How are you voting?

I think it's pretty apparent who I'm voting for. It's very simple too as K_A pointed out, McCain = Bush. Bush = worst president in history, this is an easy case AGAINST McCain. But even more-so, I like Obama, and am Pro-Obama rather than just Anti-McCain.

I don't think Bush = The worst president in history. People including you are just tired of him. Remember there's other presidents that have messed up their post worst than the current one has (Clinton, Nixon?). It's apparent by the poll that no one on the forum would like McCain to win.

How in the hell can you possibly say that Clinton messed up more than Bush? I don't care which side of the fence you're on, I just cannot see where you could get that logic. Please explain it to me.

Taken from a random wiki article

Rasmussen Reports poll
A Rasmussen Reports poll taken June 13–24 of 2007 asked 1,000 randomly selected adults to rate America's presidents. Six presidents were rated favorably by at least 80% of respondents. They were George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and John F. Kennedy. Twenty presidents were viewed favorably by at least 50% of respondents.

Only two presidents were viewed unfavorably by at least 50% of respondents. They were Richard Nixon and George W. Bush, the current president. [11]

Favorably-viewed Presidents

George Washington (94% favorable)
Abraham Lincoln (92% favorable)
Thomas Jefferson (89% favorable)
Theodore Roosevelt (84% favorable)
Franklin D. Roosevelt (81% favorable)
John F. Kennedy (80% favorable)
John Adams (74% favorable)
James Madison (73% favorable)
Ronald Reagan (72% favorable)
Dwight Eisenhower (72% favorable)
Harry Truman (70% favorable)
Andrew Jackson (69% favorable)
Gerald Ford (62% favorable)
John Quincy Adams (59% favorable)
Ulysses S. Grant (58% favorable)
Jimmy Carter (57% favorable)
William Taft (57% favorable)
George H.W. Bush (57% favorable)
Woodrow Wilson (56% favorable)
Bill Clinton (55% favorable)

Unfavorably-viewed Presidents

Richard Nixon (60% unfavorable)
George W. Bush – the current president (59% unfavorable)

And for those who would love to get in the sack with bush, here is an article for you - this way i dont seem like i looked up one paper

WORST PRESIDENT IN HISTORY
Kalona News ^ | Feb 15, 2004 | Ethel Bontrager

Posted on Wednesday, March 03, 2004 2:45:51 PM by 11th_VA

The following appeared in the Durham, N.C., local paper as a letter to the editor on Feb. 15, 2004.

Liberals claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war. They complain about his prosecution of it. One liberal recently claimed Bush was the worst president in U.S. history. Let's clear up one point: We didn't start the war on terror. Try to remember, it was started by terrorists BEFORE 9/11!

Let's look at the "worst" president and mismanagement claims:

FDR led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.

Truman finished that war and started one in Korea. North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,333 per year.

John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5800 per year.

Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent. Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.

In the two years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled Al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Lybia, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people. We lost 600 soldiers, an average of 300 a year. Bush did all this abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at home.

Worst president in history? Think about it!

Submitted by Ethel Bontrager





What is the moral of this story? Lemme tell you, the moral is that irregardless of what one man did, there will always be someone who supports it and someone who is against it. If GWB called an end to this war right now, and had every single soldier brought home, there would be those for it and against it, if he stayed in combat same problem. People will be telling him he is an idiot for staying and an idiot for leaving. It is a damned if you do and damned if you dont situation. For any of us to declare that one president is 'horrid' to another is foul play, and you lack the professional title to be making such claims.

That article was written in 2004. That 600 soldier death toll is now 4,155. This is just US soldiers alone, not Iraqi forces, Iraqi citizens, or soldiers from other countries. 4,155 US deaths.

http://icasualties.org/oif/

We have also killed over 1,000,000 civilians/military in Iraq. One Million people dead, for no reason. That's, horrendous. That's Stalin/Hitler/Mousillini numbers.

We have also killed over 1,000,000 civilians/military in Iraq. One Million people dead, for no reason. That's, horrendous. That's Stalin/Hitler/Mousillini numbers.

Are you sure about that? I've heard of numbers around 100K, but never a million.

Well, one million "casualties" which isn't necessairily defined as Deaths, just inujured/deaths. I can't seem to actually find a website where I read this at, but I do agree the death total is probably around 100,000 . . .

staggering numbers, but - i just wanted to pull two threads one for bush and one against.

That list is completely bogus...

Favorably-viewed Presidents George Washington (94% favorable) Abraham Lincoln (92% favorable) Thomas Jefferson (89% favorable) Theodore Roosevelt (84% favorable) Franklin D. Roosevelt (81% favorable) John F. Kennedy (80% favorable) John Adams (74% favorable) James Madison (73% favorable) Ronald Reagan (72% favorable) Dwight Eisenhower (72% favorable) Harry Truman (70% favorable) Andrew Jackson (69% favorable) Gerald Ford (62% favorable) John Quincy Adams (59% favorable) Ulysses S. Grant (58% favorable) Jimmy Carter (57% favorable) William Taft (57% favorable) George H.W. Bush (57% favorable) Woodrow Wilson (56% favorable) Bill Clinton (55% favorable)

You cannot rate a president that you were not alive during their terms. The only reason people voted favorably for those people, besides the fact that they were on a list, is because in school you were never told about their negative feats, only their positive ones. EVERY President that we have had has done something that the rest of America completely disagrees with, or so I feel. The difference with most every other president, is the negative thing was heavily outweighed by the positive thing which recieved so much praise, the negative thing became overlooked, or was viewed in a positive light.

I will use Abraham Lincoln as an example. He freed the slaves! Many Americans were pissed. Sure they are people, but it's labor that we didn't have to pay for. So you feed them a few times a week, and need to give them shelter. YOU REAP 100% OF THE BENEFITS OF YOUR CROPS! Now, don't think I believe we should still have slaves, I am glad we don't, because I would be one for sure (disregarding color). But nowadays, it is viewed by everyone, except racists, as one of the best things that happened to America.

Also, I can almost guarantee the reason Clinton was voted least favorable is because they all feel that getting head is wrong. They would have never known, if someone hadn't told them. What he does behind closed doors is his business that he can handle with his wife and mistress. Sometimes people think you are the worst person because of your personal life, even if the job you are doing is beyond what has been done in a long time, and it sucks that people feel the need to judge you on your personal life, not how well you handle your job.

eh, i already stated all that in my post - i think alot of you read the first 2 lines and said omg what an idiot using stupid statistics...

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/...eds/index.html

Biden has just been accused of "sinking to a new low" when he took a jab at VP canidate Palin. He said that people with special needs children should be supporting stem-cell research.

Obama's campaign denied he was taking a jab at Palin
McCain's campaign said it is the sign of a desperate campaign

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/...eds/index.html Biden has just been accused of "sinking to a new low" when he took a jab at VP canidate Palin. He said that people with special needs children should be supporting stem-cell research. Obama's campaign denied he was taking a jab at Palin McCain's campaign said it is the sign of a desperate campaign

He wasn't even taking a jab at Palin, just saying in general they have an added need to want research that could potentially help out their childred, and end this dumb uneducated bible-thumping policies we have in place currently.