• 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!

Worst American Presidents

Worst American President

  • Total voters
    83
Fiddytree said:
Anyone who thinks George W. Bush was the worst in American history has a historical memory that lasts 30 years maximum.
Click to expand...

or has been asleep for 21 months or so
 
Fiddytree said:
Anyone who thinks George W. Bush was the worst in American history has a historical memory that lasts 30 years maximum.
Click to expand...

lol, Bush single handily was the worst president.. led America into war in Iraq over bull**** Intel... while squandering away any chance of having success in Afghanistan. Literally throwing trillions of dollars away chasing after bin laden. Led the US in the worst recession since the great depression. Increased national debt by double and turned the surplus he gained from Clinton into massive deficits. He single headedly destroyed america's reputation globally and should be regarded as a national embarrassment. You conservatives stroking yourselves over bush are really living in another world.
 
Gabriel said:
lol, Bush single handily was the worst president.. led America into war in Iraq over bull**** Intel... while squandering away any chance of having success in Afghanistan. Literally throwing trillions of dollars away chasing after bin laden. Led the US in the worst recession since the great depression. Increased national debt by double and turned the surplus he gained from Clinton into massive deficits. He single headedly destroyed america's reputation globally and should be regarded as a national embarrassment. You conservatives stroking yourselves over bush are really living in another world.
Click to expand...

ah the BDS is strong tonight. with Carter, FDR, LBJ and now Obama, the libs have a real stable of losers
 
obvious Child said:
You only get one vote. Choose Wisely.
Click to expand...

Uahah....hahHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH :lamo


:lol: hahahahahahahahahahah


YOU GOT PWNED!!!!!!
 
Gabriel said:
lol, Bush single handily was the worst president.. led America into war in Iraq over bull**** Intel... while squandering away any chance of having success in Afghanistan. Literally throwing trillions of dollars away chasing after bin laden. Led the US in the worst recession since the great depression. Increased national debt by double and turned the surplus he gained from Clinton into massive deficits. He single headedly destroyed america's reputation globally and should be regarded as a national embarrassment. You conservatives stroking yourselves over bush are really living in another world.
Click to expand...

led America into war in Iraq over bull**** Intel
Click to expand...

The Mexican-American War where, for instance, Abraham Lincoln wanted President Polk to prove his assertions that American blood had been shed on American soil and the rest of the Whigs wanting more justification for conflict than that?

while squandering away any chance of having success in Afghanistan.
Click to expand...

That hasn't happened before, like in the Philippines or in Vietnam...or Somalia....or....

Led the US in the worst recession since the great depression
Click to expand...

Since the Great Depression? I'm curious why you take note of that, while not discussing American policies in the 1920s and 1930s....or for that matter, any recession or depression before our current recession.....


He single headedly destroyed america's reputation globally and should be regarded as a national embarrassment. You conservatives stroking yourselves over bush are really living in another world.
Click to expand...

What about Teddy Roosevelt? Anyone else who might have 'destroyed America's reputation globally'? I don't even have to agree with it, for Pete's sake.

I don't stroke myself over Bush. I'm just amused at the near-egocentric behavior displayed by people who for some reason believe they had it worse than anyone else who lived before them.
 
Last edited:
Chappy said:
How many presidents started wars they didn't finish? …
Bush started two.
Click to expand...

Define "finish"...we still have troops in Germany, Japan, Korea, Bosnia...

Kennedy...but then that wasnt REALLY his choice...Johnson...thats two...

The 'war' against Afghanistan and Iraq were over in 2003. I know you are too busy dabbing at the drool to recognize that...but...true story. See...we are actually allied with the Iraqi and Afgahni government now. I now thats hard for you to accept, but its true. The 'war' wasnt the problem. Where Bush did a lousy job was after the war ended.
 
Fiddytree said:
-Andrew Johnson.

Oops, that didn't happen either.
Click to expand...

You cant blame him. There are a LOT of people like him that lost their goddamned minds when Al Gore lost the election and have been just completely roiling in hatred and rage ever since. Its sad, really...a nation of hate filled gollums...I watched them having seizures after Gore lost. I watched them go into suicide watch mode following Kerry's loss...and sadly they just have never recovered. Try to sit down and have a conversation with them. They LITERALLY spit...they are that ****ing imbalanced.
 
