Who do you feel was the worst President ever?

I feel President Clinton was the worst president ever.

President Clinton was by far one of the worst ever. He left the U.S in a mess and ingored important events happening in America. He used the Monica Lewinski event to hid all the problems occuring and his complet disregard for them.

Where to begin. Ill start with the foreign crisis he left the U.S in.

In 1994, the Clinton administration made a big deal over signing the Nuclear Accords with North Korea. The agreement provided for the construction of a Nuclear Power plant and fuel oil in return for the North ceasing construction of an old style nuclear power plant and stopping it's nuclear weapons program. This allowed the North Koreans to have a win/win position. They got time for further research, money, fuel, a new reactor, and the Clinton administration off their back all in return for signing a piece of paper. Without inspections, we have no proof that they aren't working on the problem of making a bomb. The Clinton policy seems to me to be based on one thing--the desire of Clinton to have a legacy. Clinton bent at every turn for the North. The most recent examples of this are continued food, fuel, and Nuclear power plant shipments to the North while the IAEA says they are not living up to the Nuclear Agreement.

Which now left President Bush having to deal with the fact that the North Koreans did infact use the Nuclear Agreement to produce a nuclear bomb by obtaining nuclear ore.



Now onto the U.S homeland security..

The S.D.I aka "star wars" was started by President Ragean which was a missle to destory 100% of incoming missles. President Ragean had lots of funding going into this to protect American troops and America.

Yet, under Clinton, the money spent for missile defense has been decreased while the threat has increased dramatically. We no longer face the onslaught of hundreds of Soviet missiles, which would have destroyed the nation even if we had a 60% effective kill rate with Star Wars. Now we face many nations with few weapons each. This is the situation where a missile defense system would really shine. A few incoming missiles could all likely be destroyed, we just need a system that can focus in on those threat nations.

This is just some of the horrible things done by Clinton, I can write a book about it but this is just a few. Who do you think was the worst?

my predictions are this threads gonna go up in flames or down in the dumps

I thought Clinton did well in boosting up US economy and jobs ?

Clinton did an alright as far as economy wise, but over all was a horrible president. He had mulitiple chances to take out Osama Bin Ladin and every time didnt take advantage of the ongoing problem and didn't take him out.

Flight tw800 was shot down by an alleged terrorist attack which president Clinton completly ignored.

TW800 was a major coverup.

But to be fair, I don't think anyone of us can judge who was the worst President unless we've either studied history extensively or lived throughout the entire history of the USA.

I'll bet you $10 though that someones going to say Bush in the next 5 posts, I'd even bet that they weren't even a US citizen nor could they list 10 other Presidents we've had.

Clinton had little to do with the booming economy. The economy was mainly driven by technology and greenspan. Computers were coming in, microsoft was growing enormously, and the things greenspan did allowed the tech sector to boom. There was the Dot Com craze and that bubble grew till it burst. However, presidential decisions didnt have much to do with that. Ask any economist. The Dot crash of 2000/2001 was a natural part of the economic cycle.

Of course any president during an economic boom or recession is going to get the credit for it, even though their actions would have influenced it very little. The biggest way the president can influence the economy is by influencing the minds of the people who spend. They do this by making them feel safe. However, Bush didnt cause the people to not feel safe, it was the events of 9/11 that caused that and made the recession worse. But Bush is doing a good job of turning that around.

Because of my age, and my experience with politics, I only have Clinton and Bush to compare for presidents. And of the 2, clinton was the worse one.

Eisenhower was the worst in my opinion though.

Canada rules! WOOOO!

I guess it depends how you define a "worst president".

Is it someone who does NOTHING for the nation? or is it someone who attempts to do TOO much for the WORLD? or Is it someone who leaves the biggest debt?

Originally posted by interactive
TW800 was a major coverup.

But to be fair, I don't think anyone of us can judge who was the worst President unless we've either studied history extensively or lived throughout the entire history of the USA.

I'll bet you $10 though that someones going to say Bush in the next 5 posts, I'd even bet that they weren't even a US citizen nor could they list 10 other Presidents we've had.

LOL, as much as I dislike Bush's policies, I strongly doubt he is the worst president we've had. I think we've had quite a few characters every so often. One that pops in my mind is Calvin Coolidge. He did absolutely nothing for the nation--barring his obnoxious voice I dont know what could have gotten him the Presidency.

Bush IMO won't be the worst president for America--but for the rest of the world, I think he qualifies for the "worst" label. He has left the world in a wreck with not too much sign of recovery.

Yet, this country has been close to untouched since 9/11 days which is a significant achievement IMHO(that still does not justify much of the bias in the so-called "Patriot Act").

Originally posted by adminME
Canada rules! WOOOO!

Yay, we're all socialists!! Yay..

Haha, just joking.

Originally posted by interactive
TW800 was a major coverup.

But to be fair, I don't think anyone of us can judge who was the worst President unless we've either studied history extensively or lived throughout the entire history of the USA.

I'll bet you $10 though that someones going to say Bush in the next 5 posts, I'd even bet that they weren't even a US citizen nor could they list 10 other Presidents we've had.

I find this double standard sort of funny. The thread starter starts off by bashing Clinton but doing so by giving reasons as to why. Now if someone so much as mentions Bush's name, regardless of whether the reasons are listed or not, he's

a. not american
b. so uneducated that he cant list 10 other us presidents
c. the implication is that he's ANTI american

Why do these threads constantly keep popping up anyways? People are never going to agree on these issues. Its just an excuse for everyone to bash each other and try to express their supposed intellectual superiority.

my vote is for James Buchanan, what a loser.

George W Bush is tied with his father for the worst president ever.

I'd have to go with either Warren G. Harding (http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/wh29.html) or Ulysses S. Grant (http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/ug18.html)

You can read about their scandalous presidencies if you like...

James Buchanan, without a doubt.

my votes on ralph nader (how ever you speel it) / or ross peraole

(which evers running this time ;))

Originally posted by rrdega
I'd have to go with either Warren G. Harding (http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/wh29.html) or Ulysses S. Grant (http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/ug18.html)

You can read about their scandalous presidencies if you like...


Quite a surprising read:

When he was elected, the American people hoped for an end to turmoil. Grant provided neither vigor nor reform. Looking to Congress for direction, he seemed bewildered. One visitor to the White House noted "a puzzled pathos, as of a man with a problem before him of which he does not understand the terms."


