Who was the worst American president? - Page 7 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By STA
#134688
HAHAHHAHAH, you people obviously put to much trust in Ann Clouter and Rush Limbaugh.

Al Gore NEVER said he had invented the internet, dispite what the 2 people mentioned above said. He did say, however, he created the internet, by urging to increase the funding of it, some would argue that their synonyms, but a synonym of friendly is intimate, and just because people are friendly does not mean they are intimate.

and save the other misquotes u republicans came up with about Al Gore too.

the Bush administration are some slick salesmens (and saleswomen in ms. Rice's case) too, he sold the congress the Iraq war, instead of smooth talking 'em into it, he just lied and said it had things it didn't.

Al Gore did sound like a robot, but that isn't what this is about, this is about GWB being unable to speak properly, thus proving Todd's comment that GWB was "an intelligent man" wrong.

and "I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinski" was a lie, not a slip up, just like
"We know for a fact that there are weapons there." -Ari Fleischer
was a lie, one difference, Bill's didn't get people killed.
By clownboy
#134697
Ice - you're Canadian, surely there must be one of your leaders you can make fun of. Oh wait, that's right, nobody cares about your leaders.

Here we are defending the intelligence of the man who rose to the office often called the Leader of the Free World to a Canadian teenager of uncertain and undemonstrated intellect. :roll:

Here's the bottom line maintain your opinion of our president as it is, because it doesn't count in ANY arena.
User avatar
By STA
#134705
clownboy wrote:Ice - you're Canadian, surely there must be one of your leaders you can make fun of. Oh wait, that's right, nobody cares about your leaders.

Here we are defending the intelligence of the man who rose to the office often called the Leader of the Free World to a Canadian teenager of uncertain and undemonstrated intellect. :roll:

Here's the bottom line maintain your opinion of our president as it is, because it doesn't count in ANY arena.


My opinions are my business, so why don't you mind your own business and defend your opinions, instead of going after people for having opinions.

you keep trying to change the subject, this isn;t about MY leaders, this is about GWB's Intelligence, which your friend and you can't seem to defend your statements on, now your going after me for being a canadian.

maybe he is called that by you and your fellow republicans.

For now, for now.
By clownboy
#134726
Ice_Demon wrote:My opinions are my business, so why don't you mind your own business and defend your opinions, instead of going after people for having opinions.

you keep trying to change the subject, this isn;t about MY leaders, this is about GWB's Intelligence, which your friend and you can't seem to defend your statements on, now your going after me for being a canadian.

maybe he is called that by you and your fellow republicans.

For now, for now.


Your opinions are only your business when you keep them to yourself. Once you post them here - fair game.

No, it's YOU who have changed the subject. I pointed out to you that even the most expert public speakers throw a rod when subjected to 24 hour a day intense scrutiny. Especially when, often, the pressure is applied to achieve just that goal.

You ducked for cover when it was pointed out that you would not last two seconds under such pressure and had NO experience to prove the contrary.

I KNOW nothing will change your mind (other than time and possible maturity), but do you want to put YOUR educational record up against his?

Despite what the AmeriKKKa Suxor comix you read say, we do not elect unintelligent leaders. Just another case of power envy and teen angst.
By CCJ
#134754
Big Evil wrote:He's offended cause that is our leader.


HOLD IT! What do you mean "OUR" he may be the Republican leader but he certainly ain't mine. Gore won by 1/2 million votes (popular vote).
User avatar
By Todd D.
#134769
Ugh. Are you an American? Then he is your leader. Clinton was my leader when he was in power, ideological differences aside. Your sniveling dissaproval of the electoral process is absolutely childish. Get the fuck over it. You know what? I don't care if Gore won by a billion votes, it's the electoral college that counts! At what point are you going to get this through your thick skull?
User avatar
By QatzelOk
#135134
Ugh. Are you an American? Then he is your leader.
Dear Leader is even more respectful.


Your sniveling dissaproval of the electoral process is absolutely childish.
What about Team Bush's snickering disregard for the same process? More important, I would say.

Get the fuck over it. You know what? I don't care if Gore won by a billion votes, it's the electoral college that counts! At what point are you going to get this through your thick skull?

If all the air-breathing mammals on earth had voted, neither of these corporate lackies [Bush, Gore] would have won. Bush was 'elected' by Americans to rule [ruin] the world. Not just America. Herein lies the problem with the 'You're not American, you're opinion doesn't matter.' Bush stopped being America's exclusive leader the day he decided not to sign the Kyoto Protocol. And he continues to plundet the entire earth right to the present occupation of Iraq.
It's not the electoral college that counts. It's the poll clerks who count, and they seemed to have been manipulated somewhat. What an election! Nexty time, invite the UN to supervise like they do in other festering dictatorships.
User avatar
By STA
#135186
clownboy wrote:
Your opinions are only your business when you keep them to yourself. Once you post them here - fair game.

