Your program uses an incorrect path to determine where the character sets are stored (which is typically the share/mysql/charsets or share/charsets directory under the MySQL installation directory). This can be fixed by using the --character-sets-dir option when you run the program in question. For example, to specify a directory to be used by MySQL client programs, list it in the [client] group of your option file. The examples given here show what the setting might look like for Unix or Windows, respectively:

They both failed pretty miserably at the Presidency. Carter could not figure out foreign policy and had semi-socialist leanings and still does.

Ford always wanted to be popular among the entire nation and lost his identity as a conservative in the process.

For that matter, what about George Bush I. He thinks its important enough to go into Iraq but not important enough to finish the job so his son has to do it.

I really think that Carter will go down in history as the worst President in the last century.

Nixon was the worst by far. The guy basically got fired from the job. Although Bush is unpopular, he still has his job.

Although Bush is currently viewed as the guy who started a war and eroded our civil liberties, I think his presidency and the acts taken during that presidency will always be viewed in light of 9/11. I think this mitigates some of the criticism that would have otherwise come had he just been acting on his own.

Since he was impeached by the house of representatives.

However I will vote for Jimmy Carter. He managed to convince Americans that we were losers. Thank God for Ronald Reagan!

Nixon voluntarily participated in illegal activities intended to squash democracy and used his position as Pres to justify doing such. Bill used his position to get a BJer and when he got caught lied about it.

I agree that I dislike Nixon more.

(no message)

And conclude that we and our values are all f'd up, and although Bush reflects that, he is acting within the value system that we allow to remain in place and in pursuit of the things that we want as Americans.

One approach, and the one that most will likely adopt, is to pin this all on Bush. Another is to take a look at ourselves and see what we have become. Bush's presidency is one of the few chances we have to see the operation of the machine without the smoke and mirrors. And when we look at that machine, we, as Americans, have to reconcile our romantic notions of America with the actions America really takes.

If I recall, a high percentage of the population supported invasion of Iraq back after 9/11. Also a large number of people who are now anti-Bush continue to drive two vehicles, at least one of which is an SUV, live in large homes far from their place of work, and want to drive 2,000 miles on their summer vacation. Bush isn't making people live that lifestyle. His actions are in pursuit of the things that will allow people to continue to live that lifestyle.

On reflection 50 years from now, I think, and hope, people recognize this. Once they do, Bush won't be seen as a monster so much as a representative of America at the dawn of the new millenium.

just look at what he said he wanted to accomplish and compare it to what was actual.

Sure, his idiocy may have exposed, to the greater majority, the double speak we have been able to set aside for the dreamy image of ourselves, but it's not like that just now came to the fore of the American conscience. Yes we need to look at ourselves as a nation, but platitudes for a failed regime won't help.

This solipsistic picture you paint was promoted by this gov't long after the truth in the economy was obvious; And 9/11 vis-a-vis Iraq was debunked long before the invasion.

The greater majority of the population was listening to an agenda filled with lies by this gov't. The question is "is Bush America's worst President?", not, are most Americans stupid and gullible and learn everything they need to know through a TV advertisement.

My original point was that he'll be judged by his actions following 9/11. Things like offenses to civil liberties and the war will be evaulated on those grounds. Things like Katrina, while presently an embarassment, won't be remembered at all or will be remembered for the disaster they caused and not the inept response of the government. Thus, you have the war and the "battle on the home front." Neither of those will be viewed as a substantial negative.

My second point is that he is also representative of our current culture and he will be viewed historically as such. You can't judge the president outside of the context in which he rules. Although many dislike him right now, you can argue that he was pursuing the will of the people in the war and the protectionist strategies.

Why not include his less than feckless leadership prior to 9/11. I'd say it only helped grease the rails for an attack on US soil.

I say he hasn't done anything well or right in his full 7 1/2 years and that we'd have been better off with a hand puppet guiding our country.

There is nothing in his terms that can be said was presidential, inspired, good, or even poor. He has taken this country into the toilet.

Name one thing as president he was able to do that was positive and explain the positive of it.

What has he done that was so bad?
Iraq, Afghanistan, broken the national economy, pilfered the treasury for personal gain, foreign affairs, distanced America from it's Ally's, just to name some.

You can't possibly pin that on Bush, not in a million years.

And why I shouldn't say Bush and his hands off policy of anything gov't didn't help embolden the terrorists.

Nothing can exempt Bush's responsibility for 9-11. He's the Commander in chief. The attack happened on his watch.

In contrast, Clinton as Commander in Chief thwarted planned al-qaeda attacks on American soil.

Like most things in his presidency, Clinton succeeded where Bush has failed.


Link: REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT AT THE U.S. COAST GUARD ACADEMY

read Lady's response. Are you sure you graduated from ND in 81? It sure doesn't seem that way.

Except the '93 WTC bombing, the USS Cole attack, and the terrorist attack of a USAF base in Saudi Arabia. A lack of any real response in all of these incidents only emboldened the terrorists.

Link: Khobar Bombing

I just read your post from the Wall Street Journal. Great read and an obvious reason why I find governments repulsive. The affairs and workings are so tightly wound in image and "save face" I'm surprised this country hadn't been beset with other aggression and killings before the first world trade center bombings and in between.

Clinton was not the great president so many want him to have been and I fear Hillary
will inaugurate more of the same should she be the nomination. If she does get elected to the White House, I pray her feminine side will stop her from being another Margaret Thatcher or worse.

