The Worst President in History?


icon

OK, I try to avoid politics and religion whenever possible in the news section, but George W. Bush's abysmal approval ratings in the US (33%) and abroad seems to be reaching new lows. The new Rolling Stone cover with a caricature of a dunce George Dubya really poses an interesting question:

Is George W. Bush  the worst President in United States history or just the worst President anyone can remember? Discuss.  


Posted by sedgemonkey @ 4/20/2006 15:22  |    47 | Source

Discussion

If you would like to comment you will need to be logged in. Register now. It only takes a moment and it's free.


user
MaladeMental (Level 1 Rookie) @ 1/12/2009 15:38
I don't know if George w. bush was the worst, but i know obama isn't better... Why the most powerful nation of this world let the Israelian gov' kill hundreds of civils in Gaza? Democracy is a joke to make more profit...

(i say obama because we all know that the president of my country, sarkozy, is a  bush-like who has too much interests in selling weapons to israel, and because obama's main word is "change"...)

We want peace not money, it's not the palestinian people who has to suffer of the stupidness of the world...

user
sedgemonkey (Level 11 Master Assassin) @ 4/28/2006 08:43

I know this topic is dead, but I found a gem that sums up my thoughts on the whole "gay" blather...

"Why is it that Republican lawmakers are gung-ho for personal responsibility and government abstinence when it comes to healthcare, welfare, and minimum-wage laws, but they can't vote "aye" fast enough when it comes to intrusively legislating morality?"


user
Glex (Level 1 Private) @ 4/26/2006 19:42
"A government is the reflection of the values of its citizens."
Quote from crab.

If those citizens may be homosexual should their veiws not be "reflected" aswell?
The hate against homosexuals stemmed directley from the church, the church and state are "supposedly" seperate so how can we bar homosexuals from getting married.

-probaly been said before but I don't have time too read all of it, gots papers to write.

user
Aiko (Level 1 Quiet One) @ 4/23/2006 08:08
**** not replace senate but congress members. my bad.

user
Aiko (Level 1 Quiet One) @ 4/23/2006 08:05
JJ Maxx:   the pentagon made a statement last week to the american people stating that geoge bush had no right to go into Iraq because days before the attack, the pentagon gave bush reports stating that there were no weapons of mass destruction.

did you also know that nearly ALL of the hijackers of 9/11 were suadi arabian? none were iraqi. why didn't we go after suadi arabia? we like their money, even if they are a country full jihad activities. however, to keep the american people occupied beyond all of that, he threw all of our money and soldiers into iraq to make it look like he was actually doing something productive. i'm sorry, but for all the american soldiers killed and the information i, and other people know, george bush sucks.

***also, i'd like to state that the president has the right to choose his own cabinet and replace senate members. that COULD be the reason there are so many conservatives working in the government, right?

user
sedgemonkey (Level 11 Master Assassin) @ 4/22/2006 22:01
@JJ Maxx:  Your points are fine and you can feel free to rip on any political figure you like, but it's just not cool to insult members here. Why is this so hard to understand? 

Back to the topic... I think the war in Iraq is just the tip of the iceberg as far as Dubya's terrible presidency.  In my short lifetime I've never seen the American people more polarized along political lines.  His social security and "no child left behind" initiatives were widely rejected even in  the majority of conservate states.  His debating skills were widely mocked and joked about by just about anyone watching the Bush/Kerry debates. Don't get me wrong, I'm no Kerry fan, but he made Bush look like a freaking moron.

The astronomical federal deficit racked up in the last six years is almost comical.  Those idiotic tax breaks our great leader pushed for are almost criminally irresponsible.  How much did the average American benefit even in the short term? 