To see that at whitehouse.gov...just makes you wonder what current George Bush's page would look like.

Originally posted by zaid2001
To see that at whitehouse.gov...just makes you wonder what current George Bush's page would look like. [/B] Did you read it? President George W. Bush (http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/gwbbio.html) - Regardless of how many may feel at present, I strongly believe that:
a) He will be re-elected
b) History will show that he was decisive in taking the war to the terrorists, as opposed to sitting back and letting them bring it to us!

Originally posted by RMF
George W Bush is tied with his father for the worst president ever.

I agree whole heartedly......

The Dude :angry:

Upon what do you base that opinion, Dude?

I think recent presidents (read last 25 years) are hard to judge as the worst. There is always clouded perceptions regarding their presidencies. You have to wait awhile to find out if their stink blows over, like a fart, or if it continues to haunt, like puke in the air duct. :sickface:

Originally posted by RajanUrs
I thought Clinton did well in boosting up US economy and jobs ?

That is the most misguided statement I have seen. If he created all these wonderful job, where are they now?

Sorry, my father, even a die hard union democrate said that "We lived to high on the hog for to long and now we are paying for it"

People were spend happy during the Clinton era. Investing millions in the dot bombs. Being way to liberal and not conservative enough.

amish_geek you are very correct in that statement, what did Clinton always boost about.

"X number new jobs, growth, spend your money, everything is fine, don't save a little for a rainy day"

Originally posted by ambirex
I think recent presidents (read last 25 years) are hard to judge as the worst. There is always clouded perceptions regarding their presidencies. You have to wait awhile to find out if their stink blows over, like a fart, or if it continues to haunt, like puke in the air duct. :sickface: :rofl: I love it!!! And you are so right! Did you just make that up, or have you had it in abeyance for a while?

Originally posted by rrdega
:rofl: I love it!!! And you are so right! Did you just make that up, or have you had it in abeyance for a while?

Just made it up, so I guess I can take the credit^H^H^H^H^H^Hblame. ;)

Originally posted by rrdega
Did you read it? President George W. Bush (http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/gwbbio.html) - Regardless of how many may feel at present, I strongly believe that:
a) He will be re-elected
b) History will show that he was decisive in taking the war to the terrorists, as opposed to sitting back and letting them bring it to us!

a) He won't
b) We'll see what history says. However, it seems like he has netted way too many innocent men and women than merely terrorists.

I did read his biography. Obviously it won't have any sour words in it as he is the one currently at the White House! It would be interesting to revisit that page a dedacde down the road.

Where did this turn around, ask any history buff and they will tell you, when JFK was shot and killed.

Prior to JFK's death kids alway referred to the president as their hero, even JFK, but after his death there has been scandal and corruption (at least brought to light more) than any other president.

Correct me if I am wrong.

Flight tw800 was shot down by an alleged terrorist attack which president Clinton completly ignored.
Right... :rolleyes: Show me ONE legit news source that wrote anything about this. Tabloids don't count. I've never heard this before, and it sounds like complete bs. It's never been proven right or wrong, so you really can't comment on it. Anyway, it's not the President's job to direct the FBI, the FBI had already investigated it & drawn its conclusions.

- Matt

Originally posted by mainarea
Right... :rolleyes: Show me ONE legit news source that wrote anything about this. Tabloids don't count. I've never heard this before, and it sounds like complete bs.

- Matt

Yes, but they never truely investigated it and swept it under the carpet as thought that was never a factor.

Originally posted by ljprevo
Where did this turn around, ask any history buff and they will tell you, when JFK was shot and killed.

Prior to JFK's death kids alway referred to the president as their hero, even JFK, but after his death there has been scandal and corruption (at least brought to light more) than any other president.

Correct me if I am wrong.

I'm going to have to reiterate James Buchanan (http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/jb15.html), no other president let the union's strength lapse so egregiously. At least any scandal from JFK didn't tear the nation apart.

I don't think there ever was a "worst President". Every President has their strengths and their weaknesses and you cannot compare one president to another because every term delivers different situations.

To me, President Clinton is far more intelligent than our current President.

Being inteligent and sounding intelligent are two different things.

More down to earth, I give him that, but I don't think any one president is any smarter than the next. Bush didn't get where he is now because of being dumb.

Without a doubt, George W. Bush is the worst president. He failed miserably as a President. He gets a D grad from me.

Originally posted by zaid2001
a) He won't
b) We'll see what history says. However, it seems like he has netted way too many innocent men and women than merely terrorists.

I did read his biography. Obviously it won't have any sour words in it as he is the one currently at the White House! It would be interesting to revisit that page a dedacde down the road. I reckon we'll see in November, eh? But with the demoncrats (inentional typo) putting Kerry up, there's really not much competition. Kerry cannot seem to make his mind up about anything! IMHO, they are putting him up with the intention of losing, so they can run Hillary in 2008.

As for netting innocents... When in history has a skirmish like what is transpiring in Iraq ever taken place with so few casulties? And had these actions not taken place, what chances do you believe exist that in the same timeframe a repeat of September 11th, 2001 would have taken place? And to add one final statement to that... What would the opinion of the president be had a repeat attack taken place? Hmmmm?

By the way, Zaid... Where do you hail from? Your profile does not say...

Originally posted by hycloud
Without a doubt, George W. Bush is the worst president. He failed miserably as a President. He gets a D grad from me.

Would you care to explain why? Just because?

Originally posted by ljprevo
Being inteligent and sounding intelligent are two different things.

More down to earth, I give him that, but I don't think any one president is any smarter than the next. Bush didn't get where he is now because of being dumb.

Yes, Pres. Bush got his current job because of his parent's connections. ;)
You think George W. Bush would have been president if he wasn't born to the Bush family? Not in a million years.

Originally posted by ljprevo
Would you care to explain why? Just because?

Foreign policy - F
War in Iraq - D
Economy - C-
Jobs - F
Balancing the Budget - F

Right to privacy and freedom of speech limited.
Separation of Church and State has been changed.
Amendment to the Constitution just ban gay marriages.

Originally posted by hycloud
Yes, Pres. Bush got his current job because of his parent's connections. ;)
You think George W. Bush would have been president if he wasn't born to the Bush family? Not in a million years.

