• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

who is the worse president in our history?

Are you saying that retrospect is absolutely necessary in order to make any determination as to the relevance of the present and how it will fall into historical context? If so, that is an interesting, if not altogether false opinion -Demosthenes-
Context?

I'll have to run that one around the department and see how many laughs it provides. Perhaps that is just a view from one who is not insightful? Perhaps if a person are insightful and they understand history well enough, they will see what is historically relevant now in scope and see how it will fit into history.

Insight is really a simple concept...here it is for you though, if it is true that you really think that discerning the true nature of a present situation cannot help in any way when deciding potential historical relevance.

in·sight n.
- The capacity to discern the true nature of a situation; penetration.
- The act or outcome of grasping the inward or hidden nature of things or of perceiving in an intuitive manner.

Added:

I agree sixstring...being an idiot and simply saying stupid things are different. I too, find it amazing that people think that a true idiot could become President of any nation, let alone the USA.
 
Last edited:
BodiSatva said:
Are you saying that retrospect is absolutely necessary in order to make any determination as to the relevance of the present and how it will fall into historical context?

Yes.

BodiSatva said:
I'll have to run that one around the department and see how many laughs it provides. Perhaps that is just a view from one who is not insightful? Perhaps if a person are insightful and they understand history well enough, they will see what is historically relevant now in scope and see how it will fit into history.

If by "insightful" you mean "can tell the future and magically tell all the future effects of current events" then you're right.

BodiSatva said:
Insight is really a simple concept...here it is for you though, if it is true that you really think that discerning the true nature of a present situation cannot help in any way when deciding potential historical relevance.

Insite is usless if unless it allows you to tell the future.

BodiSatva said:
I agree sixstring...being an idiot and simply saying stupid things are different. I too, find it amazing that people think that a true idiot could become President of any nation, let alone the USA.

I'm not saying you're wrong, you may be right. There's just no way to really know right now.
 
-Demosthenes-

Originally Posted by BodiSatva
Are you saying that retrospect is absolutely necessary in order to make any determination as to the relevance of the present and how it will fall into historical context?


Yes.

Cool.
Then we disagree.
One thing that I admire is civil disagreement.

Most radical liberals that I encounter around here are shall we say, to ....:2mad: to be able to disagree. (not that you are liberal, that is just what is dominant around here)

It sounds though, as if you don't believe in insight...because if a person has insight on an issue, if they can discern the true nature of a situation, then they are able to understand it's position of relevence amongst other issues, thus understanding how it might fit into history. In essence and to a minor degreee, this is seeing the future.

It is not a science. It is just a better understanding than no understanding. Take this at a lesser level. Will a Pres. stealing a cookie fit onto the list of worst presidents or the Pres that perhaps illegally invades another country? If this is currently happening, then you can understand how it will fit into future perspective.
 
BodiSatva said:
-Demosthenes-



Cool.
Then we disagree.
One thing that I admire is civil disagreement.

Most radical liberals that I encounter around here are shall we say, to ....:2mad: to be able to disagree. (not that you are liberal, that is just what is dominant around here)

It sounds though, as if you don't believe in insight...because if a person has insight on an issue, if they can discern the true nature of a situation, then they are able to understand it's position of relevence amongst other issues, thus understanding how it might fit into history. In essence and to a minor degreee, this is seeing the future.

It is not a science. It is just a better understanding than no understanding. Take this at a lesser level. Will a Pres. stealing a cookie fit onto the list of worst presidents or the Pres that perhaps illegally invades another country? If this is currently happening, then you can understand how it will fit into future perspective.

Alright Mr. Insight. Polish your crystal ball up and tell me what Iraq will be like in the year 2030.
 
That is not the point about what we have been discussing. Please follow the enitre conversation.

Insight is not reading the future. We have been disucssing the relevence of insight as it pertains to PRESENT matters and how those matters will possibly fit into history. Retrospect and insight.

Nothing psychic here my friend.
 
