George Bush: Worst American president in history

[kelli 0]

Ok, I can go to bed feeling better now. The irony of all of this is I got online to see what other female bandsters do when the are PMS'ing and feeling really snacky...boy did I pick the WRONG place to destress! Have a great night everyone. Happy New Year!

[j_war06 0]

All I can say is Bush is a much better Prez than Kerry would have been, and he is doing his job, and he does it rather well in reality, if you look at it. The problem is, society wants someone to blame, so they blame the govt. and specifically the presidents. Simple put, everyone is gonna bitch no matter what, so just go with which is better at the job. Society needs someone to blame about being poor, being unemployed, being sick, being anything, so they aim for the govt, and it will always happen no matter what is done............so whatever, im poor, im unemployed, I dont blame the govt, I blame society for not being accepting of my size (mostly), its not the government's fault. I like Bush, I like his policies, his really big flaw is he isnt a great speaker, and it makes him look like an idiot, when in reality he is most likely rather intelligent, I mean he does have the most stressful job ever! and rather complicated also.......TRUST me it takes smarts to be in politics, if you dont actually, in depth study it, you wouldnt understand how complicated it can get. So there is something to think about

[j_war06 0]

Actually, Ill Jedi, I believe that your last post was what we old f**ks were looking for. You raise a lot of good points in this post. President Polk was a president who slithered into obscurity for good reasons. Presumably there are other underperformers.

And your comments about the messier/more controversial aspects of the administrations of Lincoln and FDR are fascinating. Both of these men have acquired great lustre over the years of course. You do well by reminding us of the underbelly of these administrations for there is always an underbelly, is there not?

Now, I should mention here that I am Canadian and am therefore not as conversant with your history as most of the other contributors to this thread might be. Though the rules, as I see it, of good discussion or debate or whatever you want to call it do require that we avoid the cop-out of utilising the sound-bite technique - that is to say, issuing a statement and then bailing - it is always important to provide detail, the more the better, in order to press home your point. And if the detail that you provide is sufficiently rich you will not only educate those foreigners who frequent this site, foreigners such as myself, you may well have won them over to your viewpoint. This will be a tough act to perform in the present case: George W is wildly unpopular abroad.

I really love the way Canadians gripe about the way the US is always in other countries businesses, however, they are always trying to tell us how our government should be run. Sorry, but we fought for our form of government, and we will run it the way we want, we dont care what you say, you have fought for nothing. We have shed blood for what we have and if it succeeds or fails, at least we know we fought for what we wanted, and for now it is working. Anything could happen in the future (I mean hundreds of years from now, not just in 50 years). Im sorry Im picking on you, dont take it too personal I just had a few Canadians in my classes really piss me off this semester......

[TommyO 5]

Jodie, you certainly seemed to have done a lot of fighting for your form of Government. Seems odd to have had to fight for something that we in Canada have been able to get and maintain so peacfully. Maybe we are just more peace loving by nature.

It appears that you don't like to hear opinions from any damm foreigners.

I should say as a Canadian and a foreigner I am humbled by your incredible understanding of the US presidency especially in your ability to know what would have happened if Kerry had won. I also would like to thank you for going out of your way to learn Canadian history, your statement "You fought for nothing" highlights just how indepth your knowledge of Canadian history is.

Sorry if I seem a little upset, don't take it personally I have had many Americans come to Canada as tourists, spending money and given that both countries represent each others number one trading partner they tend to really piss me off. All that having an opinion stuff starts to bug me.

Love always

TommyO

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

I really love the way Canadians gripe about the way the US is always in other countries businesses, however, they are always trying to tell us how our government should be run. Sorry, but we fought for our form of government, and we will run it the way we want, we dont care what you say, you have fought for nothing. We have shed blood for what we have and if it succeeds or fails, at least we know we fought for what we wanted, and for now it is working. Anything could happen in the future (I mean hundreds of years from now, not just in 50 years). Im sorry Im picking on you, dont take it too personal I just had a few Canadians in my classes really piss me off this semester......

Seems like fighting is the only constant thought in that post. But, that is easily understood when a person lives in the country that spends more money on weapons than all the other countries of the world combined AND used those weapons more than all the other countries of the world combined. The USA has bombed and attacked more countries since WW11 than all the rest of the countries combined, so it would seem expedient for our government, both Republican and Democrat to instill in its citizens the idea that fighting is good as long as we do it (and we win). That is why every school child starts his day pledging allegiance to a War Implement (the Flag) and why our National Anthem is a War Song.