Would Hilary have gotten the senate seat without the last name? Would she have gotten it if she divorced Bill?

Originally posted by interactive
Would Hilary have gotten the senate seat without the last name? Would she have gotten it if she divorced Bill?

Um... what? Didn't realize Hilary Clinton was born into the Clinton family. Didn't realize the Clinton family had powerful connections.

Originally posted by hycloud
Yes, Pres. Bush got his current job because of his parent's connections. ;)
You think George W. Bush would have been president if he wasn't born to the Bush family? Not in a million years.

Give me a break, mommy and daddy bought his presidency?

Whaaaaaa.

When he took office who's staff was it that turned all the M's upside down on the keyboards?

At least he is not spending his free time with a aid under his desk, then flat out lying about it.

And what about his dad, what was the slogan when he lost his second term?

"Saddam still has his job, do you have yours"

I tell you, liberals have to be the most hypocrital people in the world.

Originally posted by hycloud
Um... what? Didn't realize Hilary Clinton was born into the Clinton family. Didn't realize the Clinton family had powerful connections.

Good job avoiding my question:

Would Hiliary have gotten the seat that she did if her last name wasn't Clinton?

Don't tell me the Clintons don't have connections. Anyone with money does. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by hycloud
Um... what? Didn't realize Hilary Clinton was born into the Clinton family. Didn't realize the Clinton family had powerful connections. Hmmmm... Hillary Rodham, of Park Ridge, Illinois, elected Senator of Massachusetts? I think not... And I still cannot believe the people of that state permitted her to buy that office!

Originally posted by ljprevo

I tell you, liberals have to be the most hypocrital people in the world.

Agreed.

Originally posted by ljprevo
Being inteligent and sounding intelligent are two different things.

More down to earth, I give him that, but I don't think any one president is any smarter than the next. Bush didn't get where he is now because of being dumb.

Clinton has smart.. smarter than Bush for sure. Putting aside bush's actions and decisions, he's not as smart as Clinton.

Bush got where he is mainly because of his father. But in that case, so have actors who parents were actors.

Oh brother. Let me see.

George W. Bush, he was born into a family with powerful connections despite his lack of abilities.

Hilary Clinton attained connections through her own abilities.

I think that's a big difference don't you think?

Pres. Bush is not a very smart man.

I reckon we'll see in November, eh? But with the demoncrats (inentional typo) putting Kerry up, there's really not much competition. Kerry cannot seem to make his mind up about anything! IMHO, they are putting him up with the intention of losing, so they can run Hillary in 2008.

I'm sure you've heard it before...but should Kerry win, it will be more because of Bush than Kerry.


As for netting innocents... When in history has a skirmish like what is transpiring in Iraq ever taken place with so few casulties? And had these actions not taken place, what chances do you believe exist that in the same timeframe a repeat of September 11th, 2001 would have taken place? And to add one final statement to that... What would the opinion of the president be had a repeat attack taken place? Hmmmm?

The "skirmish" in Iraq as far as I beleive was started by our President, not Saddam Hussein. Yes Saddam was a nauseating character and yes I supported his removal. However, our President has gone to Iraq with a very flawed plan.

Prior to the war, Bush's ULTIMATE goal was to get rid of Saddam. However, to do that at the expense of turning many many millions of already-disfranchized people of that region against America was not the right way of going about it. I struggle to buy that as the best solution.

Few years back, carrying an American passport in the middle east in general would have left you almost embarrased by the amount of respect people showed you(for whatever reasons). However, from my experience it's completely opposite today. With an American passport, you're greeted with a crooked eye.

Now you can easily call these guys in the middle east who have such a bias about US as idiots, incorrigible and morons...but fact is, there are geniune reasons behind the image the world has come to develop of America in the past few years.

Originally posted by rrdega


By the way, Zaid... Where do you hail from? Your profile does not say...

LOL, good question. I spent my early years in India before moving to the US about a decade back.

Originally posted by UH-Ya
Clinton did an alright as far as economy wise, but over all was a horrible president. He had mulitiple chances to take out Osama Bin Ladin and every time didnt take advantage of the ongoing problem and didn't take him out.

Flight tw800 was shot down by an alleged terrorist attack which president Clinton completly ignored.

UH-Ya how old are you? In this thread (http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?threadid=274493) you say you're 17. That means, that you were 5 years old when Clinton became president. You must have really been into politics since your nursing age.

By reading again that racial crap you posted I've no doubt about my assessment of you.

Originally posted by interactive
Agreed. Ditto!

And, by the way... As for jobs? Why do you think Kerry's bunch isn't harping on that anymore? Because there have been over 500,000 new jobs created in the last two months alone.

I'm not sure if there has been a "worst president ever." Each and everyone has brought an upside, and each and everyone has brought a downside to America. There have been ones who I feel have brought more a downside to America than an upside (Calvin Coolidge, Franklin Roosevelt, JFK, Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton), I don't think there is a worst.

Originally posted by rrdega
Ditto!

And, by the way... As for jobs? Why do you think Kerry's bunch isn't harping on that anymore? Because there have been over 500,000 new jobs created in the last two months alone.

They'll continue to find new avenues to attack 'Bush' in.

When they have to use personal insults (politicians that is) like they do now towards Bush, that puts a big smile on my face. To me it means that they know things are better than previously and have nothing else to attack him with.

STOP IT!

and open up your eyes. You Bush lickers are blind. Iraq has nothing to do with the terrorist attack on 9/11. Most of the terrorist came from Saudi Arabia, who Pres. Bush is friends with the royal family.

Iraq didn't have WMD. Iraq wasn't an imminent threat. Iraq didn't have anything to do with 9/11.

The Bush admin are a bunch of lying son of a b*tch who are sending over your sons, daugthers, fathers, mothers, brothers, and sisters to die just be Pres. Bush has a grudge against Sadam.

500,000 new jobs in the last 2 months?

OMG that's some hilarious BS. Care to share with us the links to the news that back up your ridiculous claims? Because I can point you to daily reports of major corporations laying off thousands.

Bush indeed created jobs: in Iraq and in India - military & outsourced customer service.

Originally posted by timechange.com
[B

OMG that's some hilarious BS. Care to share with us the links to the news that back up your ridiculous claims? Because I can point you to daily reports of major corporations laying off thousands.[/B]

There were 41,000 jobs created in North East Ohio alone in teh past 3 months. And that's with a lagging steel industry (cleveland, and youngstown have a lot of steel industry).

