Worst U.S. president in your lifetime and recollection

[susanann]

This thread is very baffling, from Pentecostal Boy being dumped in public to Nixon only having six votes.

Actually, NIxon really won the 1960 election (if you throw out the invalid votes from dead people in Brown county Texas and Cook county Illinois).

Which means that Nixon won national office (president or vp) an incredible 5 times - more than any other president in history.

Roosevelt also ran 5 times - tying Nixon, but Roosevelt actually out and out lost on his first try.

 

[susanann]

Really? Why?

How in the world does a liar & a creep like Richard Nixon .................., greatly increased deficit spending,......................

....... tried to use "Executive Priviledge" to get out of conviction of a felony .

1. bush has had more deficit spending than Nixon or any other president in history. Additionally, bush has more balance of trade deficits than any other president in history.

2. A president has the power to pardon anyone, including himself - a president is effectively immune to being punished for committing any felony.

 

[ONEGod]

President Bush has made errors, errors that have been blown out of purportion, by the same crowd that gave slick willy a pass on everything.
When you consider what an abomination and offense to God the "all inclusive big tent" of perverts and deviants has been and the agendas that have come from it, it takes little discernment to see how unadulterated wickedness can go unreigned when Godless/Anti-Christ men hold the highest office in the land.

 

[JGL53]

President Bush has made errors, errors that have been blown out of purportion, by the same crowd that gave slick willy a pass on everything.
When you consider what an abomination and offense to God the "all inclusive big tent" of perverts and deviants has been and the agendas that have come from it, it takes little discernment to see how unadulterated wickedness can go unreigned when Godless/Anti-Christ men hold the highest office in the land.

I pointed out these obvious facts a couple hundred posts back on this thread, so I guess it's time again to point out the obvious:

Clinton had sex with an intern and lied about it. Total number of dead = 0.

Bush lied to get the U.S. in another Vietnam-type no win war. Total number of dead (counting Iraqi civilians also) = around 100,000. Wounded and permanently maimed = tens of thousands. $$ cost to the U.S. - probably a trillion dollars before it's over (that's a thousand billion).

Mr. Bush wins the lousy president contest, hands down.

 

[dignitized]

Clinton had sex with an intern and lied about it. Total number of dead = 0.

You are overlooking the war Clinton faught and the various military actions he took to distract from his wrong doing.

 

[JGL53]

You are overlooking the war Clinton faught and the various military actions he took to distract from his wrong doing.

Well, yeah, nobody's perfect. I'll still just say - make your two stacks of dead bodies and compare....

 

[dignitized]

Well, yeah, nobody's perfect. I'll still just say - make your two stacks of dead bodies and compare....

Why? What does it prove? Nothing. They are dead for different reasons and different causes.

 

[E_Powers]

i havent lived very long and only seen 5 presidents 3 of which had double terms (one of which was impeached). 2 only had a single term. so i would have to base out of the two short term presidents That jimmy Carter was the "worst" President. as a matter of fact he did more as an expresident for this nation then he did when he was a president.

 

[TScott]

When you consider what an abomination and offense to God the "all inclusive big tent" of perverts and deviants has been and the agendas that have come from it, it takes little discernment to see how unadulterated wickedness can go unreigned when Godless/Anti-Christ men hold the highest office in the land.

Gee, go easy on W, he is the President ya know, and besides he claims to be born again.

 

[TScott]

You are overlooking the war Clinton faught and the various military actions he took to distract from his wrong doing.

The right wing spin factory always tries this one out, and of course they always fail to point out that the main attack they are referring to took place only three days after the Lewinsky story broke. This was the attack on the Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan, and the attack on the milk factory that intellegence had told the administration was producing chemicals in Iraq for Al Qaeda. What is truly dispicable about this spin isn't the obvious fact that the right wing ditto-monkeys that use it never point out which attacks they are referring to, but that since the whole story has come out, and since we now know what an incredible threat Al Qaeda is, we know that Clinton's political advisors were recommending against the attack because they felt it would be seen as a "wag the dog" situation. It was the NSA and the CIA that were pressuring him to make the attacks. Clinton did the right thing and ordered the attack. We know all this and yet the right wingers continue to use this. What is also ironic is that even though the right wingers were all screeming "wag the dog" and making jokes about the "milk factory" we hit, those same right wingers were using the same (as it turns out bogus) intellegence to justify the war in Iraq.

There is only one thing wrong with the right wingers in the USA today and that is their total aversion to the truth. I think they must be allergic to it because they avoid it like the plague.

 

[JGL53]

Why? What does it prove? Nothing. They are dead for different reasons and different causes.

But it seems that, for most people, numbers count in terms of judging relative evil - e.g., monsters like Stalin and Hitler are more despised and feared than those sickos who just mass murder a couple of dozen or so innocent people, like Jeffrey Dahmer or Charlie Manson.

So – in terms of stacked bodies - who's the most comparable to Stalin here - Clinton or Bush, Jr.?

 

[Harpuia]

But it seems that, for most people, numbers count in terms of judging relative evil - e.g., monsters like Stalin and Hitler are more despised and feared than those sickos who just mass murder a couple of dozen or so innocent people, like Jeffrey Dahmer or Charlie Manson.

So – in terms of stacked bodies - who's the most comparable to Stalin here - Clinton or Bush, Jr.?

