abroad is created.

Again, automobiles consume far more petroleum than factories do. Unless of course you're referring to the transportation needed to distribute the goods produced in those factories to the consumers rather than the factories themselves.

Also OPEC is always a cause for oil prices increasing. Countries like Venezula aren't happy with us and thus will release less oil to us.

Agreed. Senor Chavez is a douche bag.