There's also been 1.1 million new jobs created since August of last year. While, not a whopping number, it is showing signs of a reviving economy (It's actually back up to the levels of when Clinton left office). You can't tell me that's not impressive. I believe he's the 2nd president ever to turn an economy around. Granted the economy is cynical itself and barely relies on the president (which I'm not why the idiots even bring it up seeing as it goes up and down naturally) but the president does do some work in reviving and killing it.

Since I know you guys love articles to back it up, here you go;
1.1 million jobs created since august -> http://www.ecommercetimes.com/story/industrynews/33950.html

Originally posted by hycloud
STOP IT!

and open up your eyes. You Bush lickers are blind. Iraq has nothing to do with the terrorist attack on 9/11. Most of the terrorist came from Saudi Arabia, who Pres. Bush is friends with the royal family.

Iraq didn't have WMD. Iraq wasn't an imminent threat. Iraq didn't have anything to do with 9/11.

The Bush admin are a bunch of lying son of a b*tch who are sending over your sons, daugthers, fathers, mothers, brothers, and sisters to die just be Pres. Bush has a grudge against Sadam.


What's a Bush licker?

My friends and family in Iraq fighting for a free Iraq are proud of themselves. They want to be over there. They want to liberate Iraq. They want to rid the world of terrorism. In fact, two of my friends, one joining the US Marine Corps (doing Infantry) pushed up his ship date to Iraq because he can't wait to get over there. Another friend who joined the Navy also can't wait to get over there. Unfortunately he's unable to leave any earlier. If I was able to join the armed forces, I would any day, and I'd be damn proud to say I took part in liberating the Iraqi people.

Originally posted by inogenius
Since I know you guys love articles to back it up, here you go;
1.1 million jobs created since august -> http://www.iht.com/articles/521723.htm

Haha... thanks for the article.

"But is the economic news really that good? No. While the recent economic performance is better than in the administration's first three years, it isn't at all exceptional by historical standards. And after those three terrible years, the economy has a lot of ground to make up."

LOL did you read the article?

It totally rips apart the Republican claims of huge job growth.

Nice one.

Some charts from the department of Labor would not hurt either ;)

Originally posted by timechange.com
LOL did you read the article?

It totally rips apart the Republican claims of huge job growth.

Nice one.
My bad on that one. I was reading quite a few different articles in search of information and pasted the wrong link.

I've edited the post with the proper article, but if anyone wants a different opinion on the whole thing you can view the old one at http://www.iht.com/articles/521723.html.

Originally posted by timechange.com
500,000 new jobs in the last 2 months?

OMG that's some hilarious BS. Care to share with us the links to the news that back up your ridiculous claims? Because I can point you to daily reports of major corporations laying off thousands.

Bush indeed created jobs: in Iraq and in India - military & outsourced customer service.

Got one word for you Theo, NAFTA. I forget who signed it, care to remind me?

Originally posted by inogenius
What's a Bush licker?

My friends and family in Iraq fighting for a free Iraq are proud of themselves. They want to be over there. They want to liberate Iraq. They want to rid the world of terrorism. In fact, two of my friends, one joining the US Marine Corps (doing Infantry) pushed up his ship date to Iraq because he can't wait to get over there. Another friend who joined the Navy also can't wait to get over there. Unfortunately he's unable to leave any earlier. If I was able to join the armed forces, I would any day, and I'd be damn proud to say I was proud of being part of liberating the Iraqi people.


Then you and your friends are blind. Anytime a country wants to invade another country, they use the term "liberate". Guess what the terrorist say when they decided to blow pieces of America up? They think they are liberating the world from the evils of America. I'm not going to blinding follow the terrorist, nor am I blinding joining the war to "liberate" Iraq.

Originally posted by interactive
Got one word for you Theo, NAFTA. I forget who signed it, care to remind me?

I believe Pres. Clinton signed it. What's so bad about NAFTA? Care to explain?

910 troopers won't be coming home; while Bush was smirking about hidden WMD under his desk and sofa, these men and women were dying for what they thought was a valid cause. But it isn't.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/

Fighting a war to defend your country is one thing.
Fighting a war on false pretense is another.

The War in Iraq is a war fought on false pretense.

Originally posted by timechange.com
910 troopers won't be coming home; while Bush was smirking about hidden WMD under his desk and sofa, these men and women were dying for what they thought was a valid cause. But it isn't.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/

Those 910 troops should be proud they died for their country and the Iraqi people. When they signed up for the armed forces, they understood they were going to be putting their life on the line.

BTW Millions of Iraqi people now have the ability to express their thoughts without being gassed, put in torture rooms, raped, or buried alive.

Originally posted by hycloud
Fighting a war to defend your country is one thing.
Fighting a war on false pretense is another.

The War in Iraq is a war fought on false pretense.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=2&u=/ap/20040525/ap_on_re_mi_ea/us_iraq_sarin_2

There are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq from a terrorist organization. Whether they are from Saddam's Regime is still unknown, but I'm sure we'll find out soon where they came from.

Originally posted by inogenius
Those 910 troops should be proud they died for their country and the Iraqi people. When they signed up for the armed forces, they understood they were going to be putting their life on the line.

BTW Millions of Iraqi people now have the ability to express their thoughts without being gassed, put in torture rooms, raped, or buried alive.

You must not have heard the news lately. Iraqi people being tortured and raped by American soldiers. No, they were not terrorist. Just Iraqi prisoners.

You also didn't hear about a family who lost 3 sisters, whose family plead to the US to get have one of the sisters sent home.

Originally posted by hycloud
I believe Pres. Clinton signed it. What's so bad about NAFTA? Care to explain?


NAFTA = North American Free Trade Agreement.

Basically it opened up (more so) our trading with other countries, namely Mexico. Made it easier for American companies to send their jobs outside of the USA for cheaper labor. Why was this signed? For taxes. Afterall, terrifs are higher than income taxes.

Originally posted by inogenius
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=2&u=/ap/20040525/ap_on_re_mi_ea/us_iraq_sarin_2

There are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq from a terrorist organization. Whether they are from Saddam's Regime is still unknown, but I'm sure we'll find out soon where they came from.

