I think the list Redneck posted was pretty good, but I don't think George W. Bush should have been that high on the list...He should probably be around 39th or 40th
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (L_C @ Jan 7 2007, 09:41 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Franklyn Roosevelt was ok, but he wasn't that great. He had the great Depression occur under him. He tried to have the New Deal, but that didn't work. It took the US getting into another World War to pull him out of the great depression</div>No he didn't, he was the one to get us out of it. It didn't OCCUR under him, it occured under that Herbert Hoover dude.
Oh, then all FDR did is try to end the great deppression with the new deal. Only problem was the new deal only worked because we went into WW2..
The Great Depression started in 1929 after the stockmarket collapsed, FDR wasn't elected president until 1932. Herbert Hoover was president when it started, but some blame the depression on the Harding/Cooledge administrations because of their corruption with things like Teapot dome, and I think it was Cooledge who vetoed a law to that would have banned stock "bubbling" , the stock "bubble" bursting is what caused the depression.
I don't think GWB even should break the top 25. I mean yeah, we live in tough times, but still alot of people could of done better (IE me)
Your not president. and the sad fact is we have had a lot worse people than George Bush as president. Bush hasn't been great by any stretch, but he hasn't been as bad as someone like Warren Harding, Ulysses Grant, or his father. Right now him and Clinton are very close in ranking, I just gave it to Bush since he has had a lot more obsticles than Clinton. Clintons biggest obsticle was that fat cow with the stained dressed. Clintons banging of her should have been an impeachable offense, I mean he is the most powerful man in the world and he does that. I mean if he had banged Sarah Michelle Gellar or Claudia Shiffer all would be forgiven. but Monica Lewinsky! *shutters* and she isn't even the worse of the things he banged. Hillary Clinton, Jennifer Flowers, Kathleen Whitley, and possibly Janet Reno and Madilan Albright.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (L_C @ Jan 7 2007, 08:41 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Yeah, ONLY AFTER DIVIDING IT.</div>Oh come on. It's not like Lincoln was sitting there in a room and said to Lee and Grant, "Hey guys okay now all we gotta do is convince a hundred thousand or so to die! It'll be easy!" It was going to happen.<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MaRdYC26 @ Jan 7 2007, 11:19 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>No he didn't, he was the one to get us out of it. It didn't OCCUR under him, it occured under that Herbert Hoover dude.</div>Yeah, Hoover didn't really help them that much during the Great Depression. They made a vacuum cleaner after his name to make fun of him.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (redneck @ Jan 8 2007, 02:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Your not president. and the sad fact is we have had a lot worse people than George Bush as president. Bush hasn't been great by any stretch, but he hasn't been as bad as someone like Warren Harding, Ulysses Grant, or his father. Right now him and Clinton are very close in ranking, I just gave it to Bush since he has had a lot more obsticles than Clinton. Clintons biggest obsticle was that fat cow with the stained dressed. Clintons banging of her should have been an impeachable offense, I mean he is the most powerful man in the world and he does that. I mean if he had banged Sarah Michelle Gellar or Claudia Shiffer all would be forgiven. but Monica Lewinsky! *shutters* and she isn't even the worse of the things he banged. Hillary Clinton, Jennifer Flowers, Kathleen Whitley, and possibly Janet Reno and Madilan Albright.</div>Clinton didn't have these problems because he wasn't nearly as dumb as Bush. AKA invade Iraq...