BodiSatva said:
That is not the point about what we have been discussing. Please follow the enitre conversation.

Don't worry, I have been following the conversation.


BodiSatva said:
Insight is not reading the future. We have been disucssing the relevence of insight as it pertains to PRESENT matters and how those matters will possibly fit into history. Retrospect and insight.

Iraq is a present matter. 20, 30 or how ever many years down to road if democracy and progress flourish in the Middle East then Bush will be seen as one of the better presidents we've had. On the other hand, should Iraq continue to remain a disaster then Bush will be seen as a poor president.



BodiSatva said:
Nothing psychic here my friend.

Uh... no. Iraq is Bush's legacy. How it ends up will be the biggest factor in determining his success as a president.
 
I am not worrying, thank you...

The stuff you are indicating still has nothing to do with what we are talking about. I am sorry if that is not clear.

It appears as if you are trying to create a debate based on a false assumption, as your comment, "Iraq is a present matter" indicates.

Do you have a relevent point?
 
BodiSatva said:
I am not worrying, thank you...

The stuff you are indicating still has nothing to do with what we are talking about. I am sorry if that is not clear.

It appears as if you are trying to create a debate based on a false assumption, as your comment, "Iraq is a present matter" indicates.

Do you have a relevent point?

I'm sorry that wasn't the answer you were looking for but it is a relevant point.

What was it a false assumption?

How does my statement "Iraq is a present matter" indicate such?

BodiSatva said:
I'll have to run that one around the department and see how many laughs it provides. Perhaps that is just a view from one who is not insightful? Perhaps if a person are insightful and they understand history well enough, they will see what is historically relevant now in scope and see how it will fit into history.

Here's some history for ya...

FDR shattered the 14th amendment and rounded up 120K Japanese-Americans during WW2.

Today he's viewed as one of the greatest presidents in our history.
 
Last edited:
At that point, an insightful person would be able to determine the historical relevence of that issue. That is the point. That is what I indicated from the beginning. The rest of this is a forced attempt at a debate. Are we going back to the beginning then? That is fine, just let me know so that we are clear.

ADDED:

This was not meant to be condescending.
I re-read it and it sounded a bit that way.
 
Last edited:
BodiSatva said:
Cool.
Then we disagree.
One thing that I admire is civil disagreement.

As do I.

BodiSatva said:
It sounds though, as if you don't believe in insight...because if a person has insight on an issue, if they can discern the true nature of a situation, then they are able to understand it's position of relevence amongst other issues, thus understanding how it might fit into history. In essence and to a minor degreee, this is seeing the future.

I believe in insight, I just don't agree with your opinion that it is enough to decide how someone will be seen in history.
 
Posted by -Demosthenes-

I believe in insight, I just don't agree with your opinion that it is enough to decide how someone will be seen in history.

Fair enough...
 
ngdawg said:
Johnson's downfall was not his social reforms-it was southeast asia-something Eisenhower got us into, Kennedy increased our presence and Johnson saw no way out and instead, furthered our involvement thinking erroneously it would end the conflict sooner.

Truman got us into SE Asia after succumbing to the Chinese in Korea.
Eisenhower changed the tactic, Kennedy changed it again, Johnson had his
take and Nixon got us out (albeit after trying to bomb them into submission).
 
dragonslayer said:
In my opinion the worst presidents in history, were the current George W. Bush, George Bush Sr, Jimmy Carter, and Herbert Hoover.


George W. Bush is the first President to start a totally unprovoked war and lie like Satan to get support for the war. Bush's policies are aggression and terror based, and his financial policies are against the American People.
It's obvious your knowledge doesn't go past your nose. What are you, 16 or something? This is a history forum, not a political spew your liberal talking-points forum.
 
XShipRider said:
Truman got us into SE Asia after succumbing to the Chinese in Korea.
Eisenhower changed the tactic, Kennedy changed it again, Johnson had his
take and Nixon got us out (albeit after trying to bomb them into submission).
The attack on Pearl Harbor was about SE Asia. So it wasn't Truman.
 
