Best and worst president?

[Dalamari]

Best: Reagan

Worst: Carter

Ditto.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Right on Tenjin, although Lincoln and Washington are right up there as well.

B: Reagan

W: Carter

 

[Sai]

i don't have a favorite president, not because that most presidents are bad or anything, just that i can't decide personally.

but i do believe the worst president in U.S. history has to be Grant, he did absolutely nothing remotely noteworthy during his presidency outside play many games of poker and drink many bottles of alcohol. :/

 

[seinfeldrules]

outside play many games of poker and drink many bottles of alcohol.

Can you spell P-I-M-P?


You are right though, he was a great general, but an awful president.

 

[DarkStar]

For the Reaganites out there:

What did Reagan do to compete with emancipating the slaves and reforming the union? And how was Carter worse than the criminal president who forever cheapened the executive office?

 

[CyberSh33p]

James K Polk for best!
after for short years, he met his every gooooal
he siezed the whole southwest from mexicooo
made sure the tariffs fell, and made the english sell the oregon territory
he built an independent treasury
having done all this he sought no second teeeeeeeeeeerm
but precious few have mourned the passing oooooooooooooof
Mr James K Polk our eleventh president
young hickory, napolean of the stump

 

[Mechagodzilla]

I'm not big on american history, but I liked the way Reagan and Clinton did things.

I'm currently really disliking Bush. A lot. Unlike even the worst past presidents, I really can't think of anything he's done that could be considered above par.

Consider the attempts at making the state religious, the crap that was Iraq's "WMD terrorist threat" and his pretty blatant exploitation of 9/11, and I can seriously see him being seen as the next Nixon.

But even Nixon improved US-China relations during the Cold War and pulled out of 'nam. Even for a crook (only allegedly though, wasn't he?), his foreign policy was pretty effective.

 

[johnnypoopoopant]

all i have to say is bush is the worst... did u see farenhiet 911

 

[aeroripper]

all i have to say is bush is the worst... did u see farenhiet 911

heh, i am a fan of his Awful Truth show and i do think bush is an idiot and a criminal... but moore tends to not show the whole truth of what is going on in situations, or, taking them out of context of what really happened.

ALthough F9/11 didn't have nearly as much filler as bowling for columbine had...

 

[Farrowlesparrow]

I'm not big on american history, but I liked the way Reagan and Clinton did things.

I'm currently really disliking Bush. A lot. Unlike even the worst past presidents, I really can't think of anything he's done that could be considered above par.

Consider the attempts at making the state religious, the crap that was Iraq's "WMD terrorist threat" and his pretty blatant exploitation of 9/11, and I can seriously see him being seen as the next Nixon.

But even Nixon improved US-China relations during the Cold War and pulled out of 'nam. Even for a crook (only allegedly though, wasn't he?), his foreign policy was pretty effective.

To be fair though, you aren't 200 years old, and its likely that Bush is the first pres to come along, where you are at an age to comprehend politics properly. Ok, maybe Clinton as well...
Edit: Living in the time and reading about it in the history books are very different things altogether. For instance, we don't have hindsight in the here and now, and we are very much blinded by our cultural baggage.

F 9/11 :x Its just opinion passed off as fact. I hate that film so much, because people fall for it. I just gave up watching it. Its not who its talking about that I'm bothered about, its just why and how its being said.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

To be fair though, you aren't 200 years old, and its likely that Bush is the first pres to come along, where you are at an age to comprehend politics properly. Ok, maybe Clinton as well...

It is true that I have more knowledge of current stuff, but I'm not limited to that knowledge. I was thinking of putting Kennedy, Roosevelt and Lincon on my favorites list too, but I didn't want to be too extensive.

I still can't see how any good will come from Bush's actions though.

F 9/11 :x Its just opinion passed off as fact. I hate that film so much, because people fall for it. I just gave up watching it. Its not who its talking about that I'm bothered about, its just why and how its being said.

I guess it's in how you interpret it. If you're looking for a movie that proves conclusively that George Bush is a horrible person, then you're watching the wrong movie.

In my opinion though, the "conclusions" of the movie are much less important than the questions it raises.

Why did Bush tell his information gatherers to find ties between Iraq and 9/11, only a short while after the event?

Why did he invade Iraq in an effort to stop terrorism even though the evidence of Iraq terrorism was inconclusive at best?

Why did he put so little emphasis on finding Osama?

Etc.