I'm going out on a limb here, but I can't imagine a time in US history where we are more reviled in the global community than we are right now.  Bush's nonexistant international diplomacy might turn out to be the greatest failure of his term as prez.

user
OMGFossil (Level 6 Yonkyu) @ 4/22/2006 21:30
this easter george w bush had an easter egg hunt in the white house, later on bush announced there were no eggs to begin with

user
jalonso (Level 11 Godfather) @ 4/22/2006 20:43
The Senate and the House gave the worst President in history the "authority to use force if needed" not an "order to do so". They did this based on lies presented to them by the Executive branch led by the worst President in history. Therefore the blame is his*. The reason I can place all blame on the worst President in history (I did not vote for him) is because his job is to take the most reasonable course of action at ALL times, based on facts. It is indeed a fact that politicians are more politically intelligent than I, but they are common sense retards. Since even Bush ackowledges that there never where weapons of mass destruction, recordings by the "man who was in charge of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction efforts" are completely irrelevant. The reason the UN did not agree and most countries denied to form any coallition with the US was because they were able to correctly access the situation. It now seems that the American public is beginning to see the truth of the matter and thus his approval numbers reflect the dissatisfaction. There is a saying that says that civilization is judged on its weakest member and Bush my friend is last in line.

*Not too long ago Clinton was blamed 100% for anything that went wrong because he was the President. What has changed?

user
JJ_Maxx (Level 2 Peon) @ 4/22/2006 20:19
Friday, October 11, 2002:
Senate voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq. Hours earlier, the House approved an identical resolution, 296-133.

How can you place the blame on one man when these people that YOU,(ie, the American people.) elected into office?!

I talk only facts and don't say things like, 'obviously' and 'we all know' when in reality the average American only knows what their particular slanted media outlet pumps into their head on a daily basis.
The facts are that the House and the Senate, comprised of elected officials, gave this president the authority to do what he did. And I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that those people are alot more politically intelligent than any of us here, so how does that blame get placed? The current administration got the votes, went to the UN, waited for Saddam to kick out the inspectors and impede their progress. Hussein Kamel, Saddam's son-in-law and the man who was in charge of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction efforts can be heard on audio tapes, released in February, speaking openly about hiding information from the U.N. We gave the ultimatum, waited our time and did the right thing. The only reason the UN didn't accept our actions is because Russia and France had proven ties with the area.
I won't apologize for calling people out who enter into a political debate with a 5th grade mentality.

user
jalonso (Level 11 Godfather) @ 4/22/2006 18:03
The CIA is completely unreliable, that's one of the reasons the worst President in history has taken us to war. A great deal of the US landmass is uninhabitable so the comparison to Japan can only me made if the graph if buried under sand and your head is in it while viewing. Also true is the the lack of value in traditional reproduction methods, a great many couples use fertility clinics to reproduce so the "more important" argument is null.

user
sedgemonkey (Level 11 Master Assassin) @ 4/22/2006 18:03
@crab: I should also add that I don't believe in any religion so the religious aspect of marriage means absolutely nothing to me.  Should I be denied the right to  the legal benefits of marriage because I don't share your values and I don't plan on reproducing? 

Btw, I hope this doesn't come off like I'm trying to patronize you... I honestly want to know what your thoughts are.

user
sedgemonkey (Level 11 Master Assassin) @ 4/22/2006 17:56
People bitch about IE, but it seems to handle overflowing text better.  I'll get around to fixing it for Firefox one of these days (the browser that I actually use). For now, I just shrink links that blow out the page.

@crab:  Let me put it this way... I don't agree with the values of a KKK member (and I'm sure you don't either), but I also don't believe that they shouldn't have the same rights that I enjoy.  Do you think a KKK member should not be allowed to marry?  Also, I'm heterosexual and when I marry I don't plan on ever having kids... does this make me less deserving of a "higher position in society"?  I just don't see how you can talk about other people as if they are less important than you.

user
Monsoon2D (Level 2 Flatfoot) @ 4/22/2006 17:23
Fair enough, crab. Really, I just wanted to hear you out on the topic because I know many people that share your views, but are less capable of actually expressing them.

