Worst President Ever...

[BTs_GhostSniper]

What did Eisenhower do that was so special (discount the stuff he did in WWII, I want to know about his presidency not his military career).

Eisenhower was a very strong leader when it came to deterrence against the Soviet Union.  It all goes back to the fact that if you make your enemy think that you will destroy him if he attacks you, he wont attack you.  I think that Eisenhower certainly did that very well during the 1950s, thus keeping us out of a nuclear war.

[PsYcO aSsAsSiN]

Yeah, I would love the Soviet Union to still be in existance.

As for closest to peace in the Middle East, are you kidding me? The closest would have to be in 1995 until Yitzhak Rabin was gunned down by a Jew extremeist (yet another reason why there will never be peace in the Middle East...extremeists on both sides would never allow it to happen).

Other reasons why Carter sucked:

Oil crisis
Big time inflation
Large unemployment
His inability to deal with the Soviets
His post-Presidency dealings with foreign "enemy" leaders (North Korea, Cuba, Syria, etc.) and his public bad mouthing of America (yes, even though this is post-Presidency, it makes Carter look even worse)

[Cossack]

How was he not tough on the Soviets? He was responsible for creating the Afghan Quagmire for them when he sent Zbignew to have the CIA train and equip the Mujahadeen. Then again, one can say that was a mistake of a totally different nature, but he was tough against the Soviets.
        Hate to break it to you GS, but we Russians did not think the US military of 1950s would emerge victorious and Eisenhower did not terrify Nikita Kruschev or Mao Tse Tung. The Soviets lack of wanting to go to war against the US was due to the fact that Nikita did not want a war. Infact, he made a policy change during his term as premeir to switch from military dominance of the West to economic competition with the West. Unfortunately Brezhnev did not uphold this. Not to mention if the USSR did go to war they along with the United States and the rest of the world would be irradiated. Mutually assured destruction offered a sick kind of peace, but it kept us from the apocolypse. Of coarse the USSR would be destroyed but so would the USSR. If you say Eisenhower scared the shit out of the Soviet Union, you must also comment on how Nikita scared the United States. Dont get me wrong, Eisenhower was not a bad president, it was just relativley uneventful. It is a shame (or a great thing depending on your politics) that he could not control McCarthy. You will find no bigger anti-Communist than I, but what started out as a purge of Communists from high level governmental positions turned into a nationwide witch hunt depriving many of their professions because of their suspected political beleifs. I may be a fervent anti-Communist but I also support free speech no matter what that speech may be.
        A few good things that Eisenhower did was end the Korean War, and he threw the first stone when it came to Civil Rights. Remember about the nonsegregation of a Little Rock Highschool? He also tried to pass a Voting Rights Act type legislation called the Civil Rights Act of 1957. Unfortunately, the nation was not ready for this and it waited ten years later for LBJ to sign it.

[cookie]

I picked Eisenhower to dress up as in 4th grade. He was an awesome president indeed. I like ike.

As for Jimmy Carter... i have but one thing to say: panama canal, wtf.

[PsYcO aSsAsSiN]

If a strong, competent (at least in foreign policy) President were in office at the time, the Soviets would have never invaded Afghanistan in the first place. The last thing they wanted to do was to piss off the US over a country as small and insignificant as Afghanistan, but seeing as Carter really made no threats or never really showed his displeasure with the Soviets, they took it as a green light to invade and run into their own quagmire.

Like I said earlier, Carter is a good man, but was a crappy President...I don't know why people feel so compelled to defend him.

[tasty]

In addition to assassin's criticisms of carter, i would like to add:

-horrible relationship with congress: his constant antogonism of key leadership in both the house and senate allied both parties against him and caused his domestic agenda, including several key budgets, to be held up indefinitely

-awful cabinet: besides brzezinski, Carter nominated the one of the most inexperienced, haphazard cabinets ever. then he made matters worst by suddenly calling for all of their immediate resignations after three years of their blundering. talk about instability.

-delegation of responsibility: Carter never got much done, because he insisted on doing absolutely everything himself rather than let his assistants, advisors, and cabinet do the things that those positions normally do. because of his constant obsession over every minor detail (down to, as legend goes it, the scheduling of who got to play tennis on the white house tennis court each day) he never got to a lot of important stuff.

-also, I don't see how it's a good thing for the president to try to solve a nuclear disaster himself. we have nuclear engineers for that. it is a security risk for the president to needlessly put his life on the line like that.

It shoudl be said though that Carter was more principled than any other leader we have ever had. His personal morality and beliefs were an honor to the nation--never have we had a leader with a greater sense of duty and responsiblility-it's just a shame that he didn't put the principles to use as well as he could have.

[tasty]

What did Eisenhower do that was so special (discount the stuff he did in WWII, I want to know about his presidency not his military career).

Eisenhower enforced key civil rights legislation despite the protests of his own party
Eisenhower presided over an excellent foreign policy
Eisenhower did an excellent job managing the postwar economy and keeping the deficit in tow

[alaric]

-also, I don't see how it's a good thing for the president to try to solve a nuclear disaster himself. we have nuclear engineers for that. it is a security risk for the president to needlessly put his life on the line like that.

Ummmyeah... you know that he's a nuclear engineer right? That's kinda how he was able to step in and take charge of the situation. His background in nuclear engineering let him know who was bullshitting him and who wasn't. He got rid of the guys who didn't know what they were talking about and brought in his own people.