No, it's YOU who have changed the subject. I pointed out to you that even the most expert public speakers throw a rod when subjected to 24 hour a day intense scrutiny. Especially when, often, the pressure is applied to achieve just that goal.

You ducked for cover when it was pointed out that you would not last two seconds under such pressure and had NO experience to prove the contrary.

I KNOW nothing will change your mind (other than time and possible maturity), but do you want to put YOUR educational record up against his?

Despite what the AmeriKKKa Suxor comix you read say, we do not elect unintelligent leaders. Just another case of power envy and teen angst.


You aren't going after my opinions! You are going after me for being a "Canadian teenager of uncertain and undemonstrated intellect", You are going after me for being what I am and can;t change, I can't change being a teenager, your saying it like you think your better than me.

No, It was you who was changing the subject to me being a canadian teenager.

You don't know me, how do you "know" that I would be reduced to a puddle under pressure?

You don't, you cannot back up that accusation and you should not make accusations you can;t back up, and that goes for every one, you, me, John Kerry, George W. Bush, anyone.

And about John Kerry's "More Leaders" statement, I think it was a mistake (everyone makes mistake, remember, and everyone should be called on them, and he was, oh, he was), but if Kerry had named them like the Bush administration wanted he would have made some enemies and betrayed some peoples trust, so he did the right thing by not nameing them.

Why don't you stop the snide comments and baseless asumptions, like how "Immature" i am, or how i read "AmeriKKKa Suxor comix", as you alledge.

What does education have to do with anything? The richest person in the world is a drop-out. Just because you went to a good college doesn't automatically mean your smarter than someone who went to an above average college, just because someone is in a higher grade than me doesn't mean they are smarter than me, just more experianced.

I do not read these "AmeriKKKa Suxor comix" you say i do, perhaps you should not make so many baseless accusations.
By clownboy
#135353
Ice_Demon wrote:You aren't going after my opinions! You are going after me for being a "Canadian teenager of uncertain and undemonstrated intellect", You are going after me for being what I am and can;t change, I can't change being a teenager, your saying it like you think your better than me.

No, It was you who was changing the subject to me being a canadian teenager.

You don't know me, how do you "know" that I would be reduced to a puddle under pressure?

You don't, you cannot back up that accusation and you should not make accusations you can;t back up, and that goes for every one, you, me, John Kerry, George W. Bush, anyone.

And about John Kerry's "More Leaders" statement, I think it was a mistake (everyone makes mistake, remember, and everyone should be called on them, and he was, oh, he was), but if Kerry had named them like the Bush administration wanted he would have made some enemies and betrayed some peoples trust, so he did the right thing by not nameing them.

Why don't you stop the snide comments and baseless asumptions, like how "Immature" i am, or how i read "AmeriKKKa Suxor comix", as you alledge.

What does education have to do with anything? The richest person in the world is a drop-out. Just because you went to a good college doesn't automatically mean your smarter than someone who went to an above average college, just because someone is in a higher grade than me doesn't mean they are smarter than me, just more experianced.

I do not read these "AmeriKKKa Suxor comix" you say i do, perhaps you should not make so many baseless accusations.


Don't get your panties into a twist there junior. :lol:

No, I'm not attacking YOU (well, maybe a little, but I mean you no harm). Your opinion of our President's intelligence requires that you believe you are competant to judge intelligence. I am saying that, as of now and maybe for a few more years of life experience, you lack that competance. I am addressing your opinion at it's heart.

I don't "know you'd be reduced to a puddle", but when I asked you if you've ever been under that kind of pressure, you ducked so fast, I suspected. Not because I was calling you names, but because the vast majority of the people in the world cannot handle that sort of pressure.

IF you are one of those rare cases, you should be at the very least, up on stage and practicing - seriously.

As for the comix crack - look up "hyperbole", I was very obvious about it. And there is no "AmeriKKKa Suxor comix" (though I suppose I'd better copyright that quick :lol: ).

Education counts. If you have an IQ of 220 and do nothing with your life but become a drunk and a hobo - are you smarter than the guy with the 130 IQ who educates himself and applies his life and talents to government service? Just WHAT are you calling intelligence?
User avatar
By STA
#135444
clownboy wrote:Don't get your panties into a twist there junior. :lol:

No, I'm not attacking YOU (well, maybe a little, but I mean you no harm). Your opinion of our President's intelligence requires that you believe you are competant to judge intelligence. I am saying that, as of now and maybe for a few more years of life experience, you lack that competance. I am addressing your opinion at it's heart.