Sorry, much as I can't stand Bush, I have to stop ya right there.

Because if you counted it that way, FDR and Lincoln would probably be the biggest mass murderers America's ever known.

 

[JGL53]

Sorry, much as I can't stand Bush, I have to stop ya right there.

Because if you counted it that way, FDR and Lincoln would probably be the biggest mass murderers America's ever known.

You could be right - I THINK I recall having been wrong once before, many years ago - but I’m compelled to disagree.

Unless you buy into some conspiracy theory or another:

1. FDR was president when Japan attacked U.S. military base in Pearl Harbor and when the Germans attacked our allies and who we saw as an obvious and overt threat to us. He was just doing his job in calling for war and executing that war. To do otherwise would have been to be seen as an incompetent at best and a traitor at worst, and he would have been removed from office forthwith.

2. Ditto Lincoln. There is no provision in the Constitution for any state to secede. And Ft. Sumter was federal property. When the confederates fired on it, this precipitated an unavoidable war. Had Lincoln just acquiesced, as in the case of FDR, he would be seen as incompetent at best and a traitor at worst and would have been removed from office.

None of the actions by Bush, Jr. under discussion seem to fall into the above categories. (Ditto Mr. Clinton? - I'm not clear on that.)

 

[TScott]

Clinton never used military action unilaterally like Bush has. The eastern European campaign was a NATO operation. The reason for it was strictly humanitarian.

 

[JGL53]

Clinton never used military action unilaterally like Bush has. The eastern European campaign was a NATO operation. The reason for it was strictly humanitarian.

Well, then, that settles it. Those who voted Clinton in this poll as the greater evil compared to Bush, Jr. must see improper sex relations with a young women as a greater moral wrong than starting a war on false pretenses and causing the unnecessary deaths of over a hundred thousand people.

Well, I guess there are christians who are perfectly willing to cast the first stone and who are perfectly willing to overlook the beam in their own eye while looking for a mote in the eye of another - and then there are christians feel that killing is worse sin than adultery.

Go figure.

 

[dignitized]

Clinton never used military action unilaterally like Bush has. The eastern European campaign was a NATO operation. The reason for it was strictly humanitarian.

Clintons intervention in the Balkins had a SMALLER coalition than Bush did for Iraq - AND it was done without UN approval!! Which is of course a cardinal sin right? At least it was when Bush did it . . . . OH and why was it okay to go into the balkins for humanitarian reasons and NOT okay to go into Iraq when the same reasons and MORE were offered?

 

[JGL53]

...OH and why was it okay to go into the balkins for humanitarian reasons and NOT okay to go into Iraq when the same reasons and MORE were offered?

You're joking, right? The "humanitarian reasons" have been conjured up by the Bush administration after the fact when the real reasons Iraq was invaded by Bush have been shown to be lies.

There are plenty of countries on earth where the inhumanity is much worst than it ever was in Iraq under Sadaam. Why has Bush not committed American military and money to do something about those other places? Heck, he doesn't even talk much about other places, he simply ignores them most of the time.

The humanitarian excuse and rationalization is nothing more than.... an excuse and a rationalization.

 

[ONEGod]

Apparently the obvious has gone much unnoticed, or should i say the truth ?
Of Iraq, the second gulf war came from the continuance of the first gulf war, at Saddmas insistance-12 years and 17 UN resolutions he refused to keep the peace treaty he signed that ended the first gulf war. The Rape rooms are closed, and the institutionalized filling of mass graves by Saddam's butchers is over, they didn't call him the Butcher of Bagdad for nothing.
Then you can count the $40 billion of the innocent unborn brutally butchered in the name of convenience/choice rather than live up to life's responsibilities. Throw in the attempt in the slick willy era to force homosexual leaders upon Girl scouts and Boy scouts and the attempt to legitimise molesters as sex educators, i think that tip of the iceberg alone should be enough for any Christian to seriously consider.
Not to mention the times slick willy blamed Christians for Americas problems, of course others have carried that baton since then, of the same party, of course.
slick willy went into Somalia because the people were starving, of course they still were when we left. In the Balkins, slick went in to save the Muslims from the evil Christians. Odd the the massive atrocities and mass burials that were the excuse, WERE NEVER FOUND.
Whether by innocent dead or by amoral/Anti-Christ politics, how could a slick willy supporter ever find fault with anyone and not feel a hypocrite ?

 

[dignitized]

You're joking, right? The "humanitarian reasons" have been conjured up by the Bush administration after the fact when the real reasons Iraq was invaded by Bush have been shown to be lies.

There are plenty of countries on earth where the inhumanity is much worst than it ever was in Iraq under Sadaam. Why has Bush not committed American military and money to do something about those other places? Heck, he doesn't even talk much about other places, he simply ignores them most of the time.

The humanitarian excuse and rationalization is nothing more than.... an excuse and a rationalization.

I suggest that you go and find a copy of the Congresses joint resolution authorizing military action in Iraq. The humanitarian reasons are listed there BEFORE the fact. Nice try.

 

[TheRedFox]

I'd just like to say that I can't think of the right answer. Bad is bad, and that is that, really. They all have their bad-sides. I'm a simple woman, and if you do something bad, your bad. No "more bad" or "most bad."