However, keep in mind that reproduction nowadays doesn't have to involve intercourse at all.  All that  one needs in order to have a child is some jizz and an egg. If you really think about it, the more traditional form of reproduction has become dangerous anyway, what with the number of diseases associated with it. Just some food for thought.

user
crab2selout.png (Level 4 Deputy) @ 4/22/2006 17:17
aiko: I get curious about population, too. If you don't know already, the CIA World Factbook is an excellent resource for checking up on population, economy and other interesting facts about other countries. I've been interested in things like population density as of late, so I find myself comparing how many people there are per square kilometre in places like Japan compared to the US. I was in awe to find out that Japan has over 340 people per square kilometre compared to 32 people per square kilometre in the US. If the US had a population density like Japan, its population would be over 3 Trillion! It kind of makes you look at Japan in a different way, although I don't think I would like to live in such a densely packed place..

Also, I appear to have busted the margins of the page with that last post of mine. Funny as the link didn't do that last time. There any way for you to fix it Sedgemonkey? It seems as though the right side of the text is hidden in Firefox, but viewable in IE.

user
crab2selout.png (Level 4 Deputy) @ 4/22/2006 17:01

Sedge: I disagree with your statement about governments imposing values on its citizens. A government is the reflection of the values of its citizens. Going a little offtopic here, but this is kind of why my choice for worst president came down to LB Johnson. Different people have different cultures and I think it’s beyond even the US’s power to forge a common identity between Europeans, Indians, Arabs, Mexicans, Asians, etc., etc. It’s too much to expect such a diverse group with such a wide range of history to drop everything they were ever a part of and become American. I’m sure those of you with an unhealthy obsession with ninjas can attest to the allure of Japanese culture and history.

I also disagree with your view of marriage as nothing more than a contract and a basic human right. But your period says you are done and I have stated my opinion on these things. At this point, I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree.

Aiko: 2 billion people? 6.5 billion, if I recall correctly. You’ve completely missed my point, though. I never said anything about overpopulation, and my reasons for favouring heterosexual marriage over homosexual marriage has nothing to do with increasing the population. Nothing. My point is that even if you’re trying to shrink the population, you still need to have babies. I value heterosexual couples over homosexual couples because they are capable of reproduction and this is simply a biological necessity for the continuation of a society. For this they deserve a higher position in society.

Since you’re so keen on overpopulation I think you’ll really like this graph projection of the human population. It’s really interesting in that it shows the developed world population descending around 2050(some places in Europe and Russia are already shrinking!). But most incredible is the projection for the population of the less developed world. Now that is scary!
 [link]


user
sedgemonkey (Level 11 Master Assassin) @ 4/22/2006 14:18
@Monsoon2D:  "The flaw with marriage in general is that it's one of those terrible "traditions" that combines church and state. Really, benefits shouldn't be offered to married couples."

@crab2selout.png:  I respect that you want to protect your values (whatever they may be), but the government does not exist to impose values on its citizens.  Every citizen should have the same rights and as I said before (and Monsoon2D reiterated) marriage is a legal contract that gives rights to the participants that same sex couples are denied. It's about basic human rights.  Period.

user
Aiko (Level 1 Quiet One) @ 4/22/2006 13:48
wow.... so you're saying that gay couples are worth less because they do not reproduce? so we need more people in this world? think about it. there are two billion people, and we're reproducing like rabbits. we're destroying our environment and very soon, there will not be enough room for all of us to live. not only that, but because heterosexual couples are so much better than homosexual couples, millions of children all over the world are starving because their parents left them or died. would you rather have a child starving or have it not suffer? everyone should be equal. if you want to throw out silly claims of superiority, go ahead. i can do the same thing. :D

not only that, but you are also basically insinuating that gays in general are not equal to people, because by stating gay and straight couples, you are also stating the legal rights that they hold. do you know that if in the U.S., a gay couple has a civil union, they don't have the rights of a regular married couple? why not? because gay people aren't like everyone else. they don't deserve the rights everyone else has, in the government at least. a gay person could be the next Enstein and want to be married, but that is impossible because he is "different"

user
crab2selout.png (Level 4 Deputy) @ 4/22/2006 11:29
Monsoon2d: Yes, because they are capable of producing children. I'm not saying homosexual couples are dirt. But I am saying that they aren't equal in importance and are unequal in responsibilities compared to heterosexual couples.