I don't "know you'd be reduced to a puddle", but when I asked you if you've ever been under that kind of pressure, you ducked so fast, I suspected. Not because I was calling you names, but because the vast majority of the people in the world cannot handle that sort of pressure.

IF you are one of those rare cases, you should be at the very least, up on stage and practicing - seriously.

As for the comix crack - look up "hyperbole", I was very obvious about it. And there is no "AmeriKKKa Suxor comix" (though I suppose I'd better copyright that quick :lol: ).

Education counts. If you have an IQ of 220 and do nothing with your life but become a drunk and a hobo - are you smarter than the guy with the 130 IQ who educates himself and applies his life and talents to government service? Just WHAT are you calling intelligence?


I am judging him on his english, his first language, he has misspoken SO many times its almost not even funny anymore, for some, wait, alot of examples here are some links:
http://www.martweiss.com/jokes/bushisms.shtml
http://www.serendipity.li/more/bush01.html
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library ... ms2000.htm

And, I have done a bit, not alot, of public speaking, mostly to my classmates and so fourth, but I never mispronounce THAT badly, I sound a little grumpy but I never misspeak like that, in reallity, you don;t know and I don;t know, so maybe you should not assume I would melt faster than a popsicle in a fat man's mouth.

I do not read ANY anti-american publication. Why? because I know americans are humans, just like every one else, ALOT of people in my school just hate america in general, mostly because of the Iraq war, but I choose not to bash America all together and just go after the leadership (Bush). If humanity could just reilize that we all came from the same apes, before religion, before ethicity, before all that, that would solve alot of problems, after all, we are from the same race, the human race.

Yes, the person with 220 IQ would still be smarter, he wouldn't be as hard working, he wouldn;t be as succesfull, but he would still be smarter. And if the guy with 130 IQ is GWB, I strongly doubt he has an IQ 4 higher than mine. ;)
User avatar
By Todd D.
#135513
QatzelOk wrote:Bush stopped being America's exclusive leader the day he decided not to sign the Kyoto Protocol.

Ugh, your ignorance astounds. First of all, you act as if the Senate under the Clinton administration was oh so ready to sign this piece of garbage. Wrong. Look up some history, it's under "Byrd-Hagel Resolution", 95-0 AGAINST the Kyoto treaty in 1997. Why? Because the damn thing is blatantly targeting the US while leaving other countries, such as China (who oh by the way, just happens to be the second largest greenhouse gas producer) completely exempt under bogus clauses with no timetables. I wouldn't wipe my ass with that thing, so I agree with the decision not to ratify it. Once again this is "I don't agree with him, so obviously he is doing something illegal."

It's not the electoral college that counts. It's the poll clerks who count, and they seemed to have been manipulated somewhat. What an election! Nexty time, invite the UN to supervise like they do in other festering dictatorships.

Yep, and here we are back to the "stole the election" bullshit. See above, get the fuck over the fact that what happened was legal, moral, right, justified, and not unprecedented. Shit man, holding a grudge over 4 years takes a lot of energy, how do you do it?
By Comrade Juanito
#135539
Hmm, It was rather hard to pick out only one figure, so I put my top three picks if that is alright.

Personally, I think Carter was a terrible president. He had no right in office, and though he did seem a good, honest, Christian man, he did not have what it took to be president. I believe he had too many pacifist views.

Second is Harding. Horrible in not aiding his country in need, and simply turning is back, if not furthering the horrid situation the nation was in. He offered no programs or aid organizations to the American people, when I really think presidents have a right to aid their nation when needed.

Finally is Nixon simply for the scandals. I also never liked him for some reason, and he never seems to make a good president in my eyes.
User avatar
By Comrade Ogilvy
#135614
Are you suggesting that by interpreting a treaty -- a treaty which the Constitution makes part of "the supreme Law of the Land" (U.S. Const., Art. VI) -- the Supreme Court was engaged in "judicial legislation"?

Actually, yes. Article 4 Section 3:
Section 3. New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.

Those treaties effectively create foreign states within defined State borders. In the "old" Constitution rights to land are a STATE determination, not Federal. The feds had NO standing to cede state land without the consent of the state legislatures.

Article IV Section 3 of the Constitution has nothing to do with Indians, treaties, or the Supreme Court. It pertains to Congress's power to admit new States into the Union and the limits on that power. The treaties between the Cherokee and the U.S. do not purport to create any new states at all, let alone to admit new States into the Union.