[FLASHBACK, but worth the re-post!]

I find it funny that the 1st 2 presidents that you, and several others that followed, mentioned as the worst President's in History were Bush Senior and Bush Jr. Even though I was impressed that Carter, a Democrat, was actually named in the top 3 (I would expect Reagan's name to be thrown in with such GOP-Bashing going on), I found it down-right hillarious that Slick Willey was not at the head of the list...or even ON the list for that matter!

During his 1st campaign, he told the American people that he had never smoked pot, that he had never protested the Viet Nam War from the Soviet Union, and other Whoppers. After being caught on these lies, definite signs of things to come, he made up even more ridiculous lies to cover up his 1st ones...like the famous "I didn't INHALE" defense about his smoking pot!

The public just ate him up, though, and let all that cr@p slide. Once in office, he showed that his campaign gaffs were just a warm-up as he began treating the Office/position of the President and the nation he was there to serve as his own personal whore!

There were so many hyphenated '-gate' scandals during his 2 administrations that if he would have copy-writed the phrase, he would have made billions! The amazing thing was that, despite scandal after scandal, so many people STILL put up with his BS and re-elected him....then feigned being shocked when the next big scandal, especially the Lewinski scandal, errupted!

Some of the highlights of that man's Presidency also include:

Al Qaeda bombed the Kobar towers, killing US troops, then promised more - Clinton did NOTHING!

Al Qaeda bombed the USS Cole, killing US Troops, then promised more - Clinton AGAIN did NOTHING!

Al Qaeda bombed 2 African Embassies, killing US personnel - Clinton AGAIN did NOTHING!

Able Danger warned Clinton about Osama and Al Qaeda - Clinton sent Sandy Berger last year to steal and shred classified documents which showed how Able danger had warned him and what he failed to do as President!

Clinton made it possible for his Arkansas buddy to sell the Chinese the missile technology that finally made it possible for them to reach the US with their missiles in exchange for millions in campaign contributions tracked directly back to the Chinese military!

Clinton not only wire tapped Americans without warrants, but he also ordered the illegal entry into private homes and businesses as well as search and seizure of those locations without warrants!

Clinton had FBI files on every GOP Senator and congressman as well as other opponents that he kept illegally in the White House....

He commited adultery in the White House, made the U.S. a laughing stock throughout the rest of the world ( I know because I was stationed overseas and had to endure and live through the jokes at our nation's expense), lied to America on TV ( I did not have sex with that woman! Dude, save it for your wife!), committed and was convicted of a felony for lying under oath to a federal grand jury in his attempt to deny an American the right to a fair trial, a right afforded to her under the constitution that he had sworn an oath to defending, in order to save his own butt, was Impeached (1 of only 3 in U.S. history, all Democrats, BTW), and He, his family, and staff vandalized Goverment property (White House and offices) and stole anything that wasn't nailed down on the way out, like some kind of white trash, AGAIN embarrasing the U.S. and the Office of the President.

Even almost 6 yeasrs AFTER he is out of office, we are still having to endure his continued scandals, as Sandy Burgalar, er Bereger, was caught stuffing classified documents down his pants, taking them home, and shredding them. The documents were about Able Danger, what Clinton knew, and what he failed to do as President because he ws too busy milking America and being milked BY Lewinski!

And he STILL doesn't rank up there in your top 3 worst Presidents ever?!

Truly Amazing!
 
I have no doubt that Bush will go down as the worst administration in history. Just a few of the many reasons I feel this way...

Allowed Unocal, Enron and Halliburton to do business with terrorists.

Appointed cronies with no qualifications to positions of importance to our security.

Opposed the inquest into 9/11 for over a year, until forced by the families of those fallen.

Lowered the prestige of America with other nations with his "you're either with us or against us" rhetoric.

Put American soldiers at risk with his "bring it on" B.S.

Ignored the many warnings leading up to 9/11.

Katrina....'nuff said.