COUNTRIES BOMBED BY THE UNITED STATES SINCE THE END OF WORLD WAR II :

China 1945-46

Korea and China 1950-53 (Korean War)

Guatemala 1954

Indonesia 1958

Cuba 1959-1961

Guatemala 1960

Congo 1964

Peru 1965

Laos 1964-73

Vietnam 1961-73 (Vietnam War)

Cambodia 1969-70

Guatemala 1967-69

Grenada 1983

Lebanon 1983, 1984 (both Lebanese and Syrian targets)

Libya 1986

El Salvador 1980s

Nicaragua 1980s

Iran 1987

Panama 1989

Kuwait 1991 (Iraqi Targets)

Iraq 1991-

Somalia 1993

Bosnia 1994, 1995 (Bosnian Serb Targets)

Sudan 1998

Yugoslavia 1999

Afghanistan 1998, 2001-

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

PS: Don't be surprized if the list grows a little in 2007.

[green 6]

I really love the way Canadians gripe about the way the US is always in other countries businesses, however, they are always trying to tell us how our government should be run. Sorry, but we fought for our form of government, and we will run it the way we want, we dont care what you say, you have fought for nothing. We have shed blood for what we have and if it succeeds or fails, at least we know we fought for what we wanted, and for now it is working. Anything could happen in the future (I mean hundreds of years from now, not just in 50 years). Im sorry Im picking on you, dont take it too personal I just had a few Canadians in my classes really piss me off this semester......

Jodie, your country is a super power and its actions do have a serious impact internationally. This is why foreigners and these are not just us Canadians feel comfortable analysing and, yes, criticizing your country. In one sense you are like your own Hollywood stars; with power and fame your actions have become fodder for the rest of us to discuss. No one here is talking about Finland or New Zealand even though these are democratic countries with sucessful economies.

I believe that I am right when I say that many of us foreigners are anxious to see that your country remain strong and economically healthy. You are, you see, the linch pin upon which the stability of the west rests. In a few decades the chief competing economy will be that of China. Some also say that India's economy is growing fast. It is difficult to say whether these countries will be as concerned about international peace-keeping as the western countries now are.

This war in Iraq is causing your economy to bleed out and that is not a good thing. Iraq never did have ties with al Quaeda and bin Laden. And according to the report made by Hans Blix to congress prior to the invasion no weapons of mass destruction had been found on Iraqi soil.

As to this point that you make about shedding blood for your government: it is true that your country was born out of a revolution, one that had to happen! Canada grew much more slowly due to our lousy climate as much as anything else. There were only handfuls of settlers here when you were giving birth to yourself. There were mostly aboriginals and fur traders and explorers in this part of the world. Even today our population is small: only about 35 million. No blood was shed when this country was hatched. So what's your point? We like our form of government as much as you like yours. Both forms seem to work just fine.

In my post I am not picking on you either. You raise some interesting points that I wanted to discuss. (And by the way, congratulations on your weight loss, grrl!)

[green 6]

Seems like fighting is the only constant thought in that post. But, that is easily understood when a person lives in the country that spends more money on weapons than all the other countries of the world combined AND used those weapons more than all the other countries of the world combined. The USA has bombed and attacked more countries since WW11 than all the rest of the countries combined, so it would seem expedient for our government, both Republican and Democrat to instill in its citizens the idea that fighting is good as long as we do it (and we win). That is why every school child starts his day pledging allegiance to a War Implement (the Flag) and why our National Anthem is a War Song.

COUNTRIES BOMBED BY THE UNITED STATES SINCE THE END OF WORLD WAR II :

China 1945-46

Korea and China 1950-53 (Korean War)

Guatemala 1954

Indonesia 1958

Cuba 1959-1961

Guatemala 1960

Congo 1964

Peru 1965

Laos 1964-73

Vietnam 1961-73 (Vietnam War)

Cambodia 1969-70

Guatemala 1967-69

Grenada 1983

Lebanon 1983, 1984 (both Lebanese and Syrian targets)

Libya 1986

El Salvador 1980s

Nicaragua 1980s

Iran 1987

Panama 1989

Kuwait 1991 (Iraqi Targets)

Iraq 1991-

Somalia 1993

Bosnia 1994, 1995 (Bosnian Serb Targets)

Sudan 1998

Yugoslavia 1999

Afghanistan 1998, 2001-

Wow! :faint: Thanks for providing this info. I am left feeling speechless.

[Sunta 4]

Green, I highly recommend the Al Gore movie "An Inconvenient Truth" if you have not yet seen it. It is excellent and frightening.

Secondly, check out this article on the Canadian ice shelf that was lost recently:

Ancient ice shelf breaks free from Canadian Arctic

POSTED: 11:23 a.m. EST, January 4, 2007

Story Highlights

• Scientist: "Disturbing event" shows "we are crossing climate thresholds"

• Researchers using satellite images discovered 2005 event

• Collapse picked up by earthquake monitors 155 miles away

TORONTO, Ontario (AP) -- A giant ice shelf the size of 11,000 football fields has snapped free from Canada's Arctic, scientists said.