VanceMack said:
Define "finish"...we still have troops in Germany, Japan, Korea, Bosnia...

Kennedy...but then that wasnt REALLY his choice...Johnson...thats two...

The 'war' against Afghanistan and Iraq were over in 2003. I know you are too busy dabbing at the drool to recognize that...but...true story. See...we are actually allied with the Iraqi and Afgahni government now. I now thats hard for you to accept, but its true. The 'war' wasnt the problem. Where Bush did a lousy job was after the war ended.
Click to expand...

Bush did a lousy job with the war too, in Iraq. Its lousy when you start an optional, unnecessary war with a country you've already beaten and which you have had pretty much under your thumb ever since.


*Oh, and we aren't so tight with Afghanistan. I don't see much promise in an allied country with a mental bedbug for a leader.
 
tryreading said:
Bush did a lousy job with the war too, in Iraq. Its lousy when you start an optional, unnecessary war with a country you've already beaten and which you have had pretty much under your thumb ever since.


*Oh, and we aren't so tight with Afghanistan. I don't see much promise in an allied country with a mental bedbug for a leader.
Click to expand...

The military did a superior job defeating both the Taliban in Afghanistan and Husseins military in Iraq. Swift, decisive, minimal casualties. They failed in the follow up. As I have said a few dozen times.
 
VanceMack said:
Define "finish"...we still have troops in Germany, Japan, Korea, Bosnia...

Kennedy...but then that wasnt REALLY his choice...Johnson...thats two...

The 'war' against Afghanistan and Iraq were over in 2003. I know you are too busy dabbing at the drool to recognize that...but...true story. See...we are actually allied with the Iraqi and Afgahni government now. I now thats hard for you to accept, but its true. The 'war' wasnt the problem. Where Bush did a lousy job was after the war ended.
Click to expand...

There is still significant conflict ongoing. Saying that we finished either war is nothing more than playing with semantics.
 
Wow. A lot of people have no sense of perspective. Buchanan failed to contain or prevent the freaking Civil War. He barely did anything when secession started. He was also pro-slavery. A large deficit looks benign compared to that crap.
 
VanceMack said:
The military did a superior job defeating both the Taliban in Afghanistan and Husseins military in Iraq. Swift, decisive, minimal casualties. They failed in the follow up. As I have said a few dozen times.
Click to expand...

What I was saying is the war itself was not even necessary, not in Iraq. The military did its job well, but they should not have been sent to do it in the first place.
 
DrunkenAsparagus said:
There is still significant conflict ongoing. Saying that we finished either war is nothing more than playing with semantics.
Click to expand...

Hogwash. The 'war' was clearly defined, as was our enemy. The PROBLEM is once the war ended (and we became allied with both the Iraqi and Afghani military) we lost vision of the enemy and did a pisspoor job of prosecuting the peace. BTW>..that 'enemy' that we face now...how would you suggest we fight them? Full on war? And what do you see as 'victory'?
 
tryreading said:
What I was saying is the war itself was not even necessary, not in Iraq. The military did its job well, but they should not have been sent to do it in the first place.
Click to expand...

Thats a completely different discussion and a position I can even respect. Not the subject at hand...but sure...we can discuss it. The fact remains had we NOT attacked Iraq, Hussein would still be in power and we would be on...what...resolution 46 trying to force compliance with regard to his posession of WMDs? Hate George Bush if you will, but George Bush acted on the accumulated intel of ours and every other intel agency in the world. Every democrat said the same thing Bush said. We only know what we know because he acted.
 
VanceMack said:
Hogwash. The 'war' was clearly defined, as was our enemy. The PROBLEM is once the war ended (and we became allied with both the Iraqi and Afghani military) we lost vision of the enemy and did a pisspoor job of prosecuting the peace. BTW>..that 'enemy' that we face now...how would you suggest we fight them? Full on war? And what do you see as 'victory'?
Click to expand...

For all intents and purposes it is a war. People are shooting at each other, and dying. Technically the wars ended, but this is purely a semantics game that doesn't really address the argument.
 