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Your not president. and the sad fact is we have had a lot worse people than George Bush as president. Bush hasn't been great by any stretch, but he hasn't been as bad as someone like Warren Harding, Ulysses Grant, or his father. Right now him and Clinton are very close in ranking, I just gave it to Bush since he has had a lot more obsticles than Clinton.</div>Bush may have had obstacles, but he certainly hasn't overcome any. Name one thing Bush has done a good job on during his presidency besides taking record setting vacations and shattering the deficit records year after year.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MaRdYC26 @ Jan 8 2007, 05:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Clinton didn't have these problems because he wasn't nearly as dumb as Bush. AKA invade Iraq...</div>I think the point that people forget about Bush's situation is how much the media was calling for a war. They wanted more then invading Afghanistan, they wanted a bonified scapegoat. Saddam was that guy, and Bush prematurely was pushed into the war.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (L_C @ Jan 9 2007, 12:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I think the point that people forget about Bush's situation is how much the media was calling for a war. They wanted more then invading Afghanistan, they wanted a bonified scapegoat. Saddam was that guy, and Bush prematurely was pushed into the war.</div>Instead of going hard after Osama Bin Laden (where is he bush lovers?), he seemed to have some sort of vandetta for Saddam Hussein. It just amazes me, I remember about 4 years ago, when we first invaded Iraq, if you ACTUALLY OPPOSED to the Invasion of Iraq, you were called out as "unpatriotic" when it was completely ridiculous. Don't take this out of context (this next statement) but Bush completely brainwashed Americans to think that terrorists were mainly in Iraq, when they weren't. They just weren't. Bush has done a horrible job during his presidency, and if you think he's done better than Clinton, republican or not, you need to get your mind on straight.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>he seemed to have some sort of vandetta for Saddam Hussein.</div>Saddam tried to kill W's daddy. he hired an assasin to kill George HW Bush when he visited Kuwait in like 96. thats the reason for this war, that and that alone. not terrorist, not oil, but a good old fashion western vendetta. Bush hasn't done a bad job, he seriously hasn't. he's just taken the fall for a lot of sh*t out of his control IE 9/11, enron, the economy, the high price of oil ect.The US hasn't gotten Bin Laden because they went after the more dangerous targets. Bin Laden is just the money guy, the military went after the braintrust of Alquida as well as the combattons. which is actually a better stratagy. Cut the head off the serpent before you go for the tail.
Your not serious, are you?First of all, in your first paragraph...what you stated was completely true, but I'm assuming, just based off of what you've already said in the topic, your being sarcastic? Idk though. It's hard to tell on a forum.2nd paragraph: Bush has killed too many troops to say he's done an "ok" job. He's just killed too many. Luckily, I had no loved ones in the war, but if I did, it'd be even MORE upset about this war then I am now. Also, if this war is just about a controversy between Saddam and Bush, do that on your own time, and your own life...not other Americans. Bush just SUCKS, republican, conservative, liberal, independent, the guy f*cking SUCKS. You can make a case for a guy like Ronald Regean, but Bush SUCKS.And are you joking about Bin Laden? The guy was the f*cking mastermind, and like you said "money" behind 9/11 and the killing of "just" a few thousand Americans, yet Bush acts so patroitic like he was gonna def. hang Bin Laden in new york city, yet WE STILL Haven't got him. I noticed that Americans who live closer to NYC, and were "closer" to the 9/11 incident seem to feel this way more. I rather have Bin Laden get the death penalty right now, than Saddam. Saddam had nothing to do with terroism and nothing to do with the war in Afghanastan. We just completely turn our attention to Iraq to go after some worthless lethal dictator....I hate saddam too but I could care less about that piece of sh*t...whatever, approval rating of bush = 0. sorry.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MaRdYC26 @ Jan 9 2007, 10:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>You can make a case for a guy like Ronald Regean, but Bush SUCKS.</div>What's that supposed to mean? Reagan was one of, if not the best president in the last century.
By not a bad job, I mean in comparison to the other presidents this country has had. we've had some which make Bush look Abraham Lincoln. capturing or killing Bin Laden is just gravy. He wasn't really the mastermind, Omar Muhammed or something like that was the mastermind. or so the Pentagon has said since September 01. Personally I believe Bin Ladens been dead since 2001. he was either killed in a bombing or he died because of his kidneys.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Captain @ Jan 9 2007, 09:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>What's that supposed to mean? Reagan was one of, if not the best president in the last century.</div>He was trying to say that he's a raging liberal. I disagree with you saying that he could be the best president of the last century, but I do think he's better than Clinton and a bunch of other guys. Maybe one of the best, yeah.
My point was you could make a case Regean was a better president for Clinton, but Bush is just terrible.