In a way, he prevented a tragedy far worse than 9/11 or Pearl Harbor could have been from even happening. And I figure in the presidential scheme of things, that's gotta be worth something.

["Sixhits"]

W. is so French. He even takes French buses and brings along French flags when he goes on his "Yes, America Can" bus tour.

Apparently America can't build good buses or produce a flag worth bring'n along



Worst President? In my heart Bush is still the number-one shithead.

[PsYcO aSsAsSiN]

Look up your facts before you blindly hate on GWB...it is your kind of blind partisan bullshit that I rail against vehemently.

The buses are actually Canadian made, not French.

Also, Kerry isn't off the hook either, apparently earlier this year he also rode in Canadian buses during the primary campaign.

[BFG]

apparently earlier this year he also rode in Canadian buses during the primary campaign.

Shocking. absolutly shocking. Quick brand him for being un-patriotic. Disguisting behavior  

["Sixhits"]

Look up your facts before you blindly hate on GWB...it is your kind of blind partisan bullshit that I rail against vehemently.

The buses are actually Canadian made, not French.

Also, Kerry isn't off the hook either, apparently earlier this year he also rode in Canadian buses during the primary campaign.

FRENCH Canadian. FRENCH Canadian. Isn't that enough? It would be for a Dem to get the shit. So what's good enough for the goose ...

[alaric]

So what's good enough for the goose ...

...is enough to make us all look like idiots.

Seriously, when you make issues partisian, you play right into the power broker's hands. Issue based and candidate based voting is the only way to go. When you make it Us vs. Them, both sides stop thinking and more importanly, stop communicating and listening to each other's ideas.

["Sixhits"]

My worry is that when you don't play by the same rules how can you win? If I'm playing tiddly winks and they're playing toss the grenade who's gonna hold the edge? When it's already us versus them and the Repubs have been practicing that idiom for a decades, honning it in the ninties to blunt perfection, how can you compete unless you compete?

I'm not making issues partisan: the issues are already partisan and I'm already partisan. I'm not gonna suddenly become a neutral observor.

Issue based and cadidate based voting would be great. It's not going to be that way for the forseeable future.

So it is Us vs Them. Ppl like you have the luxurious position of holding the middle ground. You can be the broker, if you'd like. I'd rather fight.

[KoS PY.nq.ict]

OMFG...

wtf does it matter if he rode in a goddamn iraqi bus on his campaign...does that really fucking matter? I'd be more concerned about the issues the candidates platform supports...not a fucking bus he rides in...

EDIT: That's a photoshopped picture btw...

[PsYcO aSsAsSiN]

Of course that is photoshopped...some left wing radical nut case probably made it so they can have the same false argument that sixhits had.

[BFG]

... Parrot of what Kos PY.nq.ict said... what does it freaking matter.

Oh and yeah, the lettering does look rather like its been stuck on with a touch of Gaussian blur... as for the flag and bush well.... lol its still funny shit

["Sixhits"]

OMFG...

EDIT: That's a photoshopped picture btw...

Um, no. I call doofus on you. (you too, Assass :-P)

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/040504/ids_photos_ts/r1161594147.jpg

and

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=5064432&section=news

And in case you refuse to check the links, the first is a direct link to Yahoo news hosting this Reuters picture, the second is the article from Reuter's with more pictures. And we all know how they like to photoshop their pictures before posting them. It's not like Reuters is a credable news agency or anything.

Interestingly enough, there are now at least TWO pictures of Bush, hands on the French flag in a French Canadian bus. Call me a partisan but don't suggest I'm a lair or easily fooled.

[411]

If you take a look at "mdf556760.jpg" (the Reuters' picture) in a hex editor, you will see the string:

Code:

FF D8 FF E0 00 10 4A 46 49 46 00 01 02 01 00 48 00 48 00 00 FF E1 01 2E 45 78 69 66 00 00 4D 4D 00 2A 00 00 00 08 00 07 01 12 00 03 00 00 00 01 00 01 00 00 01 1A 00 05 00 00 00 01 00 00 00 62 01 1B 00 05 00 00 00 01 00 00 00 6A 01 28 00 03 00 00 00 01 00 02 00 00 01 31 00 02 00 00 00 14 00 00 00 72 01 32 00 02 00 00 00 14 00 00 00 86 87 69 00 04 00 00 00 01 00 00 00 9C 00 00 00 C8 00 00 00 48 00 00 00 01 00 00 00 48 00 00 00 01 41 64 6F 62 65 20 50 68 6F 74 6F 73 68 6F 70 20 37 2E 30 00 32 30 30 34 3A 30 35 3A 30 36 20 31 33 3A 35 38 3A 34 30 00 00 00 00

or in ASCII:

Code:

????JFIF

HH??
.ExifMM*




b

j
(

1r
2??i
??H
H
Adobe Photoshop 7.02004:05:06 13:58:40

Appearently, Reuters does photoshop their pictures.

[BTs_FahQ2]

Bah, every publication photoshops their pictures.  It's called color correction, editing, and the other 3 thousand things you do to an image before it is published.  So who knows, if it's on Reuters it would be photoshoped to enhance and not to distort in all likelyhood.

Besides, who fucking cares, goddamn arguing about everything possible.  Maybe his shirt is made from egyptian cotton, does that mean he is going to attack egypt next?