I also like this one:



Source: http://hnn.us/articles/48916.html

[Edited on April 21, 2008 at 10:18 AM. Reason : source]

4/21/2008 10:05:53 AM

pretty funny.

4/21/2008 10:13:50 AM

HOLLAAAAAAA!

4/21/2008 10:41:42 AM

You can't rate a presidency until long after the term is done.

Lock this stupid thread.

[Edited on April 21, 2008 at 10:50 AM. Reason : >.<]

4/21/2008 10:50:18 AM

it says that all over the link's story

4/21/2008 10:58:49 AM

I would rate Bush pretty far down but i think worst ever is a little far.
I would rate Clinton easily above bush as lying about a blowjob is not quite as bad as lying about intel reports to justify a war.

presidents i consider worse.

Nixon- watergate scandal; beginnning the giant waste of $$ known as the war on drugs, etc
Harding- Corrupt as fuck
Buchanan- Allowed the N v S tension to reach boiling point prior till civil war
Grant- Fucked the south in the ass during reconstruction
Carter- Nice guy and a humanitarian but ineffective as a leader during a critical period both domestically and internationally

4/21/2008 12:31:14 PM

Quote :

"It is in no sense a scientific sample of historians. The participants are self-selected, although participation was open to all historians. Among those who responded are several of the nation’s most respected historians, including Pulitzer and Bancroft Prize winners. The second criticism that is often raised of historians making such assessments of a current president is that it is far too early. We do not yet know how the things that Mr. Bush has done will work out in the future. As the only respondent who classified the current presidency among the ten best noted, “Any judgment of his ‘success’ or lack thereof is premature in that the ultimate effects of his policies are not yet known.” True enough. But this historian went on to make his current evaluation, giving Bush “high marks for courage in his willingness to attack intractable problems in the Near East and to touch the Social Security ‘Third Rail.’ ”"

4/21/2008 1:04:35 PM