Oh brother.

"But no more have turned up, and several military officials have said the shell may have been an older one that predated the 1991 Gulf War"

It's not evidence that Sadam is developing WMD like what the Bush admin claims. It's old shells from previous war left in the battlefield.

Originally posted by interactive
NAFTA = North American Free Trade Agreement.

Basically it opened up (more so) our trading with other countries, namely Mexico. Made it easier for American companies to send their jobs outside of the USA for cheaper labor. Why was this signed? For taxes. Afterall, terrifs are higher than income taxes.

http://www.fas.usda.gov/info/factsheets/NAFTA.html

The purpose of the agreement was to eliminate tarriffs. ;)

It was responsible for creating lots of jobs. Think about it. How many jobs were created during the Clinton years?

Originally posted by hycloud
You must not have heard the news lately. Iraqi people being tortured and raped by American soldiers. No, they were not terrorist. Just Iraqi prisoners.

You also didn't hear about a family who lost 3 sisters, whose family plead to the US to get have one of the sisters sent home.

Heard about both numerous times. But are the people in charge of torture and rape not being dealt with? They're. Was Saddam dealt with when he gassed his own people? Not up until the USA did something about it. Was he, or his two sons dealt with for having rape rooms and torture chambers? Once again, not until the USA did anything about it.
I agree the torture, killing (yes, 8 prisoners were killed), and the rape of the prisoners was terrible, and I hope the people involved get due punishment. However, most Iraqi's are getting the freedom they deserve as part of a living creature. Unfortunately some terrorist organizations, who wish to have more power are making it a bit hard to have a completely liberated Iraq, where people have the freedom of speech, religion, assembly, petition..etc.

Originally posted by timechange.com
500,000 new jobs in the last 2 months?

OMG that's some hilarious BS. Care to share with us the links to the news that back up your ridiculous claims? Because I can point you to daily reports of major corporations laying off thousands.

http://money.cnn.com/2004/05/07/news/economy/jobless/index.htm

Payrolls grew by 288,000 jobs last month, the Labor Department reported, well above the 173,000 economists had forecast, according to a survey by Reuters. The number even topped the highest forecasts of about 250,000.

The department also revised its reading on March job growth to 337,000 jobs from the 308,000 reported last month. That gave the economy an average monthly gain of 217,000 a month so far this year, even with weaker-than-expected growth in January and February.


337,000 + 288,000 = 625,000 jobs. I hate to say it, but he's right. I keep a close eye on the economy, what can I say... :D

- Matt

Originally posted by hycloud
http://www.fas.usda.gov/info/factsheets/NAFTA.html

The purpose of the agreement was to eliminate tarriffs. ;)

It was responsible for creating lots of jobs. Think about it. How many jobs were created during the Clinton years?

From the link you posted:

Under NAFTA, all non-tariff barriers to agricultural trade between the United States and Mexico were eliminated. In addition, many tariffs were eliminated immediately, with others being phased out over periods of 5 to 15 years.


Many, not all. Others, not all.

How was it responsible for creating lots of jobs? Maybe in Mexico.

I'm surprised no one brought up that old redneck from south carolina.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/aj7.html

Originally posted by interactive
From the link you posted:


Many, not all. Others, not all.

How was it responsible for creating lots of jobs? Maybe in Mexico.

Hehe... exactly. NAFTA purpose was to eliminate most of the tarriffs that are already in place in order to encourage import and export.

How will it create jobs? Haha... Um... more demand for exports... more demand for jobs. It's quite basic son.

"During 1992-2000, the value of U.S. agricultural exports worldwide climbed 19 percent. Over that same period, U.S. farm and food exports to our two NAFTA partners grew by 62 percent. In 2000, approximately $273 million worth of U.S. agricultural products were shipped to Canada and Mexico by U.S. farmers, food processors, and exporters each week. This was an increase of $137 million a week and $7.2 billion a year compared with what they shipped, on average, during the four years prior to NAFTA."

Originally posted by interactive
From the link you posted:


Many, not all. Others, not all.

How was it responsible for creating lots of jobs? Maybe in Mexico.

I'm not sure how many people in Mexico are happy with NAFTA either -> http://www.cyberdyaryo.com/features/f2003_0106_03.htm

Originally posted by hycloud

Pres. Bush is not a very smart man.
And what is your job title? :rolleyes:

Originally posted by FTPguy
And what is your job title? :rolleyes:

What does my job title have anything to do with Pres. Bush not being a smart man? :stickout:

Originally posted by hycloud
Hehe... exactly. NAFTA purpose was to eliminate most of the tarriffs that are already in place in order to encourage import and export.

How will it create jobs? Haha... Um... more demand for exports... more demand for jobs. It's quite basic son.

"During 1992-2000, the value of U.S. agricultural exports worldwide climbed 19 percent. Over that same period, U.S. farm and food exports to our two NAFTA partners grew by 62 percent. In 2000, approximately $273 million worth of U.S. agricultural products were shipped to Canada and Mexico by U.S. farmers, food processors, and exporters each week. This was an increase of $137 million a week and $7.2 billion a year compared with what they shipped, on average, during the four years prior to NAFTA."


I ain't your son by any rate ;).

How many jobs do you think it sends away (especially from the farming industry)?

Originally posted by timechange.com
500,000 new jobs in the last 2 months?

OMG that's some hilarious BS. Care to share with us the links to the news that back up your ridiculous claims? Because I can point you to daily reports of major corporations laying off thousands.

Bush indeed created jobs: in Iraq and in India - military & outsourced customer service. I'm not going to spend a lot of time looking, as I was quoting statistics provided to me in a hardcopy Edward Jones report I received. But I did find this U.S. job growth soars - Gain of 308,000 jobs far better than Wall Street's forecasts; unemployment rate up to 5.7 percent (http://money.cnn.com/2004/04/02/news/economy/jobs/?cnn=yes) - This was from April, and the reports I've seen say the trend is continuing...

Originally posted by rrdega
I'm not going to spend a lot of time looking, as I was quoting statistics provided to me in a hardcopy Edward Jones report I received. But I did find this U.S. job growth soars - Gain of 308,000 jobs far better than Wall Street's forecasts; unemployment rate up to 5.7 percent (http://money.cnn.com/2004/04/02/news/economy/jobs/?cnn=yes) - This was from April, and the reports I've seen say the trend is continuing...

