23% Say Bush is the Worst Ever?

I found this article on AOL that says 23% of the people think Bush is the worst EVER!!!

But if you look at the Metrics of AOL with a larger sample size, it tells a better story.

[Ex]How would you rate George W. Bush against past presidents?
Worst ever 53%
Worse than average 16%
Better than average 16%
Average 11%
Best ever 3%
Total Votes: 255,555

I think majority win's on this... CNN needs to learn more math or stop reporting on information that is obscured.

Click here for details

[edit on 9-11-2007 by Syntaxstealth]

Nixon was the presidential pariah of old. Walker is going to make him saintly. He cries alot though...so go easy on his 'kingship'.

Polls, shmoles... You know how much stock I place in any poll? Little to none. All of them are either slanted to the left or the right...

reply to post by SpeakerofTruth


well, we know that bush has the lowest approval rating... that's not an issue of poll bias, it's just an issue of his poor popularity.

honestly, i wouldn't say he's the WORST president ever, he still has a year left before i can say that
he's certainly one of the 10 worst.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

well, we know that bush has the lowest approval rating... that's not an issue of poll bias,

Ok...

[edit on 12-11-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]

reply to post by Syntaxstealth


Here's something I found on the web. Don't know if he's the worst compared to all presidents, but I do know that he never kept his promises and can spend the money.

Top Ten Presidents vs The Worst President.

But despite all the bad things bush has done he has done good things too!!
This is a good thing IMO.

[img] [/img]





The tax cuts were another good thing.
Besides that I can't think of anything else that a politician or persident would do for the american people.

I never, ever believe polls.

Polls can EASILY be manipulated. I bet I could create a poll (probably not here:lol that shows that Pres Bush is the best president ever.

reply to post by Solarskye


Those tax cuts were on a sliding scale upwards for the top one percent! Even a CNN segment sarcastically described it's uselessness for people under 50k a year. Of course the top are supposed to be the true entrepreneurs if you believe the trickle down theory.

23% think he is the worst ever. Then 77% think he is not the worst ever.

Thread is done!

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

well, we know that bush has the lowest approval rating... that's not an issue of poll bias,

Ok...

speaker, gallup conducts those polls and gallup tends to skew republican in their polls, which is why i said that it's not an issue of poll bias.

First of all, to conclude that Bush is the "worst ever" would be jumping the gun. We don't really feel the effects of any presidency until 10-15 years after a president's term... Ask me in about ten years what I think of the Bush presidency and I will be better able to tell you...

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by SpeakerofTruth

 

well, we know that bush has the lowest approval rating... that's not an issue of poll bias, it's just an issue of his poor popularity.

honestly, i wouldn't say he's the WORST president ever, he still has a year left before i can say that
he's certainly one of the 10 worst.

Ironically almost every president has low poll numbers.

For instance, when Reagan was president many considered him to be the worst ever, and had rating in the 30's-40's .. and now hes idolized and deemed one of the best president of our era.



Though I honestly doubt Bush will go down as best ever, or even good in general by historians with the many mistakes and lack of progress he has made as president.

Essentially the only thing he has done is wage war... and thats not going so good. I believe we passed the amount of time we spent in WWII.

Anyways, the point was don't believe poll numbers because its a pathetic pseudo science.

By the way those who said Bush is the worst ever must at least favor Carter, and that alone tells me their political slant or lack of common sense!

[edit on 11/12/2007 by Rockpuck]

Originally posted by Rockpuck
Though I honestly doubt Bush will go down as best ever, or even good in general by historians with the many mistakes and lack of progress he has made as president.


[edit on 11/12/2007 by Rockpuck]

Well, I think most likely he will experience what is known as the "Truman Bounce." He will probably be viewed as being a "decent president" by most historians. I like you don't think that he'll ever be viewed as one of the best or even as a good one, necessarily.

[edit on 12-11-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]

reply to post by Syntaxstealth


Did you bother to notice the disclaimer for the AOL poll.

NOTE: Poll results are not scientific and reflect the opinions of only those users who chose to participate. Poll results are not reflected in real time.

news.aol.com...

Even the CNN poll is questionable, with such a small sample, even if most people have phones these days.

Still, it doesn't matter how many people think Bush is the worst president ever.

He isn't, not by a long shot.

You want a bad president, you might examine the presidency of Lyndon Baines Johnson or maybe Ulysses S. Grant's.

History will look favorably on a president who when his nation was attacked on its own soil and 3000 innocent Americans died horrible deaths, took the fight to the enemy and stood up against a Congress of twits, not to mention the large number of cowardly Americans who now disgrace our heritage.



[edit on 2007/11/12 by GradyPhilpott]

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
History will look favorably on a president who when his nation was attacked on its own soil and 3000 innocent Americans died horrible deaths, took the fight to the enemy

so why did we attack iraq?

and stood up against a Congress of twits,

really?
so you're going to say defying the constitution is such a great thing?

not to mention the large number of cowardly Americans who now disgrace our heritage.

MLK jr is my heritage
Frederick Douglass is my heritage
Hippies are my heritage
Suffragettes are my heritage
see where i'm going here? those that stand for civil liberties and peace are my heritage, not some idiots that want to bomb everything.

you call me a coward, i call you a fool who'd give up everything america stands for just to make sure he's not feeling insecure about possibly being a coward.

america isn't a nation of war, we're supposed to be a nation of FREEDOM.

how about you pack up and leave my country and move to one that prefers security over liberty
and take the idiot coulter with you.

so why did we attack iraq?