The mass of ice broke clear 16 months ago from the coast of Ellesmere Island, about 800 kilometers (497 miles) south of the North Pole, but no one was present to see it in Canada's remote north.

Scientists using satellite images later noticed that it became a newly formed ice island in just an hour and left a trail of icy boulders floating in its wake. (Watch the satellite images that clued in ice watchers)

Warwick Vincent of Laval University, who studies Arctic conditions, traveled to the newly formed ice island and could not believe what he saw.

"This is a dramatic and disturbing event. It shows that we are losing remarkable features of the Canadian North that have been in place for many thousands of years. We are crossing climate thresholds, and these may signal the onset of accelerated change ahead," Vincent said Thursday.

In 10 years of working in the region he has never seen such a dramatic loss of sea ice, he said.

The collapse was so powerful that earthquake monitors 250 kilometers (155 miles) away picked up tremors from it.

The Ayles Ice Shelf, roughly 66 square kilometers (25 square miles) in area, was one of six major ice shelves remaining in Canada's Arctic.

Scientists say it is the largest event of its kind in Canada in 30 years and point their fingers at climate change as a major contributing factor.

"It is consistent with climate change," Vincent said, adding that the remaining ice shelves are 90 percent smaller than when they were first discovered in 1906.

"We aren't able to connect all of the dots ... but unusually warm temperatures definitely played a major role."

Laurie Weir, who monitors ice conditions for the Canadian Ice Service, was poring over satellite images in 2005 when she noticed that the shelf had split and separated.

Weir notified Luke Copland, head of the new global ice lab at the University of Ottawa, who initiated an effort to find out what happened.

Using U.S. and Canadian satellite images, as well as data from seismic monitors, Copland discovered that the ice shelf collapsed in the early afternoon of August 13, 2005.

"What surprised us was how quickly it happened," Copland said. "It's pretty alarming.

"Even 10 years ago scientists assumed that when global warming changes occur that it would happen gradually so that perhaps we expected these ice shelves just to melt away quite slowly, but the big surprise is that for one they are going, but secondly that when they do go, they just go suddenly, it's all at once, in a span of an hour."

Within days, the floating ice shelf had drifted a few miles (kilometers) offshore. It traveled west for 50 kilometers (31 miles) until it finally froze into the sea ice in the early winter.

The Canadian ice shelves are packed with ancient ice that dates back over 3,000 years. They float on the sea but are connected to land.

Derek Mueller, a polar researcher with Vincent's team, said the ice shelves get weaker and weaker as the temperature rises. He visited Ellesmere's Ward Hunt Ice Shelf in 2002 and noticed it had cracked in half.

"We're losing our ice shelves, and this a feature of the landscape that is in danger of disappearing altogether from Canada," Mueller said. "In the global perspective Antarctica has many ice shelves bigger than this one, but then there is the idea that these are indicators of climate change."

The spring thaw may bring another concern as the warming temperatures could release the ice shelf from its Arctic grip. Prevailing winds could then send the ice island southwards, deep into the Beaufort Sea.

"Over the next few years this ice island could drift into populated shipping routes," Weir said. "There's significant oil and gas development in this region as well, so we'll have to keep monitoring its location over the next few years."

Thirdly, you have every right to speak up about the US administration, because it directly impacts your life and the life of all Canadians, and indeed, the whole planet. The US is certainly the country that's ruining the global environment and has certainly contributed to the loss of these ice shelves in Canada and everywhere else.

It's just all really scary. Now excuse me while I go plan my picnic outside for Saturday. It's going to be 67 degrees, even though it's January.

[j_war06 0]

I want to apologize for how uneducated my previous posts were, I really did not mean them to come out so ignornant. I had just come home from a party and decided to get online since I was bored and could not sleep. I dont want to delete because there were some interesting points made in reference to my posts, but just know that I really did not mean to sound so much like a biggot idiot.

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

I want to apologize for how uneducated my previous posts were, I really did not mean them to come out so ignornant. I had just come home from a party and decided to get online since I was bored and could not sleep. I dont want to delete because there were some interesting points made in reference to my posts, but just know that I really did not mean to sound so much like a biggot idiot.

I was your age once and I was trying to enlist in the Vietnam war back then. I have since learned the folly of that war and I am glad I was rejected because of old football injuries.

The USA can be the greatest beacon of hope and freedom for the rest of the world or it can become a tyrannical, self indulgent bully.

Our recent moves toward holding prisoners without charges or legal recourse, refusing to implement the Geneva conventions based on word games, and torture does not bode well for the "beacon of hope and freedom" path.

I suggest that you always love your country, but always question the intent of our leaders. They may be our leaders, but they are our Public Servants. Whenever a leader tries to hide behind secrecy for the national benefit, be wary of him. Knowledge is the number one ingredient necessary for keeping a democracy vibrant. Secrecy is a democracy's biggest enemy. An uneducated or uninformed electorate is the first step toward a totalitarian government.