The movie takes those questions and tries it's best to answer them. Moore makes very tenuous connections, but the point really is that no-one really knows what Bush is doing. With all the strange things going on, Moore's conspiracy theory is the closest thing to a sensible explanation.

And that's the sad commentary on the state of the union: even the weakest theory of Bush being a jerk makes about as much sense than the official explanations (or lack thereof).

Edit: Living in the time and reading about it in the history books are very different things altogether. For instance, we don't have hindsight in the here and now, and we are very much blinded by our cultural baggage.

Well, I meant that I currently can't see any good coming from him. History might eventually absolve Bush, but in the meantime, he's a real jackass.

 

[Sgt_Shellback]

To be fair though, you aren't 200 years old, and its likely that Bush is the first pres to come along, where you are at an age to comprehend politics properly. Ok, maybe Clinton as well...
Edit: Living in the time and reading about it in the history books are very different things altogether. For instance, we don't have hindsight in the here and now, and we are very much blinded by our cultural baggage.

F 9/11 :x Its just opinion passed off as fact. I hate that film so much, because people fall for it. I just gave up watching it. Its not who its talking about that I'm bothered about, its just why and how its being said.

Every now and then some here says something that restores my faith that the world has not gone insane. ty

 

[CptStern]

for the upteenth time, if there are any inaccuracies in F9/11, Moore would be wading through a mile of litigation ..every one of his facts have been verified by independent sources. The NYtimes ran an article about a columnist on a fact finding mission and he stated that all the facts stand up to scrutiny. It's a sign of times when a documentary film maker can be vilified for his perceived lies while a politician is glorified for his outright lies

 

[Sgt_Shellback]

for the upteenth time, if there are any inaccuracies in F9/11, Moore would be wading through a mile of litigation ..every one of his facts have been verified by independent sources. The NYtimes ran an article about a columnist on a fact finding mission and he stated that all the facts stand up to scrutiny. It's a sign of times when a documentary film maker can be vilified for his perceived lies while a politician is glorified for his outright lies

Funny... I couldn't find a single bank that was giving away firearms with every new checking account opened... Now my garage is filled with these stupid toasters.

Edit: I changed my mind after reading the discussion... Washington was the best and Taft the worse... IMO

 

[CptStern]

FARENHEIT 9/11!!!! not B for C


besides that did happen

 

[Korgoth]

I found this very, very amusing. See attachement:
lol

 

[Mechagodzilla]

for the upteenth time, if there are any inaccuracies in F9/11, Moore would be wading through a mile of litigation ..every one of his facts have been verified by independent sources. The NYtimes ran an article about a columnist on a fact finding mission and he stated that all the facts stand up to scrutiny. It's a sign of times when a documentary film maker can be vilified for his perceived lies while a politician is glorified for his outright lies

Exactly.
Like I said above, Moore points out a lot of disturbing facts in the movie. But he, like everyone else, is at a loss as to how to explain them. The point is that Bush is up to something shady that is affecting the entire world. The question, however, is what.

Edit: lol innervision
A similar test with "best president ever" was inconclusive. Apparently a tie between Reagan and Roosevelt.

 

[Rico]

all i have to say is bush is the worst... did u see farenhiet 911

Those are the kind of quotes that make me sad. Did you do your own research or did you just take Michael Moore's word as absolute truth?

Anyways, if I had to choose a best president I'd go with FDR.

Worst? Grant by a million... he had the most corrupt administration in history (he himself wasn't corrupt).

 

[Farrowlesparrow]

You can raise all sorts of questions about things that "make you think" and sound really nasty, and because it is sometimes difficult to propose an answer, its automaticlaly assumed that the worst case scenario is true.

I never said he lied either, I said there is a lot of opinion in the film, which is portrayed (not directly stated) as fact. The majority of people think they are looking at cold hard facts, and do not recognise the influence being taken over them.

I wasn't saying your history is bad, even though you admit to not knowing everything (unlike me ). What I'm saying is, that current events will always seem different to you, than to say...a historian 60 years from now. This is because of, as I said, a lack of hindsight and the baggage we all lug around with us. (Though, this does affect historians as well). The opinions of people now, and the charisma will have much more effect on us than someone looking at this time in a hundred years.


