# What historical figure does George W. Bush remind you of?

What historical figure does George W. Bush remind you of, and why?

Tsu
Gold Member
I would have to say the Bush reminds me of George Armstrong Custer.

Why? The words 'not too smart' and 'major blunders' come to the forefront of my mind when I think of either of these two individuals.

Ulysses S. Grant

Neither of them ever heard of the word "subtlety."

Alexander the Great, they're both just finishing their daddys work... but thats about all they have in common

the great monkey lord of the zambian jungle

He will be an icon in his own right to me - a man who is both stupid and self-rightous because he thinks God sides with him. I think he should have done all of us a favour by remaining an alcholic.

Sorry for being so harsh and cutting but I am really angry with him.

Clausius2
Gold Member
I would say George W. Bush reminds me to his father. Both of them have been the worst USA's president I've ever known.

Viewed from Europe, Bill Clinton was the best of the last years.

He reminds me a little bit like Julius Caesar. Caesar seemed to be aware that people disliked him but was unable to gain their favor. In the end Caesar met an unfortanate end, perhaps that foreshadows something.

jimmy p
Gold Member
The main monkey in Planet of the Apes... it was real wasnt it?

klusener said:
the great monkey lord of the zambian jungle

oh sorry, i seem to have missed the why part...

During the reign of this particular monkey lord, he is supposed to have claimed that the next kingdom had weapons of mass bananas, but when they invaded the kingdom, there was none.... :surprised

Clausius2 said:
I would say George W. Bush reminds me to his father. Both of them have been the worst USA's president I've ever known.

Viewed from Europe, Bill Clinton was the best of the last years.

Yeah you don't know anything about US history then. Andrew Jackson and Ulysses S Grant were both worse. Grant remained an alcoholic, he enver quit, had an administration rife with corruption. jackson was one nasty SOB. Or Mckinley, another president who started a war with dubious basis.

As for Clinton being good,he was opposed by a republican congress and couldn't get anything done, of course he couldn't do damage.

Moonbear
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
franznietzsche said:
As for Clinton being good,he was opposed by a republican congress and couldn't get anything done, of course he couldn't do damage.

I consider it a good thing to have congress controlled by the opposite party of the president. Getting nothing done is what our founding fathers wanted, because they were suspicious of a central government having too much power. The idea is when the president and congress oppose one another, or when congress is too divided, only the most important and best written bills get passed into law, all the rest of the partisan stuff can't get enough votes or gets vetoed.

I can't say Bush reminds me of any one person in history. I just keep thinking of him as a teenager (no offense intended to the teens on this board). I just don't feel like he's ever matured out of that arrogant frat boy stage of life.

During the reign of this particular monkey lord, he is supposed to have claimed that the next kingdom had weapons of mass bananas, but when they invaded the kingdom, there was none....

hahahaha, weapons of mass bananas...

George Bush doesnt remind me of anyone. I guess part of the problem of being young is that I havent experienced all of the mud slinging and skewed facts so I dont know exactly how to take them.

bush reminds me of my father, he wants to be better than his father but really they are just the same, they get angry easy and they both use force, but that about it, my dad used force but it was for valid reason, not bush

but really bush reminds me of any tyrant

franznietzsche said:
Yeah you don't know anything about US history then. Andrew Jackson and Ulysses S Grant were both worse. Grant remained an alcoholic, he enver quit, had an administration rife with corruption. jackson was one nasty SOB. Or Mckinley, another president who started a war with dubious basis.

As for Clinton being good,he was opposed by a republican congress and couldn't get anything done, of course he couldn't do damage.
yet both Jackson and Grant are on american curency

Moonbear said:
I consider it a good thing to have congress controlled by the opposite party of the president. Getting nothing done is what our founding fathers wanted, because they were suspicious of a central government having too much power. The idea is when the president and congress oppose one another, or when congress is too divided, only the most important and best written bills get passed into law, all the rest of the partisan stuff can't get enough votes or gets vetoed.

I agree. But that doesn't mean Clinton was a good president. It means we were lucky enough to have eight years of gridlock. Not the same thing.

As forJackson and Grant beingon currency: Your point is?

Grant was a violent alcoholic, and corrupt. Andrew Jackson, essentially founder of the modern Democratic party, though the platform has evolved over the years, can be credited with the forcible mass relocation of the Cherokee tribe (IIRC) resulting in much loss of life. He set the precedent of forcing antive people's out of the way that ledto the later Indian "Wars" and massacres.

Of course they both weren't complete failures, Grant was the only Union general ever able to defeat Lee on southern soil. That said the 2:1 numerical advantageand superior weaponry with bluntforce assaults didn't exactly give him any opportunity to lose, but all his predecessors managed to. As for Jackson, also a war hero, War of 1812 (IIRC, not completly sure).

sorry i fail to specify a point, i was merely asking if they were such bad presidents why would they be on the curency, they must of done something right

so yu have answered my question thanks(well in part)

Malcom X, because he got high off of nutmeg in prison.

G.Bush reminds me of A.Hitler.

George W. Bush always looks as though his face were a mask - I can't quite decide of which character, though.

