Farewell to The Worst President in History

Dec 30 2008 Published by under Politics

tags: , , , ,

Image: John Sherffius, 28 December 2008 [larger view].

Read the fine print, if you can (and you really aren't expected to be able to read it), then tell me what you think of the current resident of the White House.

17 responses so far

  • Mike says:

    In a pig's eye.
    It's tough for me to read the fine print but I can guess at most of it. Condoloser Rice spouting that we would be thanking shrub soon was an added insult. Good riddance.

  • Gindy says:

    Bush - the most ridiculous ass hat in the history of American politics.

  • Muse142 says:

    FINALLY! I've been trapped in a house with my significant other's conservative and Republican parents, and have had little room for expression of my True Feelings.
    Ok, so here goes:
    *throws a shoe in the general direction of the White House*
    This is a goodbye kiss, you dog!

  • RecessionCone says:

    Obviously, you can say anything you want on your blog. But purely subjective partisan ranting isn't why I came here. More science please!

  • Mike says:

    On the scientific side of why I can't wait for the bastard to be gone:
    Stem Cell Research
    No Child Left Behind
    Not even an attempt at getting healthcare for all
    Forcing NASA scientists to lie/change their reports
    Global warming denialism
    Shrub condoning ID rather than defending evolution
    That's all I could think of in 2 minutes. I'm sure I missed some as the man's a moron without a lick of scientific understanding.

  • GoingLikeSixty says:

    I fart in your general direction.

  • Raymond Minton says:

    It was only your use of the word "president" that I objected to. Because the nameless evil's presence in the whitehouse was legally dubious, the term "pretendadent" is the one I favor. Oh, and Kindalies Alot should ask the nearly 3000 victims of 911 how "safe" Bush kept us!

  • Pierce R. Butler says:

    Don't forget the "abortion causes breast cancer/mental breakdown/drug dependency/cooties" lies, the innumerable waterings-down of endangered species and pollution reports, the overall tone of anti-intellectualism and bragging about having been a "C" student, and the general disregard of facts and hostility toward logic and consistency.
    And that's just another two minutes' worth...

  • The Mad LOLScientist, FCD says:

    It's the stupid economy, stupid! :-PPPPPPPPP

  • Brett Dunbar says:

    At least one of the claims in the footnote is factually false. He obeyed the ABM treaty; the US scrupulously followed the procedure for withdrawing from the treaty set out in the treaty itself. You may consider withdrawing a bad decision but you cannot argue that it was not an action the US was entitled to take under the terms of the treaty.

  • john andrews says:

    Many of you simply need to grow up.
    He did a superb job with 911, national defense and ultimately pursued the policies that won the war in Iraq. I don't like his social policies. Lay the economy at the feet of the guilty: Barney Franks, Chris Dodd et al.
    Your unwillingness to say a kind word about a good man that faced a tough presidency says more about you than him.

  • 911, hurricane katrina, runaway oil prices, and the worldwide economic collapse all happened on the bush administration's watch therefore it's ultimately bush's fault. worse, i have no idea why we invaded iraq, nor do i have any idea what "winning" the war in iraq entails since we are still there, and our soldiers are still dying and they are still killing innocent civilians. this long legacy of failure and suffering for millions of people is nothing to be proud of.

  • Pierce R. Butler says:

    john andrews: your willingness to gush over the "superb job" of a lying, uneducated, fanatical and corrupt fool says too much about you and your sources of (dis)information.

    Not only is the US losing in Afghanistan, but it lost Iraq. Where I come from when you have to pay your enemies to stop shooting at you, you lost the war. Capice?
    -- Ian Welsh

  • Bob O'H says:

    Why am I about to do this? Anyway...
    I have some sympathy for Bush on 911. It was such a big event that it's natural to go through and find anything that could have been done differently. We know he had warnings, but he must get them all the time for different things. I think it's natural to be over-critical.
    I don't think the oil prices were his fault: development in places like China and India increased demand. Of course, having greater output from Iraq would have helped. Arguments that the US should be pushing energy efficiency and reduced reliance on oil are also true, but Bush isn't the first president to not take these seriously.
    Now that just leaves everything else: invading Iraq, hurricane Katrina, ballsing up the peace in Iraq, economic collapse (OK, he had a lot of help there, and his response was better than McCain's), Guantanamo Bay, etc. etc. And, quite simply, never appearing to be competent. One simply couldn't have faith in his decisions, in the way that one could with Blair (even if you thought Blair was wrong, at least you knew he'd thought about it).

  • Stem Cell Research -- Point out the section of the US Constitution that authorizes the US government to use tax dollars for Stem Cell Research.
    No Child Left Behind -- That's what happens when you let Teddy do anything.
    Not even an attempt at getting healthcare for all -- See above, then pay attention to the BILLIONS he spent setting up clinics all over the country.
    Forcing NASA scientists to lie/change their reports -- Do you believe every lie you read?
    Global warming denialism -- Along with over 650 scientists.
    Shrub condoning ID rather than defending evolution -- Neither of which can be proved.

  • Bob O'H says:

    Excuse me, is this the right place for the "Do Not Feed the Troll" sign?

  • U.S. Common Sense says:

    Interesting exchanges, much of which is based upon emotion rather than substance. For the most part, Douglas Ragan is correct. Much of the issues expressed (stem cells, healthcare, etc) are not the responsibility of the federal government.
    Just scrolling through some of the items listed on the image above, SCHIP is the first one that pops out at me. The changes made to SCHIP to provide coverage for adult children (those over the age of 18) was the primary reason that it was vetoed. The Congress wanted the expansion of SCHIP to include adult children to take the burden off of the expansions individual states made to the program. Rather than to scale back the additional programs on the state levels (and risk political blow back), the Congress chose to add the burden to the national level, in effect doubling the price of the program. While President Bush was in favor of a compromise, one that included removing the provision that allowed non-U.S. citizens to benefit from the program, a revision was never passed. However, an 18 month extension to the existing program (which is set to expire in April 2009) was passed and approved by President Bush.
    That is just a sample of how when you look at a complex situation more closely, it isn't as cookie-cutter as some people wish to make it. And again, SCHIP is an example of a function that was not intended to be provided by the federal government, but it exists anyway.
    Grrl, I might work up a weeks worth of posts on this one graphic. Thanks for giving me something to consider. Keep up the good work.