Bush - Worst US President Ever?

starang21 · #1 04-25-2006, 08:03 PM

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/pro...ion=6.0.11.847

i'm not violating TOS with this am i?

oh yea, don't shoot the messenger, lol.

Coramoor · #2 04-25-2006, 09:14 PM

Wow. What a surprise. Another liberal media source calling on some bogus historians to analyize Bush's performance.

It's not as if he still has time in Office. It's been 50 years since Eisenhower was in office and only recently has historians began to realize his impact on the US.

macallan25 · #3 04-25-2006, 09:23 PM

Why the hell would you even post this garbage. Congrats, you find an article in a Hollywood brainwashed liberal music magazine with thoughts coming from an opinionated, probobly liberal, "leading" historian.

Ooops, hope this doesn't make me a racist or bigot.....i'm sure you'll find a way.....

Quote:

Originally posted by starang21
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/pro...ion=6.0.11.847

i'm not violating TOS with this am i?

oh yea, don't shoot the messenger, lol.

KSigkid · #4 04-25-2006, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by starang21
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/pro...ion=6.0.11.847

i'm not violating TOS with this am i?

oh yea, don't shoot the messenger, lol.

It doesn't look like you're violating TOS, but maybe that's just me.

People are entitled to their own opinions, but Rolling Stone is about as politically-biased a media outlet as there is out there. It was only a matter of time before a piece like this came out. The next time they'd say anything good about a Republican would be the first.

They certainly have the right to say what they want to say, but I can't put a whole lot of stock in anything political in their magazine. (and that has nothing to do with my political views, and everything to do with my views on Rolling Stone)

valkyrie · #5 04-25-2006, 09:32 PM

The picture? Is awesome. LOLZ

GeekyPenguin · #6 04-25-2006, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by valkyrie
The picture? Is awesome. LOLZ

One of my friends and her fiance bought it to frame.

Munchkin03 · #7 04-25-2006, 10:26 PM

I don't know about the rest of you all, but I'm really looking forward to reading the Nick Lachey article.

starang21 · #8 04-25-2006, 11:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by macallan25
Why the hell would you even post this garbage. Congrats, you find an article in a Hollywood brainwashed liberal music magazine with thoughts coming from an opinionated, probobly liberal, "leading" historian.

Ooops, hope this doesn't make me a racist or bigot.....i'm sure you'll find a way.....

are you stupid? i posted it because i felt like it. hey, i saw it on another website..and figured it'd make for at least some interesting discourse. if you can't hang in the convo, click on the red x, dimwit.

starang21 · #9 04-25-2006, 11:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by KSigkid
It was only a matter of time before a piece like this came out.

now is this because of his track record or because they're a "brainwashed liberal music magazine?"

macallan25 · #10 04-25-2006, 11:54 PM

No, I just wanted to see how you would respond. What convo? There is nothing in this thread that could be considered "convo." Rolling Stone, like ksigkid said, is an extremely biased source of media when it comes to politics and the like. Its not insightful in the least, it is typical. I read the whole article and pretty much thought it was ridiculous. I especially liked how he based some of his claims on the Katrina situation. Yep, Katrina was all Bush's fault.......nothing pisses me off more than hearing that from people.

Dimwit....is that really the best you can do? Continue your bitch fest..i'll go try to "hang" in another convo.

Quote:

Originally posted by starang21
are you stupid? i posted it because i felt like it. hey, i saw it on another website..and figured it'd make for at least some interesting discourse. if you can't hang in the convo, click on the red x, dimwit.

starang21 · #11 04-25-2006, 11:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by macallan25
No, I just wanted to see how you would respond. What convo? There is nothing in this thread that could be considered "convo." Rolling Stone, like ksigkid said, is an extremely biased soucre of media when it comes to politics and the like. Its not insightful in the least, it is typical.

Dimwit....is that really the best you can do? Continue your bitch fest..i'll go try to "hang" in another convo.

lol, so you choose to type irrelevant drivel. typical. i call you a dimwit because it applies.

just because you can't use your mind like ksigkid did, don't blame it on me. take a page out of his book on how to post and discuss the article instead of the reason why it was posted.

your first sentence was to try and insult vs. have a conversation. that shows your menial intellectual abilities and poor reasoning skill. i would step away from the computer if i were you.

now, are you actually able to discuss the article, are you just going to post bullshit without thought all night?

macallan25 · #12 04-26-2006, 12:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by starang21
lol, so you choose to type irrelevant drivel. typical. i call you a dimwit because it applies.

just because you can't use your mind like ksigkid did, don't blame it on me. take a page out of his book on how to post and discuss the article instead of the reason why it was posted.

your first sentence was to try and insult vs. have a conversation. that shows your menial intellectual abilities and poor reasoning skill. i would step away from the computer if i were you.

now, are you actually able to discuss the article, are you just going to post bullshit without thought all night?

1.) I asked a question in my first sentence. There was no insult.
2.) I was not trying to be intellectual or showcase any high powered reasoning. Stop trying to make somthing out of nothing.
3.) You are a douchebag that tries way to hard and gets easily offended. Your insults are poor and you overstate the same bullshit in every response. There, that is an insult.
4.) Not one person has posted anything relating to that p.o.s. article. I read the whole thing. Not much to say about it. Great, he throws out a bunch of numbers and statistics from polls that he allegedly conducted with his history buddies at Princeton. He claims the article is unbiased and that it takes a non partisan approach...bullshit......anyone can see that alot of that article is clearly opinionated.
5.) Revert to 3

ISUKappa · #13 04-26-2006, 12:36 AM

I don't know, I think William Henry Harrison was pretty poor.

I mean, come on. Only a month into office and you die?

Kevin · #14 04-26-2006, 12:46 AM

Andrew Johnson wasn't great.

Ulysses Grant was also a failure by most accounts.

kstar · #15 04-26-2006, 12:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ktsnake
Andrew Johnson wasn't great.

Ulysses Grant was also a failure by most accounts.

Co-sign on these two, also add Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover.

Reaganonmics?

There have been many dismal presidents, usually when the Union takes a drastic religious swing.

At least Bush has company, but THE worst? I wish the guy dead, but I still don't think he's the worst.