Is Bush the worst president weve ever had? - Page 4 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 11-17-2003, 04:36 PM   #46
Acrobat
 
Ft. Worth Frog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Fort Worth
Posts: 390
Local Time: 12:44 PM
One reason verte is because it was not until the 20th century that the office of the Presidency evolved into one of real power. That is not to say that previous Presidents had no power, but that their view of the office was more restrained. STill, men who had personal strength were able to wield power effectively as shown by men like Polk, Lincoln, and Jackson.
__________________

__________________
Ft. Worth Frog is offline  
Old 11-17-2003, 04:53 PM   #47
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 05:44 PM
The Presidents Ranked according to Historians.

Abraham Lincoln
900
1
Franklin Delano Roosevelt
876
2
George Washington
842
3
Theodore Roosevelt
810
4
Harry S. Truman
753
5
Woodrow Wilson
723
6
Thomas Jefferson
711
7
John F. Kennedy
704
8
Dwight D. Eisenhower
699
9
Lyndon Baines Johnson
655
10
Ronald Reagan
634
11
James K. Polk
632
12
Andrew Jackson
632
13
James Monroe
602
14
William McKinley
601
15
John Adams
598
16
Grover Cleveland
576
17
James Madison
567
18
John Quincy Adams
564
19
George Bush
548
20
Bill Clinton
539
21
Jimmy Carter
518
22
Gerald Ford
495
23
William Howard Taft
491
24
Richard Nixon
477
25
Rutherford B. Hayes
477
26
Calvin Coolidge
451
27
Zachary Taylor
447
28
James Garfield
444
29
Martin Van Buren
429
30
Benjamin Harrison
426
31
Chester Arthur
423
32
Ulysses S. Grant
403
33
Herbert Hoover
400
34
Millard Fillmore
395
35
John Tyler
369
36
William Henry Harrison
329
37
Warren G. Harding
326
38
Franklin Pierce
286
39
Andrew Johnson
280
40
James Buchanan
259
41
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 11-17-2003, 05:08 PM   #48
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 05:44 PM
I'm not surprised to see Warren Harding towards the bottom of the list, he's pretty notorious as a failed president.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 11-17-2003, 05:55 PM   #49
Refugee
 
Danospano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 1,415
Local Time: 12:44 PM
That list doesn't include Dubya! I'd love to see where he ranks amongst historians; although I'm sure he'd make the Upper-half solely because 9/11 occured during his tenure. That makes me sick that educated men would dare call Bush Jr. a great president because of sympathy for the real victims of that day. Anyway, I digress...

Other things I wanted to say:

1) I'm still looking for Diamond. My foot's about to go to sleep.

2) I wouldn't say Clinton was the best president of the 20th century, but to put him behind Bush Sr. and slightly above the notoriously forgettable Carter Adminstration is odd to say the least.

3) Nixon deserved to be ranked higher than 25th. Perhaps these historians are basing their pedantic opinions on the gossip newspapers instead of their accomplishments. Nixon, aside from the Watergate scandal, had an enormously successful ride in the office.
__________________
Danospano is offline  
Old 11-17-2003, 06:40 PM   #50
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 05:44 PM
Nixon did indeed have quite a bit of success in office but I think they hold it against him that he was forced to resign. He *used* to be ranked as a failure--I recall looking at rankings from earlier on and his ranking and reputation has actually improved quite a bit as people realized his breakthrough in China and some other policies were quite remarkable. For awhile there I think he was regarded strictly as "The Watergate President". Yet another example of time being the least subjective of judges, and people being the most subjective.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 11-17-2003, 07:54 PM   #51
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 12:44 PM
Deleted...for....lack of intelligent posting.

Sorry
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 11-17-2003, 08:48 PM   #52
Refugee
 
Keocmb's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 1,759
Local Time: 09:44 AM
I miss Clinton. His administration I could've done without, but I think he had it right. He did what he could to satisfy people of all partisanships. W isn't hearing the people. In that respect, I think he's failing.

Horribly.

And it'll show next year when he gets voted out of office.
__________________
Keocmb is offline  
Old 11-18-2003, 12:43 AM   #53
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,266
Local Time: 11:44 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Keocmb
I miss Clinton. His administration I could've done without, but I think he had it right. He did what he could to satisfy people of all partisanships. W isn't hearing the people. In that respect, I think he's failing.

Horribly.

And it'll show next year when he gets voted out of office.
*Agrees wholeheartedly with this post*

Angela
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 11-18-2003, 07:10 PM   #54
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 05:44 PM
I hate to break this to the liberals here, but most Americans approve the job that W is doing based on opinion polls over the past 3 years.

Danospano,

There are millions of educated people who think that Bush Jr. has done a great job and they will be voting for him next November.

I'd probably rank Clinton a little lower than he was. He did not have to deal with the difficulties and complexities of the Cold War like Bush Sr. and Carter did. When Clinton came into office in January 1993, the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact had disappeared and the economy was growing.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 11-18-2003, 10:38 PM   #55
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 10:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Danospano
That list doesn't include Dubya!
That makes me sick


Other things I wanted to say:

1) I'm still looking for Diamond. My foot's about to go to sleep.

..had an enormously successful ride .
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 11-24-2003, 03:18 PM   #56
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 09:44 AM
The White House Plays Dirty With the Environment

Rollbacks of air, water and land pollution rules are taking heavy tolls

By Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

November 24, 2003

It's beyond serious dispute that the Bush White House is dismantling 30 years of bipartisan environmental progress, in defiance of law, scientific understanding, popular sentiment and common sense.

