Whom would you call the worst president in American history?

[Camp]

And the rapist and pervert comment is a lie. A hater's opinion stated as a fact as if the haters opinion counts for anything. And the Nixon tapes reveal him to be a crude, foul mouthed liar. You can not listen to the tapes of him speaking without coming to those conclusions.

yes, nixon was foul mouthed and he did lie about a break in of a party office. Clinton's rapes and abuse of women are just as well documented.

Nixon opened up china and ended the Kennedy and Johnson's viet nam fiasco. He left rather than put the country through an impeachment hearing that he might or might not have lost. Unlike clinton, he cared more about the country than his legacy.

You are just repeating a lie over and over hoping it will be believed. You can not document Clinton being involved in rape or abuse with any thing other than never proven allegations and your imagination or willingness to believe gossip.

Right the women only lie about it when it goes against Lefty's.

Pathetic really.

Did it sicken you when Anita Hill lied about Clarence Thomas?

I don't invest all the emotion that some posters do when discussing things that occurred decades ago or seem to have little to do with anything of great importance in today's world. But what does any of what you have posted have to do with a person lying to reinforce an agenda driven opinion. Are you trying to justify lying? Like it is OK to lie if that is what is needed to make your point?

Priceless projection, I love it.

You're sure the women who claimed Billy Boy was a rapist and a sexual predator were lying....try and pay attention kid, you'll have to remember what you say or you'll get hammered.

....and yet Anita lied through her teeth and you and the rest of the ill-educated left cheered her on

I never called them liars asshole. I implied their allegations and claims were relegated to gossip status. That was and is the actual worth of any of their claims. I never made any comment about Anita Hill. Never mentioned her and her name has not been part of this discussion until you brought it up. You are implying or claiming I said things that I never said. You are just making stuff up and being a lying POS.

 

[Flipper]

yes, nixon was foul mouthed and he did lie about a break in of a party office. Clinton's rapes and abuse of women are just as well documented.

Nixon opened up china and ended the Kennedy and Johnson's viet nam fiasco. He left rather than put the country through an impeachment hearing that he might or might not have lost. Unlike clinton, he cared more about the country than his legacy.

You are just repeating a lie over and over hoping it will be believed. You can not document Clinton being involved in rape or abuse with any thing other than never proven allegations and your imagination or willingness to believe gossip.

Right the women only lie about it when it goes against Lefty's.

Pathetic really.

Did it sicken you when Anita Hill lied about Clarence Thomas?

I don't invest all the emotion that some posters do when discussing things that occurred decades ago or seem to have little to do with anything of great importance in today's world. But what does any of what you have posted have to do with a person lying to reinforce an agenda driven opinion. Are you trying to justify lying? Like it is OK to lie if that is what is needed to make your point?

Priceless projection, I love it.

You're sure the women who claimed Billy Boy was a rapist and a sexual predator were lying....try and pay attention kid, you'll have to remember what you say or you'll get hammered.

....and yet Anita lied through her teeth and you and the rest of the ill-educated left cheered her on

I never called them liars asshole. I implied their allegations and claims were relegated to gossip status. That was and is the actual worth of any of their claims. I never made any comment about Anita Hill. Never mentioned her and her name has not been part of this discussion until you brought it up. You are implying or claiming I said things that I never said. You are just making stuff up and being a lying POS.

Sorry kid, you can call it whatever you need to make yourself "feel", you "relegated" them to liar status... you are not a bright young man are you?

You also do not seem to be able to comprehend in a linear manner....I used Anita to illustrate your hypocrisy.

You are investing quite a bit of emotion here son, we cross?

 

[Camp]

You are just repeating a lie over and over hoping it will be believed. You can not document Clinton being involved in rape or abuse with any thing other than never proven allegations and your imagination or willingness to believe gossip.

Right the women only lie about it when it goes against Lefty's.

Pathetic really.

Did it sicken you when Anita Hill lied about Clarence Thomas?

I don't invest all the emotion that some posters do when discussing things that occurred decades ago or seem to have little to do with anything of great importance in today's world. But what does any of what you have posted have to do with a person lying to reinforce an agenda driven opinion. Are you trying to justify lying? Like it is OK to lie if that is what is needed to make your point?

Priceless projection, I love it.

You're sure the women who claimed Billy Boy was a rapist and a sexual predator were lying....try and pay attention kid, you'll have to remember what you say or you'll get hammered.

....and yet Anita lied through her teeth and you and the rest of the ill-educated left cheered her on

I never called them liars asshole. I implied their allegations and claims were relegated to gossip status. That was and is the actual worth of any of their claims. I never made any comment about Anita Hill. Never mentioned her and her name has not been part of this discussion until you brought it up. You are implying or claiming I said things that I never said. You are just making stuff up and being a lying POS.

Sorry kid, you can call it whatever you need to make yourself "feel", you "relegated" them to liar status... you are not a bright young man are you?

You also do not seem to be able to comprehend in a linear manner....I used Anita to illustrate your hypocrisy.

You are investing quite a bit of emotion here son, we cross?

OK, show the post that I called any of the rape or abuse accusers a liar. I know exactly what I said and your just full of wind. Another punk who talks the walk but can't actually walk the walk.
BTW, gossip is not an antonym for liar. Gossip was the word I use. You are taking my quote directly out of context by changing the actual word I used gossip and changing it into liar.

 

[Unkotare]

Lying about an on the-job-blowjob is chickenshit.....

Perjury, obstruction of justice, and witness tampering are very serious crimes whether some brainless lefty idiot wants to recognize it or not.

 

[xdangerousxdavex]

Nixon was the worst. I don't like even remembering his face.

 

[there4eyeM]

Driving under the influence of alcohol is a very serious crime, whether alcoholics want to recognize it or not.

 

[candycorn]

Well, as I understood the question, it was to be framed in terms of what we lived through. I wasn't around when LBJ was President but there are ample examples of first hand accounts of the time when he was President.

I stand by what I said about GWB. Citations to come later if I find the time to look them up.

So if you understood the question to be about who you lived through but you didn't live through LBJ, why did you identify him?

Again, ample evidence from people who lived during his tenure. Mom, Dad, grand parents, cousins...my first 3 bosses were veterans of the Viet Nam war.

As far as your citations...knock yourself out. From who? Other liberals who are pounding left-wing propaganda? Yippie! As a Republican (and former history professor) I would put him in the middle of the pack, nowhere near the top. But anyone who suggests he was anywhere near the bottom either has not the faintest clue about our nation's history or is a propagandist who is trying to influence impressionable minds.

Given that there have been what, 44 Presidents, rating him 22 is interesting...I'd love to hear the names of the 21 better Presidents who left the country worse off than when they found it.

BluePhantom well, list the ones who have left the nation in poorer shape as per specified in the OP.

Well, we're waiting for your list...oh you mean you don't know what you're talking about?

Actually, it means I have a life that includes sleeping which means I will get to your list when I have completed other things that are of a higher priority

Any ol' time now.

 

[BluePhantom]

So if you understood the question to be about who you lived through but you didn't live through LBJ, why did you identify him?

Again, ample evidence from people who lived during his tenure. Mom, Dad, grand parents, cousins...my first 3 bosses were veterans of the Viet Nam war.

As far as your citations...knock yourself out. From who? Other liberals who are pounding left-wing propaganda? Yippie! As a Republican (and former history professor) I would put him in the middle of the pack, nowhere near the top. But anyone who suggests he was anywhere near the bottom either has not the faintest clue about our nation's history or is a propagandist who is trying to influence impressionable minds.

Given that there have been what, 44 Presidents, rating him 22 is interesting...I'd love to hear the names of the 21 better Presidents who left the country worse off than when they found it.

BluePhantom well, list the ones who have left the nation in poorer shape as per specified in the OP.

Well, we're waiting for your list...oh you mean you don't know what you're talking about?

Actually, it means I have a life that includes sleeping which means I will get to your list when I have completed other things that are of a higher priority

Any ol' time now.

I posted it a couple days ago. I see your attention to detail is as keen as your knowledge of history

 

[candycorn]

Ok Candycorn. I finally have nothing better to do than respond to your question. First, I said GWB was "middle of the pack". I don't need to place him exactly, smack dab, in the middle. I will split it into 3rds. the bottom third, the middle third, and the top third. If GWB is in the middle third he is "middle of the pack".

Second, your terms are unacceptable and show your lack of understanding about American history and civics. How a president leaves the nation is not always a correct way to measure his effectiveness. In fact, usually it isn't. This is because certain things happen that are beyond a president's control. I am assuming you refer to the economic collapse at the end of Bush's term. If you think that was Bush's fault, you really need to brush up on your history and your understanding of the way the government works. The president does not control the economy. That is all on Congress and the Fed. There is not a single thing any president of any party can do about the economy unless Congress cooperates. If you can't grasp that, sue your high school civics teacher.

So...presidents that were worse than GWB (or at least less effective) in no particular order: John Quincy Adams, Andrew Jackson, Martin Van Buren, William Henry Harrison, John Tyler, Zachary Taylor, Millard Fillmore, Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Rutherford B. Hayes, James Garfield, Benjamin Harrison, Warren Harding, Herbert Hoover, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, Jimmy Carter, and Barack Obama.

That's 19 which puts him very comfortably in the middle of the pack. But arguments could be made about Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, both of whom were fantastic men who inspired revolution, but frankly, pretty lousy presidents.

Now my guess is that you might recognize about 6 of those names, so go take a history class and learn about your country.

Ahh, I see it. We agree on LBJ I see. Nice of your to agree with me.

As for the others? Let's see, you excuse him from the economy....so can you excuse Obama from the sluggish economy he has oversaw? If not, why not?

As for spilling blood and treasure for zero reason, Bush has few contemporaries. Harrison was in office for something like 30 days but he ranks lower than Bush? Oh...okay

Anyway, thanks for posting your interesting list. It was fun to look at.

 

[BluePhantom]

As for the others? Let's see, you excuse him from the economy....so can you excuse Obama from the sluggish economy he has oversaw? If not, why not?

To a large degree, yes. Congress and the Fed control the economy so they always bear the most responsibility. BUT, if Congress is advancing the president's policies then he shares in it. For the last two years of GWB's term he had a hostile Congress, controlled by the opposition, that did the exact opposite of what he wanted. Can't blame Bush for that. For Obama's first two years, he had a highly cooperative Congress that did exactly what he wanted. So Obama bears some strong responsibility for those two years. When the Republicans and Democrats split control of Congress, it created a gridlock and nothing got done. The economy continued to stagnate. That's not Obama's fault, that's the fault of Congress. Now that the Republicans have both houses of Congress they can take action and things are suddenly starting to turn around. That's not to Obama's credit because he is against those policies. So yes, I generally excuse Obama from responsibility for the stagnating economy. There has only been two years in his terms that he had a Congress that was willing to advance his policies. Thus, the blame shifts from him to Congress.

As for spilling blood and treasure for zero reason, Bush has few contemporaries. Harrison was in office for something like 30 days but he ranks lower than Bush? Oh...okay

Well Afghanistan was just. Even Obama agrees with that and he even increased troop activities in an Afghanistan Surge if you recall. Iraq, is open for discussion, but the casualty count for Iraq is nowhere near Vietnam, Korea, WWII, etc. You will notice that although Truman is chiefly responsible for the Korean War, I did not rate him lower than GWB so I think I am being pretty fair. If you really want to talk about shedding innocent blood, go have a look at what some of the presidents I listed did to the American Indians and Mexicans with even less reason or provocation.

As for Harrison...you said 44 presidents and demanded to see my ranking of Bush against 43 other presidents. Well...I have to stick him in somewhere. We can drop him if you like and drop GWB a spot closer to the bottom, but he will still be somewhere in the middle of the pack, just like I said

 

[candycorn]

As for the others? Let's see, you excuse him from the economy....so can you excuse Obama from the sluggish economy he has oversaw? If not, why not?

To a large degree, yes. Congress and the Fed control the economy so they always bear the most responsibility. BUT, if Congress is advancing the president's policies then he shares in it. For the last two years of GWB's term he had a hostile Congress, controlled by the opposition, that did the exact opposite of what he wanted. Can't blame Bush for that. For Obama's first two years, he had a highly cooperative Congress that did exactly what he wanted. So Obama bears some strong responsibility for those two years. When the Republicans and Democrats split control of Congress, it created a gridlock and nothing got done. The economy continued to stagnate. That's not Obama's fault, that's the fault of Congress. Now that the Republicans have both houses of Congress they can take action and things are suddenly starting to turn around. That's not to Obama's credit because he is against those policies. So yes, I generally excuse Obama from responsibility for the stagnating economy. There has only been two years in his terms that he had a Congress that was willing to advance his policies. Thus, the blame shifts from him to Congress.

So Congress is passing laws without Obama or Bush's approval? In the old days, the President used to have to sign bills into laws. I'm not sure you taught American history.