Actually of all things, this may save his historic outlook.

See..

30 years from now when it comes to light that we attacked Iraq for oil, and that if we had not our economy would have come to a halt, and that we did it to hold the oil reserves in a government pro western.. that could be looked on favorably.

really?
so you're going to say defying the constitution is such a great thing?

Um..

The President does not pass laws him self. The House does.

And while Bush's ratings average 30-35% Congress's averages low 20's.

MLK jr is my heritage
Frederick Douglass is my heritage
Hippies are my heritage
Suffragettes are my heritage
see where i'm going here? those that stand for civil liberties and peace are my heritage, not some idiots that want to bomb everything.

You don't pick and choose who is, and is not your heritage. If you accept Washington as your heritage, along comes Jackson and the drunken Ulysses S Grant, or the cross dressing Hoover, and the many, many other failed or disgraced political figures that shaped our country.

Personally the way I see it is people draw lines with political parties.. and that is a division worsening every year, and it could be a dark road it leads down.

america isn't a nation of war, we're supposed to be a nation of FREEDOM.

There has never been a decade in American history when we where not in a state of war with someone.

America is a nation of War. It's who we are.

how about you pack up and leave my country and move to one that prefers security over liberty
and take the idiot coulter with you.

How sad..

How pathetic..

How embarrassing I have to call you a fellow countryman ....

You wish others with differing political views as your self to leave, to begone from "your" country so that only your own political ideologies can prevail over every one else's ....

How am I supposed to have respect for someone like that?

I think it's just a cool thing to say you do not like the president now adays....


Honestly I think he's just an average president, nothing that terrible and nothing extra special


Why do people hate him? Iraq? And trust me I'm in no way disrespecting the troops or their families or any of that but only....what 4000 troops died? Okay some say Bush was behind 9/11 so 7000 US casualties in my opinion that isnt bad at all. You can argue if it was right or wrong but even if there wasnt any wmds etc etc there were some pretty good reasons to get saddam out just as there were reasons to get hitler out and yes saddam wasnt at the calibur of hitler but still


7000 US casualties could of happened in one hour of battle during ww2

Rockpuck,

One outstanding post, but remember...

Your arguing against hate, a powerful and overwhelming emotion...

Besides that, your arguing against someone that actually believes Gallop leans right...

But then so does anything that disagrees...

Semper

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
america isn't a nation of war, we're supposed to be a nation of FREEDOM.

How do you think freedom is earned and maintained?

Did England roll over after the Boston Tea Party?

If you want to know why we attacked Iraq, all you have to do is a little research. The reasons were well documented and they were corroborated by countries all over the globe and acknowledged by the Congress.

I've posted links to this enough to make my fingers bleed and still there are those who simply will not do the requisite research in favor of repeating the same old lies ad nauseum.

Parsing posts leads to confusion because you are lifting statements out of their context, so the rest of your post makes no sense.

You might recall that the same Congresstwits who want us out of Iraq now are the ones who having looked at the intelligence data, approved the invasion.

If you'd learn to read a post in its entirety before responding to it, you might find that many of the statements with which you disagree or fail to understand make more sense in both the context of the post and in the context of history.

But, you don't have to explain it to me.

I know you're not interested in the truth.

You just want to riddle a thoughtful post with irrelevant responses that further your agenda and impress those who are as intellectually irresponsible as you.


[edit on 2007/11/14 by GradyPhilpott]

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
america isn't a nation of war, we're supposed to be a nation of FREEDOM.

How do you think freedom is earned and maintained?

by not attacking random countries?
by protecting the constitution and the amendments to it that were designed to ensure our freedoms

Did England roll over after the Boston Tea Party?

no... but we used war as a last option. hell, it was a DEFENSIVE war.

If you want to know why we attacked Iraq, all you have to do is a little research. The reasons were well documented and they were corroborated by countries all over the globe and acknowledged by the Congress.

by a few countries and the few voices that dissented were squashed

I've posted links to this enough to make my fingers bleed and still there are those who simply will not do the requisite research in favor of repeating the same old lies ad nauseum.

so you're saying that there was a link between 9/11 and iraq?
that's the ad nauseum lie
so is that WMD thing....

Parsing posts leads to confusion because you are lifting statements out of their context, so the rest of your post makes no sense.

the rest of my post makes plenty of sense.

i'll quote a later part of this statement that i found to be quite fitting for this part as a response

If you'd learn to read a post in its entirety before responding to it, you might find that many of the statements with which you disagree or fail to understand make more sense in both the context of the post and in the context of history.

You might recall that the same Congresstwits who want us out of Iraq now are the ones who having looked at the intelligence data, approved the invasion.

actually... not all of them did. because a certain number of them hadn't been elected yet.
and honestly... ad hom attack?

If you'd learn to read a post in its entirety before responding to it, you might find that many of the statements with which you disagree or fail to understand make more sense in both the context of the post and in the context of history.

i read the entire post in its entirety before responding to it.
i don't "fail to understand" anything here except for your condescending and self-important attitude on these matters.
and they don't actually make sense in the context of history.

this country was founded on freedom, not depriving people of that same freedom. that's what this country has become.

But, you don't have to explain it to me.

I know you're not interested in the truth.

are you looking into a mirror as you say this?

You just want to riddle a thoughtful post with irrelevant responses that further your agenda and impress those who are as intellectually irresponsible as you.

and to top it all off with an ad-hom attack!
wow, brilliant post.