DrunkenAsparagus said:
For all intents and purposes it is a war. People are shooting at each other, and dying. Technically the wars ended, but this is purely a semantics game that doesn't really address the argument.
Click to expand...

So please...tell me who we are fighting...and how we win that war?

The fact is we are fighting terrorists...insurgents. They dont have a homeland. The Taliban is only part of the problem...Al Qaida is also a player and they exist throughout the east...shall we engage them as well? In the Phillipines? In Indonesia?

'War' isnt just a word. Its a pretty clear cut understood conflict between two countries.
 
American said:
Uahah....hahHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH :lamo


:lol: hahahahahahahahahahah


YOU GOT PWNED!!!!!!
Click to expand...

I REALLY hope it wasn't you, American who messed with the vote.
 
I still can't believe that, with the intelligent people on this board, people are so blinded by their partisan hackery, that ANYONE would suggest that either Bush II or Obama would be the worst. Anyone who has claimed that either should win is demonstrating that their partisan hatred overrides their ability to look at history and understand that you cannot define a Presidency without at least 10 years of perspective.
 
I honestly don't know if I can decide on the worst president, I can however come up with a top 5.
 
Wow, really shows the demographic makeup of those who voted. I'm not just talking about political leanings but a lack of historical knowledge/perspective.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
I still can't believe that, with the intelligent people on this board, people are so blinded by their partisan hackery, that ANYONE would suggest that either Bush II or Obama would be the worst. Anyone who has claimed that either should win is demonstrating that their partisan hatred overrides their ability to look at history and understand that you cannot define a Presidency without at least 10 years of perspective.
Click to expand...

Well, more like 20 years, and that is a beginning of research. Most documents do not start pouring in until 20 years or so, and then the rate slowly increases thereafter. Then, we have to consider time passed between events, like you said, to develop perspective. Sometimes 10 years is far too current. Sometimes our actions or reflections develop another swing decades after initial involvement (Vietnamese reforms to its communist experiment).
 
Last edited:
CaptainCourtesy said:
I still can't believe that, with the intelligent people on this board, people are so blinded by their partisan hackery, that ANYONE would suggest that either Bush II or Obama would be the worst. Anyone who has claimed that either should win is demonstrating that their partisan hatred overrides their ability to look at history and understand that you cannot define a Presidency without at least 10 years of perspective.
Click to expand...
Personally, I'm wondering why those two presidents are even a poll option.
 
The Mark said:
Personally, I'm wondering why those two presidents are even a poll option.
Click to expand...

To make people who are current events junkies feel like they can answer the question with confidence.
 
History is a teacher. We learn from our past. I'm a current events junkie but without context, the present can be meaningless.
 
VanceMack said:
So please...tell me who we are fighting
Click to expand...

Islamic extremists

VanceMack said:
...and how we win that war?
Click to expand...

I don't know if I can answer that, but wars don't have to winnable.

VanceMack said:
The fact is we are fighting terrorists...insurgents. They dont have a homeland. The Taliban is only part of the problem...Al Qaida is also a player and they exist throughout the east...shall we engage them as well? In the Phillipines? In Indonesia?

'War' isnt just a word. Its a pretty clear cut understood conflict between two countries.
Click to expand...

War | Define War at Dictionary.com

war1    
[wawr] Show IPA
noun, verb, warred, war·ring, adjective
–noun
1.
a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.
2.
a state or period of armed hostility or active military operations: The two nations were at war with each other.
3.
a contest carried on by force of arms, as in a series of battles or campaigns: the War of 1812.
4.
active hostility or contention; conflict; contest: a war of words.
5.
aggressive business conflict, as through severe price cutting in the same industry or any other means of undermining competitors: a fare war among airlines; a trade war between nations.
6.
a struggle: a war for men's minds; a war against poverty.
7.
armed fighting, as a science, profession, activity, or art; methods or principles of waging armed conflict: War is the soldier's business.

Wars are rarely that clear cut. Most of the conflicts over the past 20th Century have been internal conflicts. Again, why does this argument even matter, people are shooting, people are dying, and governments are still spending tens of billions of dollars per year. Even if it doesn'tThe argument in the post you responded to still stands.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom