T1B

Interesting article.

George W. Bush's presidency appears headed for colossal historical disgrace. Barring a cataclysmic event on the order of the terrorist attacks of September 11th, after which the public might rally around the White House once again, there seems to be little the administration can do to avoid being ranked on the lowest tier of U.S. presidents. And that may be the best-case scenario. Many historians are now wondering whether Bush, in fact, will be remembered as the very worst president in all of American history.

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/profil ... in_history

I'd like to think that jimmah carter has a pretty good stranglehold on that one.

Well, lets see. His term is still 2 years from ending and a President's effect usually get judged at at least 10-15 years after his term his up. I am not fazed by the liberal rags that want to constantly bitch at someone b/c their own dickless party cant get its shit together.

Bush says he's the "decider"...he's definitely the "divider". Folks either applaud him or detest him. Not a whole lot of wiggle...

And the Dems have nothing to do w/ it, right?

Cicero wrote:Well, lets see. His term is still 2 years from ending and a President's effect usually get judged at at least 10-15 years after his term his up.

The final verdict of history will not be rendered until we are all old men. If then. Presidents like Chester Arthur, Andrew Johnson and William Howard Taft have all seen their hisorical reputations rise and fall as new facts and interpretations come to light. However, it can be safely said that Bush will never be ranked along side Washington, FDR or Lincoln. In fact, it would be a damned miracle if his reputation was any better than LBJ's 30 years from now.

BSmack wrote:

Cicero wrote:Well, lets see. His term is still 2 years from ending and a President's effect usually get judged at at least 10-15 years after his term his up.

The final verdict of history will not be rendered until we are all old men. If then. Presidents like Chester Arthur, Andrew Johnson and William Howard Taft have all seen their hisorical reputations rise and fall as new facts and interpretations come to light. However, it can be safely said that Bush will never be ranked along side Washington, FDR or Lincoln. In fact, it would be a damned miracle if his reputation was any better than LBJ's 30 years from now.

Oh I agree Bush will not be put in the same sentence as FDR, Washington, Lincoln and Reagan. I didnt know those of us here who support Bush ranked him that high?

So Bush is a moron but the dems failed to find a way to beat him and take his spot. Kinda makes them a tad stupider, don't it?

mvscal wrote:

BSmack wrote:However, it can be safely said that Bush will never be ranked along side Washington, FDR or Lincoln.

Who is making that claim?

Like I said.

smackaholic wrote:I'd like to think that jimmah carter has a pretty good stranglehold on that one.

Not even close, according to most historians.

Most historians rate Buchanan, Nixon, Andrew Johnson and Harding all worse than Carter. Some also include Hoover in that group.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:So Bush is a moron but the dems failed to find a way to beat him and take his spot. Kinda makes them a tad stupider, don't it?

Boy, I'll say.

Mondale?
Dukakis?
Kerry?



Are ya fucking KIDDING me?

And now Billary? Pissed off lesbian feminists just don't make up a large enough voting contigency.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

smackaholic wrote:I'd like to think that jimmah carter has a pretty good stranglehold on that one.

Not even close, according to most historians.

Most historians rate Buchanan, Nixon, Andrew Johnson and Harding all worse than Carter. Some also include Hoover in that group.

Even the Federalist Society - The Wall Street Journal Survey on Presidents rates Carter ahead of the following

31 Zachary Taylor 2.40
32 Ulysses Grant 2.28
33 Richard Nixon 2.22
34 John Tyler 2.03
35 Millard Fillmore 1.91
36 Andrew Johnson 1.65
37 Franklin Pierce 1.58
38 Warren Harding 1.58
39 James Buchanan 1.33

http://www.opinionjournal.com/hail/rankings.html

I imagine a grouping of non fascists would rank Carter even higher.

It 's not that Kerry and Gore are stupider than Bush. In fact I'm sure they're both a lot smarter.

It's just that Bush is stupid in a way that appeals to a lot of people who like stupid.

I'd rather be stupid with bode than smarts sans bode. And by bode, I simply mean...getting the job.

Bush is dumb, but his cabal is smart.

Mikey wrote:It 's not that Kerry and Gore are stupider than Bush. In fact I'm sure they're both a lot smarter.

It's just that Bush is stupid in a way that appeals to a lot of people who like stupid.

Rack.

Smarter than anyone here. Even PSUFAN and Dins.

Dins ain't here, man.

U&Lwife went yard on his ribpack

Cicero wrote:Smarter than anyone here.

You're joking, right?

I've often wondered if W lost a lot of wattage in his wild years. He's a pretty dim bulb...but perhaps he wasn't always that way.

nixon deserves props for helping to end the cold war big time

coolidge anyone?

Um...how did Nixon help to end the cold war?

for one------he forced the russkies to man up a million soldiers on the chink border thus using up resources and cayshe they coulda used elsewhere

PSUFAN wrote:Um...how did Nixon help to end the cold war?

By stepping aside to allow the exceedingly brilliant foreign policy egg-spurt Gerald Ford to take over.

Sincerely,

Totally baked Rush fan

PSUFAN wrote:I've often wondered if W lost a lot of wattage in his wild years. He's a pretty dim bulb...but perhaps he wasn't always that way.

If the rumors about what he used to do are true, that's probably a pretty reasonably conclusion.

Nonsense. Even if the rumors about what he used to do are true, they pale in comparison to my younger days. And I’m still sharp as a tack.

