oh yes this one again, and remember everyone can have an opinion without researched proof or you may be surprised they may. any way play nice on this thread because i said once before hillary is not one of the contenders yet just her hub.
worst president in our lifetime.
- Thread starter gmaxman1212
- Start date
Huh? Too MUCH shame? I thought the standard Limbaugh "dittohead" line was that Clinton was too shameLESS - therefore he didn't have ENOUGH shame, and cheated on his wife in the White House in a consensual relationship with an intern.
"Nice cigar holder, though!"
Well, that applies to a lot of people, liberal and conservative alike.
Rush Limbaugh took Viagra to the Dominican Republic (popular sex tourism destination) and he's been featured on the cover of the uber-stupid "Cigar Aficionado" magazine.
Frankly, I'm not much of a fan of Bill Clinton, for MANY reasons, and I didn't think it was very cool that he pulled that Lewinsky stuff, but to mention that first thing when the question is "worst prez in our lifetime" - well, I can't take that seriously...
Shrub dub.
A better question is: Is it possible for either Obama or Hillary to "clean up W.'s messes" in a single term? Will we basically be electing a 2-term president this November because George Bush inherited a nation an a roll and managed to take our nation so far off "the tracks of progress" that whomever succeeds him will be knee deep shoveling shit for the first 4 years.
I don't believe John McCain has a chance to be elected President. Even if Hillary somehow beats Obama for the Dem nom...the rabid Dem electorate will turn out en masse in November to make sure the Pubs are sent to a massive defeat in all branches of gov't -- Senate, House of Reps, Governors...
I don't believe John McCain has a chance to be elected President. Even if Hillary somehow beats Obama for the Dem nom...the rabid Dem electorate will turn out en masse in November to make sure the Pubs are sent to a massive defeat in all branches of gov't -- Senate, House of Reps, Governors...
I can. While there's no way I can rank him up there with Bush, or even Nixon, his lack of character, honesty, integrity; his abuse of power, the terrible example he set for a generation of young people, and the consequent damage he did to his party (which helped open the door for Bush) are more than enough for me to rank him a solid third worst.
Edit: As an aside, I'm surprised at how easy Nixon's getting off in this poll. I'm assuming it's because the demographic here is pretty young.
although i am glad to see getting off easy i am suprised he is but one must also remember he resigned and was not formally impeached like billy boy
Nixon if he had not resigned would have been impeached and convicted,thats why he stepped down.
The thread starter gmaxman1212 is a big fan of Reagan so I think he was not willing to entertain the idea of him as worst ever.Personally I don't think Ford or Clinton Or Bush 41 belong on that list as potential worst ever .It's basically a question of political allegiance I think in many cases in this poll.
dick van cock
Closed Account
Arnold Schwarzenegger
... don't underestimate my life expectancy! :crash:
There is a defense of Nixon which can be made...Nixon did start a few gov't agencies which are vital today--EPA and OSHA. Interestingly enough, Nixon was the one that removed the gold standard from the U.S. economy...a decision which garnered a big Editorial in Today's Wall Street Journal given the fact that the dollar is a shriveling condom of a currency in current global economic terms....
Nixon was an intelligent guy...a scheming paranoid man who's thirst for power pretty much got the better of him. His foreign policy decisions did not pan on a lot of fronts...
Clinton let his pecker get the better of him. He banged women up and down the Washington Corridor on his march to the White House. If he didn't lie about Lewinsky, if he simply apologized for a poor personal decision...there wouldn't have been any room to impeach him.
Although there is a lot of joking at Clinton's expense about Lewinsky, a lot of people that joke about it I BET privately are a little jealous that Clinton was able to bag a 20's bim...something the majority of Men Clinton's age could not do...
Clinton managed our country and road the early successes of NAFTA. The fact that NAFTA has slowly fucked our country should mean Clinton needs to feel some heat over it today. Clinton is not my 3rd worst...he might be 10th worst. I think Jimmy Carter gets the 3rd Spot.
That's an interesting take TR, in part because it's the complete opposite of mine LOL I mean, first of all, bagging 20 somethings is not all that difficult for older guys; particularly older guys of means. But more significantly, Clinton was THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES and should therefore, if inclined, be able to bag the finest tail humanly imaginable (ala Kennedy/Monroe), yet he risked all on......Monica Lewinsky? :tongue: :dunno:
This is true. Then came Ford's pardon, as the capper.
Yes it happens with politicians "all the time" or so we all assume...but think about a "real world" 50's dude...not likely he's going to pull a 20s bim. Steve Martin, the comic, wrote a fantasy novel about this subject--50 yr old guy banging a hot 20s bim--"Shopgirl", I read it. Awful schlock. WHy would he need to write a mid-life fantasy book when he's a rich celeb and could be able to pull in tail whenever he wants it...:dunno:
A lot of the resentment of Bill Clinton comes from him banging Lewinsky (an office bang at that) and a lot of 50s working men, bosses, felt jealous...