It is different from adoption because one is resource creation and the other is reordering resources already created. I'm not trying to be an ass here, it's simply that my senses tell me that there's a difference between hetero- and homosexual couples and that it is a mistake to equalize them just because we're a horrible intolerant society if we don't.

user
jalonso (Level 11 Godfather) @ 4/22/2006 10:36
@ crab, let me see if I understand correctly. Your point is that the flaw in heterosexual marriage is that they produce homosexuals?

user
Monsoon2D (Level 2 Flatfoot) @ 4/22/2006 08:35
"The flaw with gay marriage is that it promotes homosexual couples to a status equal to heterosexual couples. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out which of these two are more important to the continuation of our society."

Ouch. What?

The flaw with marriage in general is that it's one of those terrible "traditions" that combines church and state. Really, benefits shouldn't be offered to married couples.

I have to ask... Why do you feel the heterosexual couple should be valued higher than a homosexual couple? Because the heterosexual couple can reproduce? Would it be different than a homosexual couple adopting the unwanted offspring of the heterosexual couple? I'm curious.

user
DeathByChris (Level 5 Killer Klown) @ 4/22/2006 08:22

stupid oil? that stupid oil powers our stupid cars, creates stupid energy, and a ton of other stupid stuff that is used in everyday life, its a little thing called petroleum. oil plays a role in the war because of Bush's relations with Saudi Arabia and Bush's campaign was mostly funded by oil companies the guy is from Texas, it is in the best interests of the Bush administration to gain more control over the oil in Iraq so that we can make money by selling to other countries who are probably gonna want it sometime in the future. Nobody knows for sure how much longer the oil is gonna last in Alaska which is where the U.S. gets most of its oil now, around 70% of American energy comes from fossil fuels and 20% from nuclear power, but like i said there are more reasons behind the war than just oil. Its all about economics, like after 9/11 one of the things they were encouraging on the news was telling people to go out and buy things so that the economy doesnt suffer to much thats all the Gov`t cares about. i dont think the Gov`t sees soldiers as people it sees them as resources.

most wars are basically caused by money or god, because those are the two things that people are obessed with and will do anything for.


user
Blick (Level 6 Commander) @ 4/22/2006 08:16
Sedge: I remember seeing a funny political comic of Bush showing the link between Iraq and 9/11. He was standing next to a large pad of paper on a stand that read "Iraq Al Qaeda" with both the Q's circled, and says something like "It's clear to me that Al Qaeda has direct ties with Iraq."

user
crab2selout.png (Level 4 Deputy) @ 4/22/2006 07:00

If marriage were such an insignificant bundle of words and procedures as you say, then we wouldn’t be having this conversation and you’d have no one to call bigots. Marriage is important and it’s important because it is one of the subtle ways that we choose to value families. I see gay marriage as one fight in a war aimed at eroding how we value families as well as dismantling other traditional values. Honestly, what’s the point of homosexuals marrying? For equality? For civil rights? All fixed using other avenues. Marriage combined with ideas like illegitimacy sends the message that our society values the two-parent family. Allowing gay marriage does not strengthen this message; it weakens it by de-emphasizing the importance of two heterosexual people.

 

The flaw with gay marriage is that it promotes homosexual couples to a status equal to heterosexual couples. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out which of these two are more important to the continuation of our society. Neither does it take one to see that one of these two are going to have a lot more responsibilities and are going to need to be encouraged and respected more than the other. Perhaps you see this simple fact as bigoted and unequal. I see it as common sense and healthy.