Nor do the treaties "effectively create foreign states within defined State borders." The Indian nations existed before the Constitution. They existed before the U.S. They existed before the British colonies. They existed before Europeans came to North America.

Relations between the Indian nations and the British colonies were governed by treaty. (E.g., the Treaty of Lancaster (1744) between the Crown and the Iroquois and the Treaty of Logstown (1748) between the Crown and the Delaware, Shawnee, and Wyandot.) Upon independence, the U.S. succeeded to those relationships with the Indian nations.

Under the Articles of Confederation, only the U.S. could enter into treaties; the States were prohibited from doing so. (See Arts. of Conf., Arts. IX and VI.) And the U.S. did enter into treaties with various Indian nations, notably including the Cherokee. In 1785, the Cherokee and the U.S. agreed that the Cherokee would be "under the protection of the United States of America, and of no other sovereign whosoever." (Treaty of Hopewell, Art. III.)

Likewise under the Constitution, only the U.S. can enter into treaties; the States are prohibited from doing so. (See U.S. Const., Art. II Sec. 2 and Art. I Sec. 10.) And under the Constitution, the U.S. has entered treaties with the Cherokee. In 1791, the U.S. and the Cherokee reaffirmed that the Cherokee were "under the protection of the said United States of America, and of no other sovereign power whosoever; and they stipulate[d] that the said Cherokee nation w[ould] not hold any treaty with any foreign power, individual state, or with individuals of any state." (Treaty of the Holston, Art. II.)

So your reference to "the 'old' Constitution" does not accord with the facts. Relations with the Indian nations have always been governed by treaties with our national government -- the Crown when we were part of Britain, the U.S. under the Articles of Confederation, and the U.S. under the Constitution. The Indian nations do not derive their powers from the Constitution; their powers are the inherent powers of a sovereign, and they predate the Constitution. Because the U.S. has taken the Indian nations under its protection, they are limited sovereigns. But the limitations on their sovereign powers result from their relations with the U.S., not with the States. With respect to the States, the Indian nations are completely distinct and sovereign powers. Those are bedrock principles of the law governing relations with the Indian nations, they have been ever since the U.S. became a nation, and they spring directly from the relationships to which we succeeded upon our independence.

The Supreme Court acted well within its authority when it held that a treaty between the U.S. and the Cherokee, a sovereign nation despite being in a dependent condition, superseded Georgia law on Cherokee soil under Article VI of the Constitution:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land ....

As Hamilton wrote, the courts have the "duty ... to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void." That is exactly what the Supreme Court did.

Jackson also had duties. He had a duty to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" (U.S. Const., Art. II Sec. 3), including the "Treaties" which the Constitution makes "the supreme Law of the Land". (Id., Art. VI.) But instead of "preserv[ing], protect[ing] and defend[ing] the Constitution" (id., Art. II Sec. 1), Jackson chose to subvert the Constitution by ignoring a treaty which the Constitution made the supreme law of the land.
In Worcester, the Court declared a series of Georgia actions void as repugnant to the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States. These included seizing tribal lands, executing Indian citizens who were precluded from testifying in court, and requiring the minister Sameul Worcester to have a Georgia permit to live in Cherokee Country. But President Andrew Jackson's failure to enforce the Court mandate in Worcester left the Cherokees with a decision in their favor but with no effective remedy. Whether or not Jackson actually said, "John Marshall has made his ruling, now let him enforce it," the result was the same. Georgians remained on Cherokee soil enforcing Georgia law while Samuel Worcester languished in a Midgeville prison for violation of a Georgia statute the Court had held unconstitutional. Despite Court decisions upholding Cherokee rights, Cherokee land was lotteried away and troops drove the Indians into prison stockades to await forced marches from Georgia.

In the winter of 1838-1839, sixteen thousand Cherokees were driven at gunpoint from their ancestral homeland over what has come to be known as "the Trail of Tears." More than four thousand of their number died on the way. "In truth," the Cherokees wrote in an 1835 memorial to Congress, "our cause is your own." The shared fate of all Americans under law has rarely been more poignantly invoked. "It is the cause of liberty and justice," they asserted. "It is based upon your own principles, which we have learned from yourself; for we have gloried to count your Washington and your Jefferson our great teachers."

(Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States (1992) at p. 580.)

Too bad that Jackson did not learn so well.
By clownboy
#135856
Excellent research! And thank you. Now let's see what Jefferson has to say (Carson).