I bet I'm closer to the truth on this...((Now how do I figure out how to work this theory into a PRO-OBAMA ad--I see maybe an ad that begins with the following voiceover--"It's 3AM, your kids are tucked into bed...there's an event going on someplace in the world...a call comes into the White House..and Hillary isn't there to answer it because she's in the Presidential Limo picking Bill up from a Washington whorehouse....[cue patriotic music]...montage of sad faces and tears...))
I haven't read it, but perhaps to appeal to 40 to 50 somethings who don't have the cache (or opportunity) to do so?
That's sure not where my resentment of Clinton comes from.
There may be a lot of truth in your perception, but I don't personally know anybody (I just turned 50) who was jealous of his ability to attract a young woman. Now maybe if it had been Jessica Alba, yes.....but Monica Lewinsky? lol
Perhaps I'm alone with this angle about Clinton/Lewinsky. There was A LOT of laughter in the workplace and I wondered if it masked something else..I think Clinton was on such a roll...and this scandal at the end of his presidency...it shattered a lot of my own personal beliefs about him. But it didn't do enough to sink him. He balanced the budget. He rode our country into a surplus. He tried to raise CAFE standards and get us "thinking" about oil/gas by prodding Detriot...he did have some errors too..
I'm more angry about his impeachment by the Republicans. I don't understand how Bush/Cheney could NOT be impeached. Their statements about Iraq War buildup are worthy of classification as "lies" and impeachable, imo.
I'm more angry about his impeachment by the Republicans. I don't understand how Bush/Cheney could NOT be impeached. Their statements about Iraq War buildup are worthy of classification as "lies" and impeachable, imo.
Rattrap
Doesn't feed trolls and would appreciate it if you
It seems to me like our Congress has pretty much failed to do its job: coming up with policy and keeping the President in check. Instead, they bend over to the President's will and let the President enact his own policies. I'd vote the whole lot of them out (with exceptions, of course), if I could.
But, who else is to blame but we, if we elect a bad President as well as a spineless Congress not willing to stand up to him? One or two, shame on them. A couple hundred? Shame on us.
I've been over this ground with ********** before, but do you really think Gore would have lost to Bush in 2000 were it not for Clinton's lying and philandering? Let's remember that America is still for the most part a pretty conservative country when it comes to so-called traditional values. As it was Gore won the popular vote, and only lost the electoral college vote based on a few hundred votes in Florida. That margin was so razor thin that if it weren't for the Clinton controversy tainting the democratic party I can't imagine how Bush could possibly have been elected......at least not in the year 2000 such that he'd end up being the CIC at the time of the 9/11 attacks. So to me Clinton lying about his sex life should not be minimized as it was elemental to the ascension of Bush and the neocons.
No diggedy. No doubt.
Actually I don't think Gore lost to Bush in 2000,but thats a different issue lol.But lets say it at least was closer then it should have been.Gore didn't carry his own state of TN reportly over the gun control issue,so the reasons for his losing were varied I think. But i'm sure you are correct that the Lewinsky scandle hurt Gore in the end somewhat but I think the attention paid to that is more a reflection of immaturity of the american population of what they should be focusing on as important than anything else.If Gore lost because of that we got what we deserved in GWB.As I tried to say earlier there are lies and there are damn lies.Clintons lies had little to do with us,Bushes did and the gravity of the two is light years different IMO.Same with Reagan and the Iran-Contra lies,those were lies that were a direct example of a president doing things counter to our expressed wishes(as voted on by congress).If we are had always had this standard of your private life(mistresses,etc) was reason to remove elected officals many past Presidents may have been removed.It happens ,its just fricking sex after all,not decisions that subvert our consitituion or result in deaths.
There is a danger of confusing good Presidents with good men.I suppose it's possible to be both , but to actually bring about real change requires a degree of ruthlessness.It's been said that Clinton's success with the economy was because he was too distracted by other things to interfere with it but as all the other world economies also did well perhaps it was just a good time to be in charge.
I agree with the don't confuse good men with competent ones.An example is someone like Jimmy Hoffa ,the former Teamsters union leader presumed murdered by the mob.Jimmy probably would not be considered good but I think teamsters members(who got the best contracts under him they had ever had) would think he was very competent.If I was one of them getting much better wages and benefits with him doing the negotitating I would have prefered that to some goody two shoes who didn't get me those same things.
And on Clinton's success with the economy while the times a president is in is a factor I think to deny the role his economic advisors played in it is not fair eithier.Presidents don't really do that much in these regards personally,they set a tone and a policy path and then find people to carry those out.So Bill should get credit for hiring capable people and listening to them.This idea that dems are fiscally irresponsible as compared to to the pubs is not bourne out by the facts.Reagan and Bush 43 have run up the deficits while Clinton was bringing the budget into some sort of balance and handed Bush 43 a govt with projected surpluses which has been turned on its head to where we are now back to huge deficits.Some call dems the party of tax and spend but the pubs are the party of deficts and spend.Clinton administartion had rules that to spend more on something you eithier had to cut somewhere or raise taxes,that is being responsible.Compare that to the current administration that cuts taxes,mainly on the wealthy I might add and then spends very freely on various things most notably hundreds of billions on wars.That is VERY irresponsible.
Similar threads