The Bush administration's horrific environmental reputation isn't just a bad rap. The environmental gains that Americans have enjoyed for years prove that vigorous protection of our natural resources is both effective and consistent with economic prosperity. The administration's destructive rollbacks threaten decades of progress, and they have already begun to take their toll.

After three years of President Bush's policies, American waterways are getting dirtier, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, for the first time since passage of the Clean Water Act.

Administration policies have driven automobile fuel efficiencies to their lowest levels in decades.

Superfund cleanups for millions of Americans in tainted communities have been halted because the White House is allowing polluters to escape replenishing the bankrupt fund.

Any prospect of dealing seriously with global warming evaporated when the administration abandoned the Kyoto treaty, suppressed more than a dozen major scientific reports, including the global warming chapter in an EPA environment report, and punished and blackballed scientists who reported their findings honestly, among them Robert Watson, head of a United Nations scientific panel on global warming.

The Bush administration is trying to eliminate Clean Water Act protection for more than 60% of the nation's stream miles and most of the nation's wetlands.

If successful, this would let factory farms escape responsibility for catastrophic water and air pollution caused by millions of tons of untreated animal waste and allow industrial polluters to foul our aquifers and drinking water.



Recently, EPA lawyers announced that they would drop prosecution and criminal investigations directed against 50 power plants whose illegal emissions were major causes of mercury pollution that made fish unsafe to eat in 28 states, of asthma attacks that disabled one in every four inner-city black children, of acid rain that sterilized Adirondacks lakes and destroyed Eastern forests and of air pollution that killed 30,000 Americans each year conclusions of the National Academy of Science.

Those utilities donated millions to Bush, who repaid the investment by gutting the Clean Air Act, discarding the provision that required the oldest and dirtiest power plants and refineries in the United States to install state-of-the-art pollution controls when they expanded or modernized.

The administration also rewarded oil and gas companies by opening the nation's pristine areas including Wyoming's Jack Morrow Hills, Utah's Red Rock Country, Colorado's Vermillion Basin and Montana's Rocky Mountain Front to road building, pipeline construction and a host of other industrial activities associated with development.

Other proposals eliminate the fundamental requirement that forest management protect wildlife, reduce public involvement in forest planning and scale back long-standing requirements for environmental reviews and public participation in highway construction and offshore oil development.

Bush's Department of Interior is the first not to voluntarily list a single species as endangered. Worse, the Interior Department has used fraudulent science in attempting to de-list protected animals like the grizzly bear, trumpeter swan, Florida panther and desert fisher.

Unfortunately, there are literally hundreds of other examples touching nearly every corner of environmental law and involving actions by every major federal agency responsible for environment programs. That includes the Department of Defense, which has just obtained from Congress sweeping exemptions to the Endangered Species and Marine Mammal Protection Acts. These exemptions could damage whole populations of threatened species.

Meanwhile, fines collected for violating environmental laws have dropped by more than half since the Bush administration took power, and last year, EPA's two most senior enforcement officials resigned, citing the administration's refusal to enforce environmental protections as their reason.

All this while, in the Senate, legislators have been debating perhaps the most venal Bush initiative to date, the $145-billion energy bill boondoggle labeled "No Lobbyist Left Behind" legislation by Sen. John McCain that would have a widespread, devastating effect on the environment.

At a time when our government should be addressing critical problems such as global warming, sprawl and the loss of wildlife and open spaces, the Bush administration has put polluters first by raising the standard of living for a few privileged Americans while lowering the quality of life for the rest of us.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is a senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 11-24-2003, 03:38 PM   #57
Refugee
 
Danospano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 1,415
Local Time: 12:44 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
I hate to break this to the liberals here, but most Americans approve the job that W is doing based on opinion polls over the past 3 years.

You must hate breaking that tid-bit, because it's a fallacy. Let's do some rudimentary math: Most Americans would presumably constitute 51% of the adult population, and since half the adult population didn't vote at all in the 2000 election, and since Al Gore received at least 50% of the vote in that election, and since pollsters only survey potential voters, I'd say that George W. Bush has been receiving roughly a 25-30% approval rating through-out his tenure in office. That is irrefutably a minority of Americans; not a majority (most).

Now, if we presume that a majority of those giving Bush a complimentary approval rating have friends/family/loved ones fighting in Afganistan/Iraq they would be callous, pessimistic, bastards if they disapproved of their friends/family/loved ones leader. After all, how often do we hear people harangue the person who controls our destinies? Therefore, I'd say that if we never INVADED Iraq, or Afganistan, Bush's true approval rating would lose even more weight and fall to the low-20% range.

---He better raise a lot of money, because his propaganda is becoming a tad bit mundane.

---Can he buy the 2004 election? Tune in next year...same lame time, same lame country.
__________________
Danospano is offline  
Old 11-24-2003, 05:06 PM   #58
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 12:44 PM

The article is on the Time web site

TIME's cover art portrays a photo illustration of U.S. President George W. Bush with a lipstick-kiss on his left cheek, and a bruised right-eye for its December 1, 2003 edition released on November 23, 2003. A new TIME/CNN Poll shows that Americans are almost equally divided; 47% are likely to vote for Bush and 48% are not. His job approval rating of 52% is down from its peak of 89% in October, 2001, and his disapproval has reached a new high of 43%

__________________
MrsSpringsteen is online now  
Old 11-24-2003, 05:57 PM   #59
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 10:44 AM
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 11-24-2003, 06:00 PM   #60
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 12:44 PM
Is that your lipstick Diamond?
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:44 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com