No, honestly. I really am. :wink:

mvscal wrote:

Mikey wrote:It 's not that Kerry and Gore are stupider than Bush. In fact I'm sure they're both a lot smarter.

I see no evidence of that. All three are silver-spooners of mediocre intellect and academic achievement.

Articulation does not equal intelligence.

Yeah, Georgie might be the deep, confused, introspective type, and we just haven't been giving him credit for it.

I'll take the guy who can at least speak over the one who can neither speak (yet is required to) nor think.

If things play out with Iran in the direction they appear to be heading, Bush may rate rather favorably down the road. He will have had to deal with the largest foreign attack on the American continent perhaps ever, he will have taken steps to gain leverage against a dangerous growing world power in the middle east and have taken direct action against long-building terrorist elements. So far, the economy is doing rather well...all things considered. Where he will hurt is how he tried to do a PR end-around on Iraq, he refused to take on borders as a major issue and he thus far has chosen to play friendly with opposition when a harder line probably would serve better. He'll either rate very well or very poorly depending on where the situation in the middle east proceeds. Personally, I think the next elected president will be under far more intense fire than this one, as the war we're in becomes a little more conventional and clear to everyone.

We are there to set up shop to take down Iran and Syria. If not, the Israelis will. What happens in the future? No fucking idea. W may suck but this was going to happen down the road anyway.

Atomic Punk wrote:We are there to set up shop to take down Iran and Syria. If not, the Israelis will. What happens in the future? No fucking idea. W may suck but this was going to happen down the road anyway.

RACK that!

If Israel is provoked any further by Iran, and I think they will be, then they will not sit back and wait.

Syria is someone who needs to be dealt with.

mvscal wrote:you are easily impressed by superficial appearance.

Yeah, being able to speak in correct English sentences is just SO superficial.

PSUFAN wrote:Um...how did Nixon help to end the cold war?

next question?

mvscal wrote:

Mikey wrote:It 's not that Kerry and Gore are stupider than Bush. In fact I'm sure they're both a lot smarter.

I see no evidence of that. All three are silver-spooners of mediocre intellect and academic achievement.

Articulation does not equal intelligence.

I don't think it's terribly relevant to measure intelligence in 60-something men strictly on college grades they received before most of this board was even born.

It appears to me that since that time, Kerry and Gore both have learned more about the world around them than has Bush. And certainly, both Kerry and Gore display more intellectual curiosity than does Bush.

mvscal wrote:Yeah, it is.

Tom Cruise is articulate, but I don't think you'll be finding him on Mensa's membership list any time soon.

Not sure which is more pathetic.

You being so intellectually dishonest as to defend your figurehead's inability to speak as bearing no indication on his lack of intelligence, or you correctly pointing out that even a boob like Tom Cruise is in fact smarter than him.

Any reasonable and at least semi-intelligent person (you don't qualify I guess) knows that the ability to articulate thoughts, albeit not the end-all be-all of intelligence, is *a* indicator of intelligence.

But if you want to represent that George is too deep and complex to be articulate, feel free to make an even bigger ass of yourself.

Eaglebauer wrote:

mvscal wrote:Yeah, it is.

Tom Cruise is articulate, but I don't think you'll be finding him on Mensa's membership list any time soon.

Not sure which is more pathetic.

You being so intellectually dishonest as to defend your figurehead's inability to speak as bearing no indication on his lack of intelligence, or you correctly pointing out that even a boob like Tom Cruise is in fact smarter than him.

Any reasonable and at least semi-intelligent person (you don't qualify I guess) knows that the ability to articulate thoughts, albeit not the end-all be-all of intelligence, is *a* indicator of intelligence.

But if you want to represent that George is too deep and complex to be articulate, feel free to make an even bigger ass of yourself.

[mvscal]George W. Bush is a man of action. He doesn't have time for all them sissy things like readin' and learnin' and wordsmithin' and speakin' all grammatical.

Dumbfuck.[/mvscal]

mvscal wrote:

Eaglebauer wrote:Any reasonable and at least semi-intelligent person (you don't qualify I guess) knows that the ability to articulate thoughts, albeit not the end-all be-all of intelligence, is *a* indicator of intelligence.

The ability to clearly articulate has absolutely nothing to do with intelligence. Actors and newsreaders are all articulate and are also among some of the stupidest people on planet Earth.

This isn't even subject to debate. You might as well try to argue that water isn't wet...or that you aren't a total dumbfuck.

vr, william hurt in 'broadcast news'

mvscal wrote: total dumbfuck.

mvscal must be looking in the mirror again



m2

mvscal wrote:

Eaglebauer wrote:Any reasonable and at least semi-intelligent person (you don't qualify I guess) knows that the ability to articulate thoughts, albeit not the end-all be-all of intelligence, is *a* indicator of intelligence.

The ability to clearly articulate has absolutely nothing to do with intelligence. Actors and newsreaders are all articulate and are also among some of the stupidest people on planet Earth.

This isn't even subject to debate.

Actors and newsreaders aren't speaking extemporaneously, asshat.

That's what we're talking about. Not the ability to "read aloud".

Go on trying to find "dumb" articulate people all you want and it only makes George that much worse. I mean we all *know* he's not a thinker, if he can't at least *speak* in front of people what good is he? Having his last name, I guess.

So, you're telling me Hollywood actors are smarter than the President?