How these checks and balances work, how each branch interpreting the Constitution for itself limits and restrains government, may best be illustrated with actual examples. When Jefferson became President, he pardoned those who had been convicted under the Sedition Act. He explained his action in letters to Abigail Adams: "I discharged every person under punishment or prosecution under the Sedition Law because I considered, and now consider, that law to be a nullity.... The judges, believing the law constitutional, had a right to pass a sentence of fine and imprisonment, because the power was placed in their hands by the Constitution. But the executive, believing the law to be unconstitutional, was bound to remit the execution of it, because that power has been confided to them by the Constitution. That instrument meant that its co-ordinate branches should be checks on one another." 19


Jefferson believed that each branch decided constitutional necessity for themselves where it cames to the actions that they themselves are responsible for. A President cannot be forced to commit troops on the orders of the Judiciary.

That said, I bow to your well thought out argument. I do not believe however, that his career in toto qualifies him for the Worst President label. Noe do I believe the Marshall court was any better for America.

As a semi-sidenote - tell me THIS doesn't look like John Kerry. :eek:
User avatar
By Hansmeister
#135951
Ice_Demon wrote:Yes, the person with 220 IQ would still be smarter, he wouldn't be as hard working, he wouldn;t be as succesfull, but he would still be smarter. And if the guy with 130 IQ is GWB, I strongly doubt he has an IQ 4 higher than mine. ;)


Yes, his IQ must be much higher than yours. ;)
#137206
I voted for bush in 2000 and it was one bad mistake. He had a big chance after 9 11 to gain support from the rest of the western world, when other countries were actually on our side- and he blew it. If he had handled things better, dozens of other countries would be helping out in Iraq right now... instead, we are virtually alone and hundreds of US soldiers have died.

I won't be making the same mistake this November.

Also, where are people getting this IQ # of 130 for bush?
By clownboy
#137266
republican_against_bush wrote:I voted for bush in 2000 and it was one bad mistake. He had a big chance after 9 11 to gain support from the rest of the western world, when other countries were actually on our side- and he blew it. If he had handled things better, dozens of other countries would be helping out in Iraq right now... instead, we are virtually alone and hundreds of US soldiers have died.

I won't be making the same mistake this November.

Also, where are people getting this IQ # of 130 for bush?


Look up a few posts, that's where Ice Demon either mistook analogy for fact, or he used that for his own example. In any case, I doubt we have his stanine scores or his IQ results (data, NOT supposition.

As for the first part - then you were mistaken all around. Whether you think the action in Iraq is right or wrong - Al Gore or John Kerry wouldn't have been able to sign on a single one additional to the coallition. It was the mission, not the leader that killed the deal with the UN, for reasons already discussed in other threads.

Have done a tour, the US losses (lives), though regretted every one, are so amazingly light that I don't understand your perspective when saying that.

Go ahead, vote Kerry, enjoy the ride. :evil:
User avatar
By Todd D.
#137719
Hansmeister wrote:Yes, his IQ must be much higher than yours. ;)


I've said this before and I'll say it again: Once you reach the age of 18, IQ is completely irrelevant. It is a test designed with an 18 year old in mind, your result is your mental age over your actual age, hence the term Intelligence QUOTIENT. This is why the average IQ is 100, because it is a 1/1 ratio. Anyone over the age of 18 has an undefined IQ. Any stat you see if bullshit, so enough about GWB's IQ, ok? There are plenty of reasons to not like him without making up reasons.
User avatar
By STA
#137791
most IQ tests i see have a thing where you select your age, so I think that it does matter if your over 18.
User avatar
By STA
#137796
clownboy wrote:Look up a few posts, that's where Ice Demon either mistook analogy for fact, or he used that for his own example. In any case, I doubt we have his stanine scores or his IQ results (data, NOT supposition.

As for the first part - then you were mistaken all around. Whether you think the action in Iraq is right or wrong - Al Gore or John Kerry wouldn't have been able to sign on a single one additional to the coallition. It was the mission, not the leader that killed the deal with the UN, for reasons already discussed in other threads.

Have done a tour, the US losses (lives), though regretted every one, are so amazingly light that I don't understand your perspective when saying that.

Go ahead, vote Kerry, enjoy the ride. :evil:


I said IF, just in case you were implying it, which you will probably deny.

How do would know Al Gore would not have been able to sustain one ally in the coalition? assuming he would have wanted to invade Iraq, which of course he wouldn't of. Do you own a time machine? Are you a fourtune teller? No? then how would you know?

And I rather see 100 men die for a good cause than 10 die for a false one.
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

@Potemkin They've spent the best part of two […]

Juan Dalmau needs to be the governor and the isla[…]

Whats "breaking" here ? Russians have s[…]

@Puffer Fish You dig a trench avoiding existin[…]