Heh, nice google search...although it only registers president as a keyword in that find

 

[CptStern]

I found this very, very amusing. See attachement:
lol

not HA HA funny, more "OMG! that cant be a coincidence: the google gods have spoken" funny :E

 

[blahblahblah]

for the upteenth time, if there are any inaccuracies in F9/11, Moore would be wading through a mile of litigation ..every one of his facts have been verified by independent sources. The NYtimes ran an article about a columnist on a fact finding mission and he stated that all the facts stand up to scrutiny. It's a sign of times when a documentary film maker can be vilified for his perceived lies while a politician is glorified for his outright lies

Yes, but he mixes facts with opinions. The way he portrays Bush isn't exactly neutral.

If you want me to take F 9/11 as a unbiased documentry, he should have made it as one.

 

[Korgoth]

You can raise all sorts of questions about things that "make you think" and sound really nasty, and because it is sometimes difficult to propose an answer, its automaticlaly assumed that the worst case scenario is true.

I never said he lied either, I said there is a lot of opinion in the film, which is portrayed (not directly stated) as fact. The majority of people think they are looking at cold hard facts, and do not recognise the influence being taken over them.

Not to be rude, but I have to disagree with ya' on one point here farraowlesparrow. You said the majority come out thinking that everything they seen/heard was cold hard fact and I seriously doubt it.

Maybe some did. But how could anyone not go watch that movie objectively. I went in expecting a biased bush bash-a-thon and was some what suprised that there was more war/situation in the film than bush bashing. How could anyone not go watch this movie expecting bias, weeks and weeks before the films debut, the republican reps were on every tv channel denouncing the film claiming everything in it was false, this and that. Most not even had seen the film

I'd say its no different than watching the "o'reilly factor" or "scarborough country". Both of which play on a daily basis and claim to be "fair and balanced" when in reality aren't. Much like watching opionated news casters, or reading the opinion article in the paper, this film is to be watched open minded and objectively. Although I've heard some people, so furious, they would kill michael moore given the chance. I have to ask why? They would rather see the man dead in the street than allow him to freely express his views just like anyone at fox/cnn/msnbc/cbs/times/newyorker/washpost/whitehouse press room would. But he is wrong for doing so. I heard a brilliant quote on this board once.

"Why would you hold michael moore to a higher level of accountability than the president of the united states?"

He brings up good questions in the film, and if the Bush admin were as honest as they would like you to believe, these questions wouldn't even need to be asked, would they?

 

[Korgoth]

Yes, but he mixes facts with opinions. The way he portrays Bush isn't exactly neutral.

If you want me to take F 9/11 as a unbiased documentry, he should have made it as one.

I'd add, I don't believe moore ever claimed the film to be unbiased. I'm pretty sure the tongue n' cheek commercials for the film showing bush riding around in golf carts, playing golf, making odd comments etc. prove that.

 

[Farrowlesparrow]

Well, for staterrs not everyone is you. There are a lot of people who hadn't really heard much about the film and although, yes they didn't see it as hard facts, they still didn't realise the amount of opinion and distortion. Especially here in the UK where we curiously don't live in the US and don't have primary sources to a lot of the things mentioned.

As for those other films you mentioned, well I ahven't seen or in fact ehard of them so I couldn't comment.


I'm not defending the government with this on any moral grounds, but they always have secrets, no matter who is leader and saying Bush has been dishonest about things really doesn't make him any different from any other President.



Edit: If moore didn't intend the film to be unbiased, why do so many people quote and refer to it in such a manner?

 

[Mechagodzilla]

You can raise all sorts of questions about things that "make you think" and sound really nasty, and because it is sometimes difficult to propose an answer, its automaticlaly assumed that the worst case scenario is true.

I never said he lied either, I said there is a lot of opinion in the film, which is portrayed (not directly stated) as fact. The majority of people think they are looking at cold hard facts, and do not recognise the influence being taken over them.

It was pretty obvious to me what parts were opinions or jokes and which were actual facts. I guess I might have been somewhat Moore-jaded after seeing the dumb techniques used in BfC though. (He obviously learned something from the criticism he took there.) But, if you go into F9/11 and assume that Moore is 100% right or 100% wrong, well, you shouldn't be allowed to watch movies.

His best points were the less prominent opinions he presented too. Like his opinion that America is too afraid of terror. I totally agree there. "Be on the lookout for poison pens and remote-controled toys." and "Buy this office parachute incase your tower is the next target." were hilarious sequences.

