Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Turk, Apr 19, 2006.
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/pr...worst president in all of American history...
blah,blah blah, they said the same stuff when Reagan was President, idiot, had underlings doing all the work, fell asleep during cabinet mettings.
Then history proves him right, and all of a sudden he is the greatest!!
Jimmy Carter was the worst President in modern times, hands down:
Maybe you guys are too young to remember:
444 days of an American Embassy (not some tourist, or journalist) US federal employees being held hostage and NOTHING DONE ABOUT IT!
If you think gas is high now, go back and look what it cost back in Jimmy's day, and once you adjust it for inflation, you will know what high gas prices are. And no natural diaster to blame for it either.
(BTW the last time America will ever trust the Democrats with all three branches of government)
How anyone can honestly look at these numbers and not come to the conclusion that Carter was far and away the worst President, is beyond me.
That's hilarious, FTW. I didn't know you did satire.
Now why don't you tell us why Bush is better than Carter or anyone else for that matter. How many of those Americans were killed on Carter's watch? How many terrorist attacks did we have on his watch? Why don't you tell us how the deal was done to free the hostages just before Reagan became president. Why don't you talk about how the Shah of Iran was forced to flee his own country because he was such an oppressive dictator propped up by the administrations before Carter.
Carter was a one-term president. Forces beyond his control like tha OPEC price fixing caused the oil prices to soar. Carter was dangerous to these guys because he had success in brokering peace in the middle east. The day Bush wins a Nobel Peace Prize is the day I eat my hat.
Bush over the reluctant president Ford (remember the WIN buttons) by a mile.
Damn, you beat me to it.
Worst President even ? HELLO says Jimmy Carter.
And 9/11 was in Bush's control ?
True, Bush wasn't in control, but that's the problem. He has led an incompetent government during which times some historically bad things have happened. Had he been in control, 9/11 would not have happened. Nothing so severe ever happened before because our Presidents were more competent.
From the article:
While wiping out the solid Clinton-era federal surplus and raising federal deficits to staggering record levels, Bush's tax policies have necessitated hikes in federal fees, state and local taxes, and co-payment charges to needy veterans and families who rely on Medicaid, along with cuts in loan programs to small businesses and college students, and in a wide range of state services. The lion's share of benefits from the tax cuts has gone to the very richest Americans, while new business investment has increased at a historically sluggish rate since the peak of the last business cycle five years ago. Private-sector job growth since 2001 has been anemic compared to the Bush administration's original forecasts and is chiefly attributable not to the tax cuts but to increased federal spending, especially on defense. Real wages for middle-income Americans have been dropping since the end of 2003: Last year, on average, nominal wages grew by only 2.4 percent, a meager gain that was completely erased by an average inflation rate of 3.4 percent.
The monster deficits, caused by increased federal spending combined with the reduction of revenue resulting from the tax cuts, have also placed Bush's administration in a historic class of its own with respect to government borrowing. According to the Treasury Department, the forty-two presidents who held office between 1789 and 2000 borrowed a combined total of $1.01 trillion from foreign governments and financial institutions. But between 2001 and 2005 alone, the Bush White House borrowed $1.05 trillion, more than all of the previous presidencies combined.
emphasis added by me
Wow, what long arms you have Patters. What a stretch. Jeez. Of course he'd been President for less than a year. What did Billy boy do for the 8 preceding years ? You really believe that Bush caused (unintentionally) 9/11 over less than 8 months as President
I'm no fan of Bush but it's just normal cyclic stuff. Things have been going well economically for a while and by the end of his Presidency the economic numbers will be fine. Don't look to me to defend his spending though.
I think it's legitimate to judge a president by how he performs in office. Maybe if 9/11 happened in the first month, it could be explained, but even then he's in charge of protecting our country. That's his job, and if he can't do it during the transition period, then there's a problem with his transition team. In a four year term, 8 months is plenty of time to get your act together.
You can judge a president by what his predecessors did. We could say that Reagan benefited from Carter's economic policy, which was lifting us out of recession towards the end of his term. But, I think that method of judging presidents simply puts performance in historical context, since very president can blame his predecessor and where does that get us?
Each president inherits the failures and achievements of the previous and has to be ready from day 1. For 8 months our country was safe. What changes did Bush implement during that period that may have weakened our security? Surely, you don't believe he did nothing with security during those 8 months.
The burden of proof is on you in this one, buddy. You provide some evidence that something Bush did made us more vulnerable to attack than we were a year later.
Given that the attacks were almost certainly planned before Bush's Presidency, it is wholely reasonable to assume that the security issues that were taken advantage of were there before Bush too.
That point gets us nowhere. We can then say that Clinton inherited a lot of the bureaucrats from the Bush I administration, which inherited Reagan's policy of arming the Taliban, and I'm sure we can go back as far as we want with this sort of reasoning.
Eight months into your job, you should be doing a good job. In most businesses, a bad employee gets fired after 3 or 6 months probation. It's not like we didn't know about Al Qaida and bin Laden. We had tried to kill bin Laden, and surely we were keeping an eye on him.
It's not like bin Laden was legally allowed into the country and did 9/11 himself. The planning was already done (long range, some details probably not) before Bush took over. The hijackers were in the country, had taken their flying lessons, knew the airport security, etc, etc. You can't pin that on Bush.
Clinton had a chance to stop it, and so did Bush II, and so did Bush I, and so did Reagan. I imagine Carter, too, had a chance, as did his predecessors. Also, why do you think they waited until Bush II was in office 8 months?
FACT- Bush was re-elected, Carter was not. (I know, I know the diebolt loonybins will differ, whatever put the foil hats back on)
FACT- Unemployment is lower now than it was anytime under the Clinton and certainly not what Carter did to us.
FACT- Even though gas prices are ridiculously high now, no comparison to then , plus I don't see anyone waiting in line by plate number.
Jimmy Carter ****ed up the Middle East and we are still paying for that.
Carter won a Nobel prize for turning on his own country, something to be very proud of. But what do you expect from a buddy of Castro and Chavez.
I just think you're providing one silly little piece of circumstantial evidence that means nothing. They wait a long time to do things (note the lack of attacks in 4 1/2 years although you know another is coming) and it happens when it happens. Why did Clinton let them in the country ? Huh, huh ? Why didn't he personally interview everyone coming into the country on a visa ? That seems to be what you expect.
If Kerry had won last year, when the next attack happens would you have said they were waiting for his Presidency ?
Bush chose not to follow-up on any recommendations concerning Bin Laden or terrorists. It is well documented that Clinton and security personnel presented a case against terrorists. In addition, here is an article by Gary Hart detailing his waring to the Bush administration prior to 9/11.
Wow, 5 days before 9/11. Plenty of time to stop the attack. How do you suggest that Bush should have changed security in our massive airline industry within 5 days ?
If Bush had tried to do what needed to be done at all of America's airports to make this country safer the sore losing democrats would have crucified him for Violating Civil Liberties, the sore losers don't even like what we do now, look at the whailing and blubbering they just did over wiretapping,
the b astards don't even want us to listen to the enemy, the sore losers don't want us to offend the enemy, if we catch Bin Laden the sore losers will tripping all over themselves trying to protect him from "Bad America".
Mohammad Atta and his smelly pals were down in Florida learning how to fly a plane but they told the instructor they didn't want to learn how to land it, nobody dared report it because they didn't want to "Offend" an Arab, the Arabs used our F-cked up permissive liberal feel good policy to plan their attack.
While all this planning was going on Billy Blue Dress was down in Martha's Vineyard shacking up with Carly Simon.
Well, at least that explains Bush's failure. He was afraid to try.
Separate names with a comma.