[

As for spilling blood and treasure for zero reason, Bush has few contemporaries. Harrison was in office for something like 30 days but he ranks lower than Bush? Oh...okay

Well Afghanistan was just. Even Obama agrees with that and he even increased troop activities in an Afghanistan Surge if you recall. Iraq, is open for discussion, but the casualty count for Iraq is nowhere near Vietnam, Korea, WWII, etc. You will notice that although Truman is chiefly responsible for the Korean War, I did not rate him lower than GWB so I think I am being pretty fair. If you really want to talk about shedding innocent blood, go have a look at what some of the presidents I listed did to the American Indians and Mexicans with even less reason or provocation.

Its pretty naive to believe that there were not clear goals involved with American Indians and Mexicans...the spread of our nation across the continent.

[
As for Harrison...you said 44 presidents and demanded to see my ranking of Bush against 43 other presidents. Well...I have to stick him in somewhere. We can drop him if you like and drop GWB a spot closer to the bottom, but he will still be somewhere in the middle of the pack, just like I said

I guess the reasoning makes sense when you look at it from that angle. Good to see that someone who did nothing (didn't have a chance to) is equitable to a guy who had 8 years and f'd up everything he touched.

Bush was a terrible President by any standard commonly applied. Blood and treasure, economically, lessened America's standing around the globe, etc...

 

[BluePhantom]

So Congress is passing laws without Obama or Bush's approval? In the old days, the President used to have to sign bills into laws. I'm not sure you taught American history.

Of course not, but most presidents are very hesitant to use the veto unless it's a significant issue and they know they will win the fight. Vetoing everything that comes down the pipe pisses Congress (and the public) off and they go from uncooperative to flat out hostile. An important rule of politics...know when to pick a fight and when not to.

Its pretty naive to believe that there were not clear goals involved with American Indians and Mexicans...the spread of our nation across the continent.

So blood for oil is evil even though our entire economy is based on it, our currency is backed by it, and it's a critical element in the goods we produce, but blood for land is perfectly fine? Wow....you are one cold blooded woman.

 

[Pogo]

I really can't see rating William Henry Harrison among the worstest just because of poor weather judgment. Arguably he could be rated one of the best on the basis that he did the least damage -- though that would be unintentional.

I think it's still too soon to have the perspective to assign a relative position to Shrub. But when the time comes (say 2019), I'll be shocked if he's not near the bottom. That guy was a freaking embarrassment.

 

[Ernie S.]

Jeebus what a bunch of racist brainwashed tools. W the worst in memory by far. All the worst are conservative, racist dishonest a-holes...Nixon hurt the presidency the most, Reagan's legacy is economic, chickenhawk, and propagandist poison.

Race card play noted. Subsequent blather dismissed as usual.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Carter and jackson. Of course you have to throw lbj in there for his failures in the vietnam war in which 50,000 americans died and his great society boondoggle.

 

[BluePhantom]

I really can't see rating William Henry Harrison among the worstest just because of poor weather judgment. Arguably he could be rated one of the best on the basis that he did the least damage -- though that would be unintentional.

I think it's still too soon to have the perspective to assign a relative position to Shrub. But when the time comes (say 2019), I'll be shocked if he's not near the bottom. That guy was a freaking embarrassment.

Generally speaking I would agree. Several years ago I did a pretty exhaustive study on the presidents and ranked them according to a bunch of criteria (foreign policy, domestic policy, political skills, SCOTUS appointments, etc). In that exercise, I omitted WH Harrison and James Garfield because there was simply not enough data to make a call. However, she asked for 44 presidents so I had to account for all 44. It's irrelevant to the argument though. Even if you pull both of them out, I still have GWB somewhere in the middle of the pack.

 

[Camp]

Has anyone else besides me mentioned the actor who gave WMD in the form of chemical weapons to Saddam, all kinds of weapons, including rockets to the Ayatollah's in Iran and trained and equipped the original members of the Holy War (Muslim Jihadist) in Afghanistan? He left a long line of dead Americans from unarmed Marines blown up in barracks to all sorts of terrorist attacks and even an airliner full of college kids blown out of the sky. Lost his mind and dumped the mess on the future.

 

[Pogo]

I really can't see rating William Henry Harrison among the worstest just because of poor weather judgment. Arguably he could be rated one of the best on the basis that he did the least damage -- though that would be unintentional.

I think it's still too soon to have the perspective to assign a relative position to Shrub. But when the time comes (say 2019), I'll be shocked if he's not near the bottom. That guy was a freaking embarrassment.