Largest deficit in history, spending billions on nation building, something he campaigned on not doing.

Outing a CIA agent.

Lies about Iraq, before and after.

Cut cops, after school programs, pell grants, and housing allowances for the poor to give millionaires a tax break.

In bed with the Saudi Royal family.

History of business dealings with the Bin Ladens for over 25 years.

Sent our soldiers into war without basic armor and equipment.

Allowed a good 17,000 power plants to further pollute our air and water.

The use of depleted uranium in Iraq.

Dismantling multiple nuclear arms treaties.

Terri Schiavo.

Patriot Act

Wiretapping without FISA approval.

Our open and porous borders.

Has done little to nothing to wean us off oil.

Giving Pakistan nuclear technology, in violation of the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Act, yet expecting Iran to play by the same rules he just broke for Pakistan.


The list goes on forever...meanwhile, at this stage of the Clinton presidency, his approval rating was sitting around 69%, while Bush is struggling to stay in the 30% range. That pretty much says it all, right there.

Even the republicans are abandoning him.
 
Hoot said:
Allowed Unocal, Enron and Halliburton to do business with terrorists.
- These guys didn't exist before Bush? :confused:

Appointed cronies with no qualifications to positions of importance to our security.
- EVERY Pres has rewarded buddies for favors after being elected - I hate it too.

Lowered the prestige of America with other nations with his "you're either with us or against us" rhetoric.
- War on terror only works if no one give 'em safe haven. You are against those who commit terrorists acts or not....oh, but the Dems think there are no terrorists and the war on terror is a lie.

Put American soldiers at risk with his "bring it on" B.S.- Clinton: Kobar Towers, U.S.S. Cole, 2 African Embasies -- hundreds died while Clinton ignored Al Qaeda and refused to act against terrorism!

Ignored the many warnings leading up to 9/11.
- Clinton was briefed/warned by Able Danger, ignored it, denied ever meeting with Able danger, sent Sandy Berger to steal & shred classified Federal diocuments that proved he lied and did nothing! Clinton ignored when Bin Laden declared war on the U.S., ignored Kobar towers, ignored the Cole, ignored 2 African Embassies......ignored U.S. security and the lives of Americans dying around the world at the hands of terrorists!

Katrina....'nuff said.
- D@MN Bush and his weather machines! :roll: Dude, everyone knew NO could flood if they ever got hit head-on. The State and Fed Govts were so corrupt for years that this was primarily THEIR fault (faulty levies, inept leadership, etc). The local authorities did not declare a Disaster until too late, they left buses parked and did nothing to try to get their own people out! They $UCKED! Finally, the Federal Govt can not snap their fingers and save people. If Clinton would have been in office during this Hurricane, guess what?! NO would have still flooded, it would have still taken a while to mobilize resources and respond, and we would al be cursing mother nature and the corroup local govt for ineptitude instead of the President now!

Largest deficit in history, spending billions on nation building, something he campaigned on not doing.
- If I am not mistaken, we were attacked and at war now. I will give it to you that he seems to be spending even more NOT due to the war, though. I do not like that.

Outing a CIA agent.
- Are we still on that CR@P. Blame was not a covert agent, but her identity was supposed to be classified as 'classified', even though many reporters have come forward to say her Husband used to introduce her at parties as his CIA WIFE. How about that paper who just announced that you can get the name of every CIA agent, public and under-cover, plus the locations of 5 Secret bases via the internet!? Why isn't more being made of THAT story instead of this BS political stunt?

Lies about Iraq, before and after.
- Does that include all the claims from the Dems? Ya know, how Clinton said we KNOW Hussein has WMD and needed to be removed? Does that include all the current evidence that he had WMD and that he majority went intio Syria and Iran? Of course not!