... so much for it being hiliarous BS. :D

Originally posted by interactive
I ain't your son by any rate ;).

How many jobs do you think it sends away (especially from the farming industry)?

Agriculture is farming and that's what NAFTA was mainly about. Just because advances in technology in the farming industry displaces many farmers, it shouldn't be blamed on NAFTA. You have to blame it on advances in technology if you want something to blame.

When you elimate tarriffs, you are competing on prices alone. Whoever can produce it for the cheapest usually wins. That's why companies look for the cheapest solution and most likely that'll come in a form of technological advancement.

Okay, enough about how industrialization works.

So 300,000 new jobs were created in April. Big deal. New jobs need to be created every month to keep up with a growing population. Two or three months of job creation is not going to make up the for the millions of jobs lost during the Bush admin.

Originally posted by hycloud
So 300,000 new jobs were created in April. Big deal. New jobs need to be created every month to keep up with a growing population. Two or three months of job creation is not going to make up the for the millions of jobs lost during the Bush admin.


There isn't anywhere near 300,000 new people looking for a job each month.

Originally posted by mainarea
337,000 + 288,000 = 625,000 jobs. I hate to say it, but he's right. I keep a close eye on the economy, what can I say... :D

- Matt Thanx Matt! I missed that one... :)

Originally posted by hycloud
<snip> millions of jobs lost during the Bush admin. [/B] Not to mention, I would like to see back-up for the "millions" of jobs lost bit...

Originally posted by inogenius
There isn't anywhere near 300,000 new people looking for a job each month.


Of course not. There are only a few million working Americans looking for jobs. :stickout:

But you really think 300,000 jobs will be created every month? All I said is that new jobs need to be create for the growing population.

300,000 in April and 120,000 in March isn't making up for the millions of jobs lost during the Bush admin years.

1) Nixon
2) George W. Bush

Originally posted by rrdega
Not to mention, I would like to see back-up for the "millions" of jobs lost bit...

Well, you haven't been following the economy then. Maybe you are just too young to know about it.

Originally posted by rrdega
Not to mention, I would like to see back-up for the "millions" of jobs lost bit...

Quoting September 14, 2003 Washington Post:


WASHINGTON - The vast majority of the 2.7 million job losses since the 2001 recession began were the result of permanent changes in the U.S. economy and are not coming back, which means the labor market will not regain strength until new positions are created in novel and dynamic economic sectors, a Federal Reserve Bank of New York study has concluded.

Originally posted by hycloud
Well, you haven't been following the economy then. Maybe you are just too young to know about it.

I'm sure that if rrdega is able to post at WHT then they understand what type of recession the USA went into. To answer the question though, I believe I read it was something like 3.2 million americans lost their job since January of 2001.

I believe the recession had more to do with 9/11 than the Bush administration.

Originally posted by Rewdog
I believe the recession had more to do with 9/11 than the Bush administration.

9/11 probably impacted the recession, however there was no doubt that the USA was headed into a recession before 9/11 happened. Of course, it's a useless arguement. The economy is a cynical beast. It'll go up and down no matter what president is in office, as the president has a very little effect on it.

Okay, I agree. We were heading toward a recession when Bush took office. And 9/11 made it worst. And the economy is coming back. However gas prices is slowing it down.

When I vote, I vote for the person I think is best qualified for the job, not what political party they are in. Each party has it's good and it's bad. I never understand why it always has to be Republican vs Democrat instead of choosing the individuals who are best qualified and experienced for the job.

I also don't think that you can determine the "worst" president when many seem to only be looking at the current and last one. There are plenty before them that have done great and horrible things that are being ignored in the quest to attack Clinton or Bush.

Originally posted by hycloud
Okay, I agree. We were heading toward a recession when Bush took office. And 9/11 made it worst. And the economy is coming back. However gas prices is slowing it down.

I don't think Bush taking office effected the economy really at all. I don't think Clinton did either. It's just gonna go up and it's just going to go down whenever it wants. There's very little someone can do to stop it. Gas prices will more than likely slow it down as consumers will have less to spend on other things. I do however believe I read somewhere that the Bush adminstration and Saudi Arabia worked out a deal in attempt to produce more gasoline. Whether or not it goes through who knows, and even if it does, it will take 1-2 months for anyone to notice the change.

How about Nixon and Gerald Ford?

Originally posted by inogenius
I don't think Bush taking office effected the economy really at all. I don't think Clinton did either. It's just gonna go up and it's just going to go down whenever it wants. There's very little someone can do to stop it. Gas prices will more than likely slow it down as consumers will have less to spend on other things. I do however believe I read somewhere that the Bush adminstration and Saudi Arabia worked out a deal in attempt to produce more gasoline. Whether or not it goes through who knows, and even if it does, it will take 1-2 months for anyone to notice the change.

Yeah, they did. That's why the stock market bounced back today because of lower gas prices.

However, I disgree with you on the president have absolutely no effect on the economy. That's just not true.

Look at India when they just elected a new Prime Minister. The stock market took a tumple because of what the new Prime Minister stood for. Ghandi then decided not to take the position of Prime minister.

The President has the ability to stimulate the economy and discourage it as the same time. However, sometimes the economy is pretty much out of the hands of the President. I'm not saying Pres. Bush is responsible for the recession. I however am blaming him for doing the wrong things to stimulate the economy. You might not agree with it. That's fine.

Originally posted by hycloud

The President has the ability to stimulate the economy and discourage it as the same time. However, sometimes the economy is pretty much out of the hands of the President. I'm not saying Pres. Bush is responsible for the recession. I however am blaming him for doing the wrong things to stimulate the economy. You might not agree with it. That's fine.

This is true.

Bush (GW2) gets my vote for the worst President.

Can only speak to the time I have been alive. I would have to say Jimmy Carter, with a close second Lyndon Johnson

Harding, Buchanan, Garfield, Johnson, and one more, but I cannot think of the name, were by far the worst presidents ever. If you think clintons' bad, please take a college level American History Class.

Now that this thread actually seems to be getting back on topic (Whew!) I won't take it back into the bushes (no pun intended, honest!) again.

But in response to the question about my age, if you check around a little you'll learn that I am actually three times the age of some of the "hosts" around here...

rrdega,

Great to know you are over 3 days old. A person 2 days old typing, wow that would just be incredible!