Alright, I'm sick of this repeated misinformation and ignorance.

franznietzsche said:
Grant was a violent alcoholic, and corrupt.

There is no evidence whatsoever that Grant was a violent alcoholic. That is either pulled out of your rear end or taken from a source who pulled it out of his rear end. On occasions during his civilian life, at times during the Mexican war, and on very rare occasions during lulls in fighting during the Civil War, Grant got drunk. This does not distinguish him from most other officers. But there is absolutely zero evidence that he got drunk during his presidency or that his drinking affected his generalship in any way.

There is also no evidence that he was corrupt, either as a general or as a president. None of the corruption claims against his adminstration (and there were also charges of a corrupt Congress, both parties included) touched him personally. A lot of those claims were nothing more than partisan attacks. Some of the claims were justified. But they have been taken out of context by people who love to bash Grant. The general rule of US politics is: the bigger the government, the bigger the corruption. The era of Grant's presidency saw a huge growth in the size of the Federal government. I could go on about Reconstruction politics and the concept of political patronage in the 19th century, but instead I'll refer you to references at the end of this post.

That said the 2:1 numerical advantageand superior weaponry with bluntforce assaults didn't exactly give him any opportunity to lose...

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Grant was trying to defeat the Confederacy. To do that, he had to attack them on their turf. The attacker is always at a disadvantage. Prior to the US civil war, the general consensus was that you needed a 3:1 numerical advantage as an attacker (all other things being equal) to have a good chance of succeeding. During the US civil war, improvements in weapon technology and defensive tactics swung the advantage to the defender even more. Yet Grant won the war, thanks to his superior strategic and vastly superior operational capabilities.

Here's some good books on Grant:

"Grant" by Jean Edward Smith
"President Grant Reconsidered" by Frank Scaturro

Grant also wrote one of the best personal memoirs by any US (and world) historical figure:

"Personal Memoirs: Ulysses S. Grant" by Ulysses S. Grant

Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Phew ! I grew up reading a book called Heroes and Heroines (as a kid), and one of the Heroes in that compilation was Grant !

cragwolf said:
Alright, I'm sick of this repeated misinformation and ignorance.

There is no evidence whatsoever that Grant was a violent alcoholic. That is either pulled out of your rear end or taken from a source who pulled it out of his rear end. On occasions during his civilian life, at times during the Mexican war, and on very rare occasions during lulls in fighting during the Civil War, Grant got drunk. This does not distinguish him from most other officers. But there is absolutely zero evidence that he got drunk during his presidency or that his drinking affected his generalship in any way.

There is also no evidence that he was corrupt, either as a general or as a president. None of the corruption claims against his adminstration (and there were also charges of a corrupt Congress, both parties included) touched him personally. A lot of those claims were nothing more than partisan attacks. Some of the claims were justified. But they have been taken out of context by people who love to bash Grant. The general rule of US politics is: the bigger the government, the bigger the corruption. The era of Grant's presidency saw a huge growth in the size of the Federal government. I could go on about Reconstruction politics and the concept of political patronage in the 19th century, but instead I'll refer you to references at the end of this post.

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Grant was trying to defeat the Confederacy. To do that, he had to attack them on their turf. The attacker is always at a disadvantage. Prior to the US civil war, the general consensus was that you needed a 3:1 numerical advantage as an attacker (all other things being equal) to have a good chance of succeeding. During the US civil war, improvements in weapon technology and defensive tactics swung the advantage to the defender even more. Yet Grant won the war, thanks to his superior strategic and vastly superior operational capabilities.

Here's some good books on Grant:

"Grant" by Jean Edward Smith
"President Grant Reconsidered" by Frank Scaturro

Grant also wrote one of the best personal memoirs by any US (and world) historical figure:

"Personal Memoirs: Ulysses S. Grant" by Ulysses S. Grant

Normally i would make a long elaborate reply explaining my points, clarifying on my inevitably murky wording, and checking my previous statement more rigourosly forfactual errors(i usually write off the top of my head and only look for reference when i am contested).

But I am running on two hours of sleep and a double shot of espresso. I've got midterms, an english paper,a depressed girlfriend who attempted suicide few days ago all of which take precedence over you. In short: I don't care i've gotmore important things to handle right now (when you inevitably ask why i'm even posting, its because the rest of the world is asleep, she's 250 miles away, and i don't know what i can do for her. God i wish i had a car to drive there.) I'm going to jsut stop talking now.

tumor said:
G.Bush reminds me of A.Hitler.
manzaloros said:
Malcom X
i_wish_i_was_smart said:
but really bush reminds me of any tyrant
Dooga Blackrazor said:
In the end Caesar met an unfortanate end, perhaps that foreshadows something.
Clausius2 said:
I would say George W. Bush reminds me to his father. Both of them have been the worst USA's president I've ever known.
Polly said:
a man who is both stupid and self-rightous
Smurf said:
Alexander the Great, they're both just finishing their daddys work
Tsunami said:
I would have to say the Bush reminds me of George Armstrong Custer.

Why? The words 'not too smart' and 'major blunders' come to the forefront of my mind
The main monkey in Planet of the Apes...

Wow! I'm getting the impression physicists have something against Bush...