Sent our soldiers into war without basic armor and equipment.
- Does this take into account Kerry voting against the bill that would provide money/armor for the troops? "I voted FOR the bill before i voted against the bill...blah, blah, blah...." :roll:

Giving Pakistan nuclear technology, in violation of the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Act, yet expecting Iran to play by the same rules he just broke for Pakistan.
Hmmm, is this as bad as Clinton committing treason by selling the Chinese military the missile technology that allows them to finally reach us with their nukes?

And you finish up with POLLS, the BIBLE OF LEADERSHIP for the Democatic Party! Only the Dems try to lead by Polls, which explains the contant flip-flopping and BS :spin: from guys like Kerry! Maybe youguys ought to try taking a stand in something you believe in and stick to it. Of course, the onlything they believe in is power and getting re-elected, no matter whatit takes!

Your whole BS thing above was just that - some type of Clinton-apologist spin! Well, here is the topper that proves Clinton was worse than Bush will ever be, bottom line:

Clinton is a convicted Felon, for perjury, witness tampering, etc and is only the 3rd President (all Dems BTW) to ever be Impeached!

Thank you for playing, and have a nice day!
 
If I am not mistaken, we were attacked and at war now.
well i would say that you are mistaken

He commited adultery in the White House, made the U.S. a laughing stock throughout the rest of the world
The US is the laughing stock right now as well!

Hmmm, is this as bad as Clinton committing treason by selling the Chinese military the missile technology that allows them to finally reach us with their nukes?
both as bad as each other, especially on this issue. Clinton was wrong with the chinese, bush is wrong with the pakistani's
 
Willoughby said:
well i would say that you are mistaken
So we WEREN'T attacked on 9/11, and we AREN'T at war now? :shock:

Uh...Ok.....
sorry, I never got past this part to read anything else you wrote. I figured, "Why bother?!" :roll:
 
Willoughby said:
so who are you at war with?

According to the Democrats, No one!

Bin Laden/Al Qaeda declared war on us in 1990.

They have killed Americans in the kobar Towers, the U.S.S. Cole, 2 African Embassies, and in the 9/11 attacks.

We have fought them in Afghanistan and fight them now in Iraq, as evident by Zarqawi professing he was Bin Ladden's General for Al Qaeda in iraq!

They have beheaded Amricans on Al Jazeera TV, killed U.S. Troops, killed Iraqi men, women, and children - MUSLIMS, attacked Mosques on both sides trying to start a ivil war in which more Muslims would die, and seek to overthrow the new Iraqi Democracy to enslave its people again!

And you sit back, while the media shows the continued war every day on TV and play these little games, asking who we are at war with and trying to make some 'cutsie' claim that we are not at war, which has affected the economy and deficit?!

Like I said, according to the Democrats, we aren't at war, were never at war, and should have ignored 9/11 the way Clinton ignored the Kobar towers, the U.S.S. Cole, and the 2 African Embassy bombings!
 
so we are at war with Bin Laden/Al Qaeda?...how specific is that, just that man and his organisation?
 
Originally Posted by Willoughby

so who are you at war with?

Originally Posted by Willoughby

we are at war with Bin Laden/Al Qaeda

There you go.
Things are really fairly simple.

Originally Posted by Willoughby

just that man and his organisation

Like G.W. and his organization? Or will you differentiate simply because of size or "official" status.

One guy and his organization fought the French and then the Americans and beat them both...Ho Chi Minh and his VC boys and girls. :2razz:

See how easy this is?
 
BodiSatva said:
There you go.
Things are really fairly simple.



Like G.W. and his organization? Or will you differentiate simply because of size or "official" status.

One guy and his organization fought the French and then the Americans and beat them both...Ho Chi Minh and his VC boys and girls. :2razz:

See how easy this is?

Yeah, didn't some guy and his group try to take over the pacific, made 'comfort women' of the Korean females? I think I remember another guy and his group trying to slaughter all the Jews once. :roll:
 
I just worry because unlike a country that can accept defeat an organisation such as al Qaeda by its very nature will never be able to sign a formal agreement and therefore the "war on terror", with all the crap associated with it, can go on indefitely
 
Back
Top Bottom