:D

I think Harding is at least among the worst.

I might only be 17, but my posts here has shown more knowledge then most people just saying, oh i hate bush because he is actually taken a stand against terrorism.

How can you say President Bush was a bad president. He has completely revived the national security ( please notice no terrorist attacks lately). He has implemented several techniques to allow the CIA and FBI to communicate effectively allowing National Security to be more effective.

Let me direct your attention to the summer of 1997, ABC News did a story on CIA attempts to overthrow Saddam. The main thing that struck me was that we set up the Kurds with CIA officers and information in an attempt to foster a threat to Saddam. When things were finally ready in the summer of 1996, we bailed out at the last possible second. Without our support, it was like the Bay of Pigs all over again. That is what caused the large loss of life and splitting the Kurdish and democratic factions in Iraq. Clinton lacked the resoluteness to carry out missions of this sort. Once he set it in motion with an intelligence finding that the Saddam government must go, he was duty bound to go through with it. At the very least he owed the contacts we developed in the region the clear fore knowledge of what we would do, so they would not have to die for Clinton's weakness.


Clinton left the world a mess when he left, and was one major player in the cause for the 9/11 attacks.

Originally posted by UH-Ya
How can you say President Bush was a bad president.
So when you started this thread "Worst President ever?", did you just want everyone to agree with you that Clinton was? Or did you genuinely want people to reply with who they thought was the worst president in their opinion?

I want people to reply, I dont care if they agree with me, give me information to back your idea, so I can open my mind up and see where your coming from. I dont just post my idea I post reasoning to back why I think he was the worst.

Originally posted by anon-e-mouse
So when you started this thread "Worst President ever?", did you just want everyone to agree with you that Clinton was? Or did you genuinely want people to reply with who they thought was the worst president in their opinion?
Great point Mouse.
Originally posted by UH-Ya
I might only be 17, but my posts here has shown more knowledge then most people
Judging from these snippets below, your posts do indeed show you are full of more something than most people. Though I honestly don't think it's "knowledge". Perhaps anger and hate.
Originally posted by UH-Ya
Gay people are completely wrong, and are the work of the devil.

They are not humans and should not be considered.

societies has its outcasts, and incorrect births, which result in gays.

Gay marriage is not only wrong but will cause damage to the children

parents growing up with homosexual parents aren't as well adapted into society like normal children are.

disgusting and awful people ( if they can even be called that)
So first it was gay people. Now it's former President Clinton. What's next?

Originally posted by UH-Ya
I
How can you say President Bush was a bad president. He has completely revived the national security ( please notice no terrorist attacks lately). He has implemented several techniques to allow the CIA and FBI to communicate effectively allowing National Security to be more effective.


Give me a break. Agreed within US we have done well security wise since 9/11. HOWEVER, to extend that point and imply that the world is a safer place since the undertakings in Iraq is simply far from truth. And say you don't care about the world peace and remain satisfied with how things are here at home, than you better wake up and do start caring because this very selfishness is what shook us on 9/11.

So I guess if you just care about how secure your own home is then Bush has done a good job(simply going by the fact that we have not had any attacks since 9/11). However, if you think with a wider perspective, the world is actually a much much bigger mess than it was yesterday.

What has he passed? The Patriot Act? Come up with idiotic computer programs that have started singling me out because I follow a certain religion each time I go to the airport or have a set of certain characters in my name?

Kid me not...Bush has hardly made this world a better place and by each passing day, he is digging a deeper hole for Americans and for the World peace.

I also wanted to point out that people bash American soldiers for assulting the Iraqi prisioners, which I strongly disagree. But what about the Iraqis Hanging the American security people?! Everyone gives them a blind eye, but what about all the disgusting things their doing to Americans? Even ones that arent fighting, like Nick Berg who was beheaded?!

Another useless thread....a 17 year old professing his political expertise over the "bad Clinton years" ROFLMAO. Who knows what conversations occured while he was playing Nintendo.

As for the "great economy under Bush" posts, just as in order to lose weight one must burn more calories than what they ingest, the same with jobs: the rythm of job creation should be higher than that of jobs being lost. Oh and mcjobs don't count ;)

Originally posted by hycloud
What does my job title have anything to do with Pres. Bush not being a smart man? :stickout:
Just wondering how you came to the conclusion that President Bush is "not a smart man." Thought you might be a professional in some field (ok, not really) and would have facts and comparisons to prove who is "smart" and who is not.

UH-Ya, while I have serious issues with some of your other views on things (as posted in other threads), on this one I concur with you in one regard... Our president, whoever it may be, must appear strong, must be decisive, and must not waffle on his positions! These things I feel strobgly about, even if I personally may disagree with him (or possibly her after the 2008 elections)

In my case, I chose Grant and Harding as my nominations for Worst Ever... Why? Check 'em out... Both were very indecisive! Grant, from my reading, didn't know his "you-know-what" from a hole in the ground where politics were concerned... As was quoted already: He appeared "a puzzled pathos, as of a man with a problem before him of which he does not understand the terms."

And Harding was known for the Teapot Dome Scandal... He knew of his corrupt cabinet, and did nothing about it! :::Shaking Head:::

Thus my choices...

Originally posted by UH-Ya
I also wanted to point out that people bash American soldiers for assulting the Iraqi prisioners, which I strongly disagree. But what about the Iraqis Hanging the American security people?! Everyone gives them a blind eye, but what about all the disgusting things their doing to Americans? Even ones that arent fighting, like Nick Berg who was beheaded?!

No one gave them a blind eye. That was an inhumane thing to do...PERIOD. In exactly the same way, the people involved in the abuse of those Iraqi prisoners were doing inhumane things...PERIOD. People should be held responsible for such actions. If those people attacking Americans were caught, they'd be held responsible. We know who the people are on our side responsible for the torture/abuse of the prisoners, and they too should be held responsible. Consistant standards and enforcement across the board is not only the RIGHt thing to do, but will help us in the long run (perception wise).

"or possibly her after the 2008 elections" hehe I assume your thinking Hillary Clinton will win? I personally think she is a dishonest person, and I wont vote for her because I think she is very dishonest.