DeathByChris: I'm not much of a fan of Iraq either, but come on! Oil? Do people honestly believe a President and dozens of incredibly smart people would risk their jobs and lives of thousands of US citizens for oil? It's no secret at this point that Bush's brother Jeb has his eyes on the presidency and there is further interest with Jeb's son George P. Honestly, Dubya isn't going to destroy the political careers of everyone in his family by going to Iraq for some stupid reason like oil. Think about it, the US had every advantage when dealing with Iraq. they could have lifted sanctions, there was the UN Iraq-oil debacle, and Saddam hadn't been very good at following some of the sanctions rules. There are so many good ways that bush could've gotten oil in a peaceful more diplomatic manner.

user
DeathByChris (Level 5 Killer Klown) @ 4/21/2006 23:51

yes ill admit my comment was degenerate and childish but there was a point to it and i think you missed it, I dont like how Bush uses God or his faith as a way of justifing what he is doing in iraq when ever a president ends his state of the union address or speeches with God bless it kinda creeps me out, why is it God bless america instead of God bless the World. this war is being fought for a couple reasons first reason is obviously money and oil, second conflicting cultural ideas, third religious fundamentalism and last Dubya is trying to finsh up what his dad started. they wouldnt be so anti american if our goverment would quit sticking its nose in everybodys business and telling them how to run their country thats something they need to figure out for themselves, think about early America people here didnt like being pushed around by England so we fought back and became independent.

not to get off topic, but sadly we did this to the Native Americans as well its a vicious cycle the world is caught in.  


user
sedgemonkey (Level 11 Master Assassin) @ 4/21/2006 22:40
And there is one of the loyal 33% ladies and gentlemen.

What exactly did Iraq have to do with 9/11?  Oh, that's right -- it had NOTHING to do with 9/11.  If anything the US created MORE instability in an area of the world that isn't so thrilled with the US to begin with.

NOTE: Please don't chastise people for using "grade-school name-calling" and then spew insults like "cowardly, liberal past", "blind liberals" obviously directed at members posting here.  Bash John Kerry, Clinton, Bush, "rightwingers" and "liberals" all you like, but keep the conversation directed at the topic and not members of this site.  It's disrespectful and it won't be tolerated.

user
JJ_Maxx (Level 2 Peon) @ 4/21/2006 20:49
Oh please, all you blind liberals can do is throw slurs and label our president with grade-school name-calling. Grow up already. Don't forget that in October of 2002, John Kerry himself supported the current war in Iraq, despite the fact that Iraq had taken no aggressive action against its neighbors. After 9/11, our president realized that the whole middle east was quickly turning into a hotbed of anti-americanism and a breeding ground for weapons trafficking and terrorist activity, which would have inevitably lead to yet another 9/11-style attack. So go back to you cowardly, liberal past, when things were so great and getting head was more important than kicking ass for the future of our country.

user
Blick (Level 6 Commander) @ 4/21/2006 20:41
Although, Warren G. Harding is also considered to be the most horrible president in history, along with Grant. Corruption abound in their terms.

user
Blick (Level 6 Commander) @ 4/21/2006 20:38
ULYSSES S. GRANT

user
Aiko (Level 1 Quiet One) @ 4/21/2006 16:27
well said adegemonkey :)

user
sedgemonkey (Level 11 Master Assassin) @ 4/21/2006 15:22

crab2selout.png:  Why do you (or anyone else in the world) care who gets married?  How does that effect you at all?  What does reproduction have ANYTHING to do with marriage? Are you worried about the human race dying out? Really? Last I checked overpopulation is directly tied to many global problems (dwindling resources, famine, war, trashing the environment). People want to tie marriage to religion or morals or reproduction, but what people forget is that marriage is nothing more than a legal contract as far as the government is concerned. If you don't like gays using the term "married" for whatever reason that's fine -- just keep in mind that current "civil unions" do not afford the same rights as married couples enjoy.