[mousecrazy 2]

Jack, thanks for doing the heavy lifting around here...I have enjoyed reading your point of view. I can relate to much of your political progress, because I supported Clinton, and his first administration also. I felt that "one of us" had been elected. I honestly believe that the disillusionment suffered in the realization of the truth about the Clintons was as shocking as the truth learned about government during Watergate (I'm old enough to remember that as a high school senior).

Going through many different leadership changes, and party affiliations, or lack thereof, has taught that there are no "absolutes". Each president will be judged by history, in a long view, and will get good points for some actions, and bad points for others.

I also agree with you that professors/media tend toward socialism (but I wonder if they would like it for THEMSELVES, or just US?), and thus do rant on and on against those who oppose that form of economy.

I do not believe that social engineering has been or ever will be successful in the big picture. Perhaps actual family engagement, and education can do this? Shoving piles of money around has really only resulted in lots of middlemen(women) getting stinkin' rich, as well as lots of fraud (Katrina). Money cannot cure what is at heart a spiritual illness.

I think the eyes of America are on Congress for these next 2 years. I don't care what party it is, or who it is, but that group of men and women need to serve their constituents, and stop playing to survey groups and the media.

All of us need to spend time writing or calling our representatives and senators and expressing our points of view to them...I'm sure they don't read these message boards too often.

[Betsyjane 2]

Emerging superpowers of China, India, Russia and possibly Brazil. Declining superpowers...USA.

What I'd like to see happen is that we acknowledge the amazing natural resources Canada has, the super power status we have, and the labor force Mexico has. Get that interconnecting super highway built, and have factories to compete with China to the south, dependence on North America for oil (er, and diamonds), and collaborative effort toward growth projects and security projects. We'd be a heck of a trading partner with the world. We could also due with importing some Canadian manners.

By the way, I am more than tickled that Congress is now supposed to work a 5 day week rather than a 3 day, and that some are whining that that interferes with family time, a core Republican value. Tell it to the guys fighting in Iraq away from their families. I think a structured 5 day week may keep "Coingress" out of some of the clutches of lobbyists.

[Betsyjane 2]

Hey Jodi. Nice apology! I don't believe I've ever seen that before. You got class, girl.

[BJean 16]

Jodie: Thanks for clearing up why your post did sound rather off.

T_O_M: I really appreciate and loved your last post.

Since this is about whether G.W. is the worst American president, you might enjoy reading the following bit of info that was published Monday by the Lovenstein Institute of Scranton, which detailed its findings of a 4 month study of the intelligence quotient of President George W. Bush. The Lovenstein Institute participants include high caliber historians, psychiatrists, sociologists, scientists in human behavior, and psychologists.

There have been twelve presidents over the past 50 years, F.D. Roosevelt to G.W. Bush, who were rated based on scholarly achievements:

1. Writings that they produced without aid of staff.

2. Their ability to speak with clarity, and several other psychological factors, which were then scored using the Swanson-Crane system of intelligence ranking.

The study determined the following IQs of each president, accurate to within five percentage points. In order by presidents term:

Franklin Delano Roosevelt (D) 142

Harry S. Truman (D) 132

Dwight David Eisenhower ® 122

John Fitzgerald Kennedy (D) 174

Lyndon Baines Johnson (D) 126

Richard Milhous Nixon ® 155

Gerald R. Ford ® 121

James Earle Carter (D) 175

Ronald Wilson Reagan ® 105

George Herbert Walker Bush ® 98

William Jefferson Clinton (D) 182

George Walker Bush ® 91

Listed in order of IQ rating:

182 William Jefferson Clinton

175 James Earle Carter

174 John Fitzgerald Kennedy

155 Richard Milhous Nixon

147 Franklin Delano Roosevelt

132 Harry S. Truman

126 Lyndon Baines Johnson

122 Dwight David Eisenhower

121 Gerald R. Ford

105 Ronald Wilson Reagan

098 George Herbert Walker Bush

091 George Walker Bush

Among comments made concerning the specific testing of G.W. Bush, his low ratings are due to his apparent difficulty being in command of the English language in public statements, his limited use of vocabulary (6,500 words for Bush versus an average of 11,000 for other presidents), his lack of scholarly achievements other than a basic MBA, and an absence of any body of work which could be judged on an intellectual basis. The report documents the methods and procedures used to arrive at these ratings, including depth of sentence structure and voice stress confidence analysis.

All of the presidents prior to George W. Bush had at least one book under their belt, and most had written several white papers during their education or early careers. Not so with President Bush, Lovenstein said. We relied heavily on transcripts of his unscripted public speaking. He has no published works or writings, which made it more difficult to arrive at an assessment.

There is lots more in the article, but you get the point.