More on the worst president ... - Page 2

Dankdude · #11 05-08-2008, 05:10 PM

Let's Take the Unemplyment rate year to year:
The United States Unemployment Rate By Year

1948 3.75 Truman
1949 6.05
1950 5.21
1951 3.28
1952 3.03
1953 2.92 Eisenhower
1954 5.59
1955 4.37
1956 4.12
1957 4.30
1958 6.84
1959 5.45
1960 5.54
1961 6.69 Kennedy
1962 5.57
1963 5.64 Johnson
1964 5.16
1965 4.51
1966 3.79
1967 3.84
1968 3.56
1969 3.49 Nixon
1970 4.98
1971 5.95
1972 5.60
1973 4.86
1974 5.64 Ford
1975 8.48
1976 7.70
1977 7.05 Carter
1978 6.07
1979 5.85
1980 7.18
1981 7.62 Reagan
1982 9.71
1983 9.60
1984 7.51
1985 7.19
1986 7.00
1987 6.18
1988 5.49
1989 5.26 Bush, G.H.W.
1990 5.62
1991 6.85
1992 7.49
1993 6.91 Clinton
1994 6.10
1995 5.59
1996 5.41
1997 4.94
1998 4.50
1999 4.22
2000 3.97
2001 4.76 Bush, G.W.
2002 5.78
2003 5.99
2004 5.53
2005 5.08
2006 4.63
2007 4.61

Reagan's was Higher.

Now Inflation Rates:

1948 7.74 Truman
1949 -0.95
1950 1.09
1951 7.88
1952 2.29
1953 0.82 Eisenhower
1954 0.32
1955 -0.28
1956 1.52
1957 3.34
1958 2.73
1959 1.01
1960 1.46
1961 1.07 Kennedy
1962 1.20
1963 1.24 Johnson
1964 1.28
1965 1.59
1966 3.01
1967 2.78
1968 4.27
1969 5.46 Nixon
1970 5.84
1971 4.30
1972 3.27
1973 6.16
1974 11.03 Ford
1975 9.20
1976 5.75
1977 6.50 Carter
1978 7.62
1979 11.22
1980 13.58
1981 10.35 Reagan
1982 6.16
1983 3.22
1984 4.30
1985 3.55
1986 1.91
1987 3.66
1988 4.08
1989 4.83 Bush, G.H.W.
1990 5.39
1991 4.25
1992 3.03
1993 2.96 Clinton
1994 2.61
1995 2.81
1996 2.93
1997 2.34
1998 1.55
1999 2.19
2000 3.38
2001 2.83 Bush, G.W.
2002 1.59
2003 2.27
2004 2.68
2005 3.39
2006 3.24
2007 2.85

Wordz · #12 05-08-2008, 09:07 PM

At the end of 1946, 1,269,000 Arabs and 608,000 Jews resided within the borders of Mandate Palestine. Jews had acquired by purchase 6 to 8 percent of the total land area of Palestine amounting to about 20 percent of the arable land.

On November 29, 1947, the UN General Assembly voted to partition Palestine into two states, one Jewish and the other Arab. The UN partition plan divided the country in such a way that each state would have a majority of its own population, although some Jewish settlements would fall within the proposed Palestinian state and many Palestinians would become part of the proposed Jewish state. The territory designated to the Jewish state would be slightly larger than the Palestinian state (56 percent and 43 percent of Palestine, respectively)

sounds fair to me

natrone23 · #13 05-08-2008, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by may

They didn't steal anything it was their country along with the arabs that lived there when arabs from other contrys planed to come in to kill all of the jews some arabs left on their own thanking to come back when all the jews were dead to take over their property some were forced to leave by other arabs, some left from fear of being killed by the arabs when they came in laying waste to everthing. Some stayed and lived well in a country where they can vote. Although terrorists do rain rockets down on them and bring in bombs to kill.

Palestine is part of the countrys around israel, the arabs that left were labeled as palestinians kept pened up and added to by terrorists leaders, any arab who wanted to could join this group and at least get welfare and more if they or their kids would fight. Many arabs who wanted to join the jihad became palestinians, and over time this small group of captive palestinians has grown. The arabs plan has worked well, Hell even with all the oil money they have gotten the world to pay for these pets kept by the arabs for the destruction of israel.

You really just don't know anything about it do you?

Why dont they absorb the arabs into Israel and be ONE state solution, If they want the land then they can have it. Now Israel is a DEMOCRATIC state why don't they let them vote in a greater Israel that encomasses Judea and samaria, and cannan. Do you support democracy or do you support apartheid?

ViRedd · #14 05-09-2008, 08:16 AM

"Why dont they absorb the arabs into Israel and be ONE state solution, If they want the land then they can have it. Now Israel is a DEMOCRATIC state why don't they let them vote in a greater Israel that encomasses Judea and samaria, and cannan. Do you support democracy or do you support apartheid?"