 

[ShadowFox]

Best president = Teddy Roosevelt
Worst = Nixon, Grant, Bush

 

[Korgoth]

Well, for staterrs not everyone is you. There are a lot of people who hadn't really heard much about the film and although, yes they didn't see it as hard facts, they still didn't realise the amount of opinion and distortion. Especially here in the UK where we curiously don't live in the US and don't have primary sources to a lot of the things mentioned.

As for those other films you mentioned, well I ahven't seen or in fact ehard of them so I couldn't comment.


I'm not defending the government with this on any moral grounds, but they always have secrets, no matter who is leader and saying Bush has been dishonest about things really doesn't make him any different from any other President.



Edit: If moore didn't intend the film to be unbiased, why do so many people quote and refer to it in such a manner?

A lot of people quote the film becuase under the opinion, there is actual facts. If one were to quote the film saying that bush was lazy on terrorism pre 9/11 for instance, they would be correct. Before 9/11 bush never met with his counter terrorism chief richard clarke, they ignored warnings and reports of "osama bin laden determined to attack with in the US" (actual name of the report, quoted from the 9/11 commission) and they pretty much didn't do anything either way. Thats public knowledge as far as I know.

 

[CptStern]

Yes, but he mixes facts with opinions. The way he portrays Bush isn't exactly neutral.

If you want me to take F 9/11 as a unbiased documentry, he should have made it as one.

point out one critical anaylsis of any issue that isnt biased in some way ...you cant make a documentary without some bias ...take for example Ken Burns who made documentaries on the civil war, baseball, jazz etc many people accuse him of rewriting the history of jazz others say he was spot on ...you cant possibly explore every angle in a 2 hour docmentary. Anyways, you americans have far stronger critiscm from other more critical and notable figures: Noam Chomsky for instance; makes Moore look like an uber patriot (he's far more compelling but less accesible because he bogs down in minutiae of facts and figures)

Some of Moores accusations are so strong so inflammatory that if they were incorrect you'd bet his detractors would jump at the chance to discredit him ..why are they silent?

 

[blahblahblah]

I'd add, I don't believe moore ever claimed the film to be unbiased. I'm pretty sure the tongue n' cheek commercials for the film showing bush riding around in golf carts, playing golf, making odd comments etc. prove that.

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?messageDate=2004-09-06

The oscars were willing to nominate it for best documentary. However Moore declined in favor of

The only problem with my desire to get this movie in front of as many Americans as possible is that, should it air on TV, I will NOT be eligible to submit "Fahrenheit 9/11" for Academy Award consideration for Best Documentary. Academy rules forbid the airing of a documentary on television within nine months of its theatrical release (fiction films do not have the same restriction).

point out one critical anaylsis of any issue that isnt biased in some way ...you cant make a documentary without some bias ...take for example Ken Burns who made documentaries on the civil war, baseball, jazz etc many people accuse him of rewriting the history of jazz others say he was spot on ...you cant possibly explore every angle in a 2 hour docmentary. Anyways, you americans have far stronger critiscm from other more critical and notable figures: Noam Chomsky for instance; makes Moore look like an uber patriot (he's far more compelling but less accesible because he bogs down in minutiae of facts and figures)

Some of Moores accusations are so strong so inflammatory that if they were incorrect you'd bet his detractors would jump at the chance to discredit him ..why are they silent?

I'm not questioning the facts, I'm questioning the fact why Michael Moore felt it was neccessary to close this movie/documentary with Bushism. Atleast make an attempt at being non-partisan.

As for Ken Burns, his documentaries are more movie-like than documentary. I have contemplated on buying the Ken Burns History of Jazz, but I fully well know that I like it for its story telling abilities than for its absolute unbiased truth.

 

[Razor]

Wasn't Reagan clinically mad and mental, a guy that brought the whole Soviet military to full alert and almost annihilate everyone on two seperate occasions because of the stories he made up that he considered to be true?

 

[Farrowlesparrow]

Yeah...True. But still, people do quote it like the bible (Make all the silly remarks you want about that being fiction )

I think though that really...the "terrorists" in this case simply outsmarted us. We played right into their hands, by getting our revenge and that is now thankfully being realised but the damage is done. Warplanes have already been seen bombing the middle east and things have been set into motion that will be difficult to stop.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Yes, but he mixes facts with opinions.

Ironically, your personal objection to his mixing facts with opinions is an opinion based on facts. :O

The way he portrays Bush isn't exactly neutral.
If you want me to take F 9/11 as a unbiased documentry, he should have made it as one.

Just because it was anti-Bush doesn't mean it was bad.