So yes, I DO think you are a bigot if you want to deny ANY law abiding citizen the legal rights that other citizens enjoy. Sorry to be so blunt, but I just don't think people think these issues through.


user
DeathByChris (Level 5 Killer Klown) @ 4/21/2006 12:56

Our president the douchebag cokehead, daddy's little boy and recovering alcoholic who found jesus and now thinks he has some sense of moral superiority, pssh... what a cliche.


user
Pixel_Outlaw (Level 2 Flatfoot) @ 4/21/2006 11:14

Well we all know that RS magazine has no political bias.


user
crab2selout.png (Level 4 Deputy) @ 4/21/2006 11:09
Sedge: I don't appreciate being labeled a "bigot" because I believe marriage hasn't a thing to do with people with no capacity for reproduction. Let homosexuals either lose a pair of ovaries or gain a penis and then we can talk.

theBOB: You lost me there, I think you might have to explain your choice a little better.

Jalonso: which lessons ?

user
Monstara (Level 1 Rookie) @ 4/21/2006 08:58
I'll have to agree with sedge. And although I think dubya is really bad, maybe it's a matter of perception, too... But he's an ass anyways.

user
sedgemonkey (Level 11 Master Assassin) @ 4/21/2006 07:33

Sadly, there's a lot of people who will vote Republican or Democrat regardless of who the candidate is.  To account for the rest of the voters it's simple really... the Republicans played up on Americans fears (we're in Iraq because the WMD boogie man is out to get us) and used "gay marriage" and other bible thumping issues to get the conservative biggots to the polls.  51% of voters is all it took. 


user
DeathByChris (Level 5 Killer Klown) @ 4/21/2006 06:48
people knew he was a dumb ass the first time around, yet he got elected again... i dont get it?

user
sedgemonkey (Level 11 Master Assassin) @ 4/21/2006 00:05
People in power mess up a lot -- it happens to people with the best of intentions and there's a lot of tough decisions to make. President Bush can't be blamed for every single thing that is screwed up in the world right now, but he certainly has been a big part of the failures of the USA in the last few years. Unfortunately, the party that is supposed to balance all the moronic, greedy, hateful, xenophobic and just plain evil policies the right wing nuts have been pushing has been a cowardly disgrace during those same years. Hooray for a two party system that makes enemies of its citizens.

jalonso: "I will go pixel now"

Well said.

user
jalonso (Level 11 Godfather) @ 4/20/2006 21:01
Call me a radical Liberal (cuz I am) but the reason this idiot is the worst president in history is because it will take decades to undo his mess and by then the US will no longer be the prominent nation it was when he took office. America did not learn the lessons of the Roman empire thus it is doomed to repeat it...........I will go pixel now

user
HMC (Level 7 General Manager) @ 4/20/2006 18:32
I think Warren G. Harding was kind of a loser.

user
big brother (Level 11 Admiral) @ 4/20/2006 18:26

The comment about Roosevelt smoking pot is hilarious! You're talking about the turn of the 20th century, so it's not like pot was mainstream like it was when Bush was in college. Besides, Teddy hung out with the Rough Riders (sort of a militaristic equivalent of the Hells Angels), so I'm sure he didn't stay out of trouble.

I love the reliance on approval ratings to determine whether or not the president is inept. Because the majority of art critics disliked Van Gogh's work while he was alive, do those opinions mean that Van Gogh was a bad artist?