And that's really the question, isn't it? Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East. There ARE Arab communities living peacefully in Israel and enjoying a good standard of living as well.

As for Med's comments: What if there was a faction in Mexico, supported by Mexico's elected government, who were lobbing missles into downtown San Diego? Would we retaliate 100 times over?

Vi

may · #15 05-09-2008, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by natrone23

Why dont they absorb the arabs into Israel and be ONE state solution,

Sounds dumb to me. Israelis might as well just slit their own throats. Why should Israel do something so stupid as that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by natrone23

If they want the land then they can have it.

Very big of you to give away land that is not yours to give. what gives you the right?

Quote:

Originally Posted by natrone23

Now Israel is a DEMOCRATIC state why don't they let them vote in a greater Israel that encomasses Judea and samaria, and cannan.

Why should they? Why shouldn't they raze a 20 mile zone outside of the israelis border and kill any who enter and drop a few clusterbombs on any point where israelis are attacted from?

Quote:

Originally Posted by natroan23

Do you support democracy or do you support apartheid?

How do you come up with apartheid?

kronicsmurf · #16 05-09-2008, 11:33 AM

Wait i thought you meant bush

i was never a carter fan but bush has him beat as the worst president

ZenMaster · #17 05-09-2008, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kronicsmurf

Wait i thought you meant bush

i was never a carter fan but bush has him beat as the worst president

Really? How? The evidence against Carter is staggering, and because most liberals have no backup or evidence rather than their imagination please tell me how Bush is worse than Carter. (Facts please, not bullshit)

Dankdude · #18 05-09-2008, 12:26 PM

Here you go Zen

Worst. President. Ever?

By: Steve Benen on Friday, April 4th, 2008 at 5:35 AM - PDT

The History News Network (HNN) conducted an unscientific poll of professional historians to compare their sense of George W. Bush’s presidency to that of contemporary public opinion. The poll’s flaws notwithstanding, Bush didn't do very well

In an informal survey of 109 professional historians conducted over a three-week period through the History News Network, 98.2 percent assessed the presidency of Mr. Bush to be a failure while 1.8 percent classified it as a success.

Asked to rank the presidency of George W. Bush in comparison to those of the other 41 American presidents, more than 61 percent of the historians concluded that the current presidency is the worst in the nation’s history. Another 35 percent of the historians surveyed rated the Bush presidency in the 31st to 41st category, while only four of the 109 respondents ranked the current presidency as even among the top two-thirds of American administrations.

At least two of those who ranked the current president in the 31-41 ranking made it clear that they placed him next-to-last, with only James Buchanan, in their view, being worse. “He is easily one of the 10-worst of all time and—if the magnitude of the challenges and opportunities matter—then probably in the bottom five, alongside Buchanan, Johnson, Fillmore, and Pierce,” wrote another historian.

Bush probably would have done even worse, but some historians thought it best to wait for hindsight. One told HNN, “It is a bit too early to judge whether Bush’s presidency is the worst ever, though it certainly has a shot to take the title. Without a doubt, it is among the worst.”

ZenMaster · #19 05-09-2008, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dankdude

Here you go Zen

Worst. President. Ever?

By: Steve Benen on Friday, April 4th, 2008 at 5:35 AM - PDT

The History News Network (HNN) conducted an unscientific poll of professional historians to compare their sense of George W. Bush’s presidency to that of contemporary public opinion. The poll’s flaws notwithstanding, Bush didn't do very well

In an informal survey of 109 professional historians conducted over a three-week period through the History News Network, 98.2 percent assessed the presidency of Mr. Bush to be a failure while 1.8 percent classified it as a success.

Asked to rank the presidency of George W. Bush in comparison to those of the other 41 American presidents, more than 61 percent of the historians concluded that the current presidency is the worst in the nation’s history. Another 35 percent of the historians surveyed rated the Bush presidency in the 31st to 41st category, while only four of the 109 respondents ranked the current presidency as even among the top two-thirds of American administrations.

At least two of those who ranked the current president in the 31-41 ranking made it clear that they placed him next-to-last, with only James Buchanan, in their view, being worse. “He is easily one of the 10-worst of all time and—if the magnitude of the challenges and opportunities matter—then probably in the bottom five, alongside Buchanan, Johnson, Fillmore, and Pierce,” wrote another historian.

Bush probably would have done even worse, but some historians thought it best to wait for hindsight. One told HNN, “It is a bit too early to judge whether Bush’s presidency is the worst ever, though it certainly has a shot to take the title. Without a doubt, it is among the worst.”

Thats nice, but that doesn't answer my question, and if I could I would call out those alleged historians as well. They are professionals, so they must know what they are talking about right? Please.

How? Why? I want to know. (Facts please not bullshit)

*Edit* Its not letting me go to any of those links...

Dankdude · #20 05-09-2008, 12:33 PM

I have no problem going to the links