If Moore expresses an opinion and people agree with him, so what?

Moore's movie can't be faulted just because you dislike the public reaction to it.

Really, the problem is the gullible people who believe everything in the movie was fact just because it was on a screen. Not the movie itself.

 

[blahblahblah]

Ironically, your personal objection to his mixing facts with opinions is an opinion based on facts. :O



Just because it was anti-Bush doesn't mean it was bad.

If Moore expresses an opinion and people agree with him, so what?

Moore's movie can't be faulted just because you dislike the public reaction to it.

Really, the problem is the gullible people who believe everything in the movie was fact just because it was on a screen. Not the movie itself.

Fine, lets get rid of all the morons and gullible people in this world. :E

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Fine, lets get rid of all the morons and gullible people in this world. :E

Agreed!

 

[Farrowlesparrow]

So...When are you guys moving out?

I've forgetten his name, but what about the president that came before FDR? What do you guys think of him? You know, the one into individualism, he was around during the depression. Its in my head, but I just can't say it....ahhh :O

Edit: Hoover? That doesn't sound right....hmmm..

 

[Mechagodzilla]

So...When are you guys moving out?

I've forgetten his name, but what about the president that came before FDR? What do you guys think of him? You know, the one into individualism, he was around during the depression. Its in my head, but I just can't say it....ahhh :O

Edit: Hoover? That doesn't sound right....hmmm..

I can't remeber the name, but I do know that everyone disliked him because they blamed him for the depression.

If no-one here mentioned him, he must not have been very great though. Especially is no-one can remember his name!

 

[Farrowlesparrow]

Yeah, I just remember him being slated as a bad president by most people, when in actual fact it seemed like his circumstances were a major contributing factor in his failures as president. At least, thats one view

I'm just trying to bring the topic back round to what it was meant to be

 

[Rico]

"A lot of people quote the film becuase under the opinion, there is actual facts. If one were to quote the film saying that bush was lazy on terrorism pre 9/11 for instance, they would be correct. Before 9/11 bush never met with his counter terrorism chief richard clarke, they ignored warnings and reports of "osama bin laden determined to attack with in the US" (actual name of the report, quoted from the 9/11 commission) and they pretty much didn't do anything either way. Thats public knowledge as far as I know."

This is somewhat funny because it falls under what I posted in one of these threads fairly recently. People blame the current president for failures of the past president. Not all "damage" a president does is immediate. A common example are presidents who print more money and inflate the economy... people may claim he's the best president ever "the economy is so good I can buy a house with my credit!" and then, 4 years later the price is paid when it goes into recession and the next president is blamed.

How much could Bush do before 9/11? He went into power as a weak weak president who didn't even win the popular vote, he had less than a year in power with democrats impeding his legislation. Clinton didn't do anything about terrorism and he knew about the problem (CIA and FBI had Osama in their watch list in the Clinton administration) but chose not to go into conflict in hopes of reelection (which he messed up with his scandal).

It's kind of funny, had 9/11 been avoided by Clinton Bush would have never gotten this much flak and he would have simply gone down in history as an average president nobody cares about.

 

[Korgoth]

Yes 4 years, sure.... Clinton was in for 8, explain that one.

And i've posted articles that explain what clintons admin tried to do with al-qaeda, and it wasn't until AFTER clinton left office and bush came in that the cia/fbi finally linked the cole bombing with al qaeda/bin laden. Therefore bush had the evidence, clinton did not. Neither of them did enough to prevent 9/11. NEITHER OF THEM.
So bush is an average president that no one cares about, then why does he deserve another term then? He obviously is making great leaps and bounds in economy/enviroment/healthcare/job growht, so why does he deserve it?

 

[Sgt_Shellback]

Yes 4 years, sure.... Clinton was in for 8, explain that one.

And i've posted articles that explain what clintons admin tried to do with al-qaeda, and it wasn't until AFTER clinton left office and bush came in that the cia/fbi finally linked the cole bombing with al qaeda/bin laden. Therefore bush had the evidence, clinton did not. Neither of them did enough to prevent 9/11. NEITHER OF THEM.
So bush is an average president that no one cares about, then why does he deserve another term then? He obviously is making great leaps and bounds in economy/enviroment/healthcare/job growht, so why does he deserve it?

So why did I fire a bunch of tomahawk missles into Afghanistan targeting Bin Laden when Clinton was President? Was Clinton just a cold blooded murderer or did he know Osama was an evil terrorist then?