Come on, guys. Bush has a long way to go before he takes the FDR route (racial internment). Deposing a dictator for possible monetary gain ranks pretty low on the scale of presidential atrocities. I think most people exaggerate things, just because these events are occurring in our lifetimes. The media looks out for number one, hence the tendency to sensationalize things (to increase sales, which seems like a conflict of interest as far as news is concerned).


user
The B.O.B. (Level 11 Master Assassin) @ 4/20/2006 18:26

Actually, I thought George Washington was the worst president in American history. He is respected now, but from what I can remember, he was actually so tired of the people who ran political lines and opinions against him, that he actally dropped out of the presidency, coincidentally creating the 4 year shift we have now. I think someone wrote a book over it, if I remember correctly, but I can't remember who wrote it. But yeah, I am a fellow Texan, and I live 20 miles away from his ranch. That bieng said, I think his presidency is going to "shat" at the moment. But whatever, I really could give less of a rats ass about politics, much less what somebody says about texas housing the worst president in U.S. history. But seriously with the washington thing,I shit you not.


user
crab2selout.png (Level 4 Deputy) @ 4/20/2006 17:18
L.B. Johnson because the 1965 immigration act passed under his watch. Iraq and everything else are insignificant next to it  because it set into motion the US's destruction. This particular viewpoint depends on whether you believe things like Mexicans celebrating Mexican Independence Day(a Mexican holiday) in the US are destructive.

However, if we're just here to poke fun at Bush, then here's a little dig at his patriotism
[link]



At one point, Bush is shown waving a Mexican flag. The footage was shot, Sosa said, during a Mexican Independence Day parade in San Antonio in 1998, when Bush was running for reelection as governor.

The five-minute video, narrated by Bush, opens with an image of him fishing on his property near Crawford, Texas, as he essentially described millions of Americans who populate his home state as the true foreigners in someone else's native land.

I guess it's something of a close call between the two.

user
Shark (Level 1 Jukyu) @ 4/20/2006 16:46
the thing i dont understand, how did he get in a position to become president. The usa must b fucked up, and another thing why does our prime minister lick his ass and follow him 2 iraq?

user
Faktablad (Level 6 SWAT) @ 4/20/2006 15:58
I actually hate Andrew Jackson a lot, for his policy on Indian removal.  He was just a jerk.  But G. W. Bush might be a lot worse, actually.

user
Monkey 'o Doom (Level 11 Psychopath) @ 4/20/2006 15:51
The 2004 election was really a lose-lose situation IMO. Kerry is far too indecisive and Bush isn't much better.

user
Aiko (Level 1 Quiet One) @ 4/20/2006 15:47
to me, and from what i know, he seems to be the worst president in the history of the United states. he completely went into iraq and bombed them with no proof of WMD, killing thousands of innocent people. he has even gotten over 2000 of his fellow countrymen murdered for no cause whatsoever. how? the pentagon has made an official statement declaring that two days before president bush bombed iraq, reports were sent directly to him stating that there were no WMD. however, being the ass that bush is, he decides to catch hussein for personal revenge instead of looking for the guy who actually did it- Bin Laden.

furthermore, i hate the fact that he does nothing for the regular people of america. sure, it's all good and well that he gives tax breaks to his friends, and even some middle class people, but the poor have no relief. sure, most of the should have gotten a better education, but many people who are poor are actually disabled or mentally damaged. above anyone else, they should have the money that they need to live, in my opinion.

lastly, i find it odd how president bush puts on the mighty christian persona, yet he smoked pot in college, and has had several DUIs. do you think Roosevelt smoked pot in college? no way. besides the pot and beer, how can a christian man lie before god and the world and kill so many people without a second thought? i mean, if you have to start a war, start one for a good reason at least.

an so, these are some, but not nearly all, of the reasons i cite George Bush as the worst president in the history of the united states. at this point, i even think carter may have been better....

This Week's Pixel Art

Tank icon/pixelartChalice (first pixel art work) icon/pixelartthe Squid icon/pixelartMickey mock up icon/pixelart
Play party games with QuizBash app
Play party games with QuizBash app

Recent News

Donate

Want to give some dough back to all those amazing pixel artists? Donations provide prize money for contests, help cover hosting costs and support new initiatives.