"No one gave them a blind eye. That was an inhumane thing to do...PERIOD. In exactly the same way, the people involved in the abuse of those Iraqi prisoners were doing inhumane things...PERIOD. People should be held responsible for such actions. If those people attacking Americans were caught, they'd be held responsible. We know who the people are on our side responsible for the torture/abuse of the prisoners, and they too should be held responsible. Consistant standards and enforcement across the board is not only the RIGHt thing to do, but will help us in the long run (perception wise)."

Im just saying that on the news you hear about the Iraq's torturing Americas, they only give it 1 day in the media. Yet, the American abuse of the prisioners was on the news for a week on some stations.

Originally posted by UH-Ya
"or possibly her after the 2008 elections" hehe I assume your thinking Hillary Clinton will win? I personally think she is a dishonest person, and I wont vote for her because I think she is very dishonest.

Dishonesty? I thought that was one of the prerequisites of getting into politics. :stickout:

Originally posted by UH-Ya
Clinton left the world a mess when he left, and was one major player in the cause for the 9/11 attacks.

Yeah, and the Bush Administration played a pretty big role in being the "cause for the 9/11 attacks" as well...Or did you forget about that part?

Regardless of the whole Monica issue, Clinton didn't leave the "world a mess"
The economy was taking off during his time.

"Dishonesty? I thought that was one of the prerequisites of getting into politics. "

haha, your right there... but then agian isnt everyone dishonest in some point. I guess its the amount of dishonesty which seperates the good from the bad.

"Yeah, and the Bush Administration played a pretty big role in being the "cause for the 9/11 attacks" as well...Or did you forget about that part?"

Well every president contributed to the 9/11 attacks by getting involved in foreign affairs, and trying to run the world according to Americas way. I have mixed feelings as to who to blame, but I think Clinton did a bad job as president and greatly influenced the attacks.

Originally posted by UH-Ya
I want people to reply, I dont care if they agree with me, give me information to back your idea, so I can open my mind up and see where your coming from. I dont just post my idea I post reasoning to back why I think he was the worst.

Let's see, along with being completely blind to fact, you also believe in segregation of the races, that you hate all gay people, that you're 17, and that you think that you're more knowledgable than most people on this board. Based on posts in previous threads, I think you've proven yourself incapable of 'opening your mind'.

Well, since you know my mind I gues youll be suprised to see that I have read all the posts and seen the good and bad things that has happened, and relized Clinton was not the only one to blame, although a big contributer.

Originally posted by UH-Ya

Im just saying that on the news you hear about the Iraq's torturing Americas, they only give it 1 day in the media. Yet, the American abuse of the prisioners was on the news for a week on some stations.

I disagree. It was not given only 1 day in the media - it was more than that. Although the prisoner abuse WAS talked about more - and for a REASON. We are SUPPOSED to be the good guys. The ones who went over there to "liberate" the Iraqi people. We already know that some of the factions over there fighting against the US will hurt American civilians and do those types of things. WE are supposed to go after the bad guys. The overwhelming majority of people that were abused were not even guilty of anything. Even if they were guilty of something our system is one that does not treat people that way. We do not even treat serial killers that way. It's against common sense and what we know to be right. Plus we are talking about the abuse of a large number of prisoners. Thus the extra coverage. This should be obvious to see.

I liked Bill Clinton, for personal reasons (public speeches made in Belfast, Dublin, London during the '90s brought me to that path - I was at each of them).

Unlike Monsieur(s) Bush, he acknowledged that terrorism was rife in other countries, and urged certain parties, publicly, to make it right.

It's my belief that the world should have taken more notice when George W. Bush, in one of his interviews, referencing Saddam Hussein;

"He's a man that tried to kill my father".

This was not long before the troops hot-footed to Iraq, and I personally feel his word's should have been examined a little closer. It did smell of a personal venedetta, to me.

Overall, I don't think name-calling on WHT is going to satisfactorily bring you to a conclusion with regards to "who the worst president is". ;)

How about we place them all joint first? or last, whichever way you look at it :)


Simon

The name " Whos the worst president ever" was not in any way meant to have everyone agree on one president. That would be impossible it was for people to post who they felt was the worst.

Originally posted by UH-Ya
"Yeah, and the Bush Administration played a pretty big role in being the "cause for the 9/11 attacks" as well...Or did you forget about that part?"

Well every president contributed to the 9/11 attacks by getting involved in foreign affairs, and trying to run the world according to Americas way. I have mixed feelings as to who to blame, but I think Clinton did a bad job as president and greatly influenced the attacks.

Only if they had paid little attention to President Washington's farewell address.

Excerpts:

Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other.

The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible.

Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?

Washington apparently well recognized the possible repurcussions of getting our feet dirty with matters not remotely concerning America. That's why much of his farewell address is jampacked with such advice.

It's all in there...
http://www.multied.com/documents/Washingtonfarewell.html

Originally posted by UH-Ya
Clinton left the world a mess when he left, and was one major player in the cause for the 9/11 attacks.

I agree with your stance on gays (I don't hate them, but I don't agree with what they do) but that's totally off base. Coming from an avid Clinton-disliker (hate is such a harsh word) and a Pro-Bush'er alike, no one but the terrorists themselves caused the 9/11 attacks. Some people may have had the hindsight to stop it, but they're also not the cause for it.

Bush or Johnson.

Originally posted by FTPguy
Just wondering how you came to the conclusion that President Bush is "not a smart man." Thought you might be a professional in some field (ok, not really) and would have facts and comparisons to prove who is "smart" and who is not.

I'm not saying Pres. Bush is dumb. I'm just saying he is not a very smart man. Ask the American public if Pres. Bush is a smart man. I'm sure a majority would say he is not.

To be honest, I am not in a profession to judge someone else's intelligence, nor do I have the credentials. It's my personal opinion that Pres. Bush is "not a smart man." However, I have the right to my own opinion as long as I'm not personally attacking anyone on this board. You can call any president "not a smart man" and I really don't care because you have the right to your own opinion. Hell, you can say Pres. George W. Bush is the smartest and most handsome president America has ever had and I wouldn't care because that's your opinion.

Originally posted by FTPguy
Just wondering how you came to the conclusion that President Bush is "not a smart man." Thought you might be a professional in some field (ok, not really) and would have facts and comparisons to prove who is "smart" and who is not.

His GPA was a 77 -- which is mediocre, at best.
That doesn't make him a dumb, but certenly, nor an smart person.