Generally speaking I would agree. Several years ago I did a pretty exhaustive study on the presidents and ranked them according to a bunch of criteria (foreign policy, domestic policy, political skills, SCOTUS appointments, etc). In that exercise, I omitted WH Harrison and James Garfield because there was simply not enough data to make a call. However, she asked for 44 presidents so I had to account for all 44. It's irrelevant to the argument though. Even if you pull both of them out, I still have GWB somewhere in the middle of the pack.

Yeah it is pretty much irrelevant, just making the point that there's no basis for ranking Harrison lowly -- or really at all.

I can see two issues with your exhaustive study project: one, if you're asked for "44 Presidents" you'd have to include one who's not even done with his tenure now, let alone several years ago when he would have been just beginning, and two, there haven't even been 44 POTUSes yet, even counting the present one. You would have had to rate Grover Cleveland twice. How do you do that? Was Cleveland better or worse than himself?

That always cracks me up, counting the same guy twice....

 

[BluePhantom]

I really can't see rating William Henry Harrison among the worstest just because of poor weather judgment. Arguably he could be rated one of the best on the basis that he did the least damage -- though that would be unintentional.

I think it's still too soon to have the perspective to assign a relative position to Shrub. But when the time comes (say 2019), I'll be shocked if he's not near the bottom. That guy was a freaking embarrassment.

Generally speaking I would agree. Several years ago I did a pretty exhaustive study on the presidents and ranked them according to a bunch of criteria (foreign policy, domestic policy, political skills, SCOTUS appointments, etc). In that exercise, I omitted WH Harrison and James Garfield because there was simply not enough data to make a call. However, she asked for 44 presidents so I had to account for all 44. It's irrelevant to the argument though. Even if you pull both of them out, I still have GWB somewhere in the middle of the pack.

Yeah it is pretty much irrelevant, just making the point that there's no basis for ranking Harrison lowly -- or really at all.

I can see two issues with your exhaustive study project: one, if you're asked for "44 Presidents" you'd have to include one who's not even done with his tenure now, let alone several years ago when he would have been just beginning, and two, there haven't even been 44 POTUSes yet, even counting the present one. You would have had to rate Grover Cleveland twice. How do you do that? Was Cleveland better or worse than himself?

That always cracks me up, counting the same guy twice....

Yeah, when I did that study, Obama had just taken office and I didn't count him for obvious reasons and at the time I didn't count GWB either because I felt it was too early. One really needs to allow several years to pass before one can look at things objectively. I read an article recently about GWB's approval rating today and it was something like 52%. Well....that's a hell of a difference from when he left office. Same thing for Clinton and every president. So...allowing time for things to sink in and settle down is important.

As for Cleveland....I took his two terms together when I ranked him but it's a good point you make.

 

[Pogo]

I really can't see rating William Henry Harrison among the worstest just because of poor weather judgment. Arguably he could be rated one of the best on the basis that he did the least damage -- though that would be unintentional.

I think it's still too soon to have the perspective to assign a relative position to Shrub. But when the time comes (say 2019), I'll be shocked if he's not near the bottom. That guy was a freaking embarrassment.

Generally speaking I would agree. Several years ago I did a pretty exhaustive study on the presidents and ranked them according to a bunch of criteria (foreign policy, domestic policy, political skills, SCOTUS appointments, etc). In that exercise, I omitted WH Harrison and James Garfield because there was simply not enough data to make a call. However, she asked for 44 presidents so I had to account for all 44. It's irrelevant to the argument though. Even if you pull both of them out, I still have GWB somewhere in the middle of the pack.

Yeah it is pretty much irrelevant, just making the point that there's no basis for ranking Harrison lowly -- or really at all.

I can see two issues with your exhaustive study project: one, if you're asked for "44 Presidents" you'd have to include one who's not even done with his tenure now, let alone several years ago when he would have been just beginning, and two, there haven't even been 44 POTUSes yet, even counting the present one. You would have had to rate Grover Cleveland twice. How do you do that? Was Cleveland better or worse than himself?

That always cracks me up, counting the same guy twice....

Yeah, when I did that study, Obama had just taken office and I didn't count him for obvious reasons and at the time I didn't count GWB either because I felt it was too early. One really needs to allow several years to pass before one can look at things objectively. I read an article recently about GWB's approval rating today and it was something like 52%. Well....that's a hell of a difference from when he left office. Same thing for Clinton and every president. So...allowing time for things to sink in and settle down is important.

As for Cleveland....I took his two terms together when I ranked him but it's a good point you make.

Garfield, on the other hand, pun intended, could reportedly write in Latin with one hand and Greek with the other simultaneously.
Which is awesome.