A couple of one term administrations would compete for the title of worst. Harding would be down there, as well as Van Buren. Carter and Nixon might be considered as well.

But for top to bottom ineptitude, Bush will be hard to beat. His economics sucked, foreign policy, social policies, etc, were all various levels of disastrous. He ran up more debt than any other president, and unlike Reagan, he didn't have an arms race to justify it. His inability to process new information and act on it will be the stuff of legends for years to come. He called himself the MBA president, and then preceded to manage the Executive branch in a manner that a first year biz student would recognize as incompetent. He not only insulated himself from new ideas and information, he was actively hostile to them. His concept of governance was derived from the social structure of termite mounds. The legislative and judicial branches were things to be ignored and gamed, not an integral part of the constitutional framework. He politicized parts of government that were supposed to be bipartisan, most notably Justice. He utterly failed to live up to conservative ideals is just about every way. He increased the size and intrusiveness of government, no fiscal responsibility, insane foreign policy, mingling religion and government. The only conservative thing he did was pretend that week old clumps of cells were fully formed human beings.

The thing that pissed me off most was his amazing ability to look at a government position, and say to himself "who is the absolute worst person for this job?". You expect a certain amount of patronage in any government, but in appropriate areas. The ambassador to Belgium will probably be a guy who donated a lot of money to the Republican Party. That's fine. But not for vital positions. FEMA should not have been run by a horse inspector. Any horse inspector. My job involves oversight of gambling at animal-based racetrack (horses, greyhounds, etc). I have met horse inspectors all over the country, some of them good, some of them jerks. Not a one of them I would nominate for a major federal department. When a position would come up to oversee compliance with environmental regulations, or mining safety regulations, Bush would nominate someone who had spent their entire professional life fighting those regulations. When Bush needed a Dr to take over the office of women's health, he nominated a man who had repeatedly anally raped his wife, saying that he couldn't tell the difference between her anus and he vagina! And he was a f**king gynecologist (see link below)!!!

His worst failing was as a leader though. After September 11, the US needed an American president, not a Republican president. Bush chose the latter. He used the WoT as a partisan bludgeon, when he had %90 of the country behind him. For that alone, history will damn him.


Link: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050530/mcgarvey/2

(no message)

Why is he worse than Carter?
What is he worse than Ford?

Carter really never gets a fair shake when it comes to his legacy as president. Most figure him for the gas crises of five years prior to his being in office. His bill on energy was used by Reagan and hence no credit where credit is deserved. The Iran hostage crises was on his watch and was botched, other than that he spun his wheels as president the best I can remember. Ford? I'm not to sure but my memory of him is that he was lame at best.

Your conclusion that Carter was had "semi-socialist leanings" is special. You'll have to give me more than that for me not to laugh at you and call you names.

The reason GB1 didn't go into Iraq was because he listened to his Secretary of Defense, Dick Cheney. Here is a quote from the evil Dick.



I think the volume of my rants about Bush and this admin are a sufficient read for you to know by this point my feelings of why Bush could be considered The worst President ever in the united states.


"I really think that Carter will go down in history as the worst President in the last century."

After your above post, you may be up for consideration as the worst poster ever.

they're looking for writers.

(no message)

First of all, these things evolve over time. But how many contenders for worst President managed two terms?

There are five Presidents who were never elected to the office and, by and large, their tenures went unnoticed. Of the five, Ford's gets some attention for holding the ship together during some trying times. And though he was the man who gave us "Whip Inflation Now" and national price freezes that would send most Republicans today into a tailspin, he wasn't noticeably inept. On the other hand, he was bad enough to lost to Jimmy Carter.

One of the measures, I think, of a failed Presidency has to account for the temperament of the nation at the time. Columbus, by today's standards, is regarded by some as an exploiter who brought upon this continent disease that wiped out entire nations of indigenous people. But that's a load of crap because it requires us to divorce ourselves from the achievements, particularly what they meant at the time and how they were regarded at the time. Columbus was exalted even among those indigenous people who eventually succumbed to maladies that came over from the Old World as a result of Columbus opening up westward trade across the Atlantic. The contemporary view has got to count for something, right? And instead of a shouting contest where the squeaky wheels get the most attention, is there a better indicator than a secret ballot where the public is given a choice among contemporary contenders?

Given a two-term Presidency, I think the burden is heavier on those trying to make the case that Bush's Presidency is the worst ever. Less than four years ago over half the voters of the nation returned him to the Oval Office. And that was well after the War in Iraq and most of the biggest blunders that historians cite as evidence against him.

I think the War in Iraq has been run in the most bonehead way imaginable. I think it made sense, at the time, to invade Iraq because we were led down that path (and painted ourselves into a corner that left us with no real good alternative). And despite that rather negative assessment, I believe it it premature to say whether he won't have accomplished some real good in a volatile region. In fact, it has the potential to be profoundly good, for us and the region.

Now, what's most amazing about this Presidency is that -- even with the second term -- he has done whatever it has taken to prevent, stop, undermine or deflate plans for follow-up attacks on this nation. Who, in all honesty, would have thought that would be possible? Seriously, even with a few month's between 9/11 to restore some sanity and clarity...did you really imagine that in March 2008 the nation would have been kept safe from Islamist terrorist attacks? They've attacked other European nations (including those that were hardly full-fledged members of the Coalition of the Willing -- which sort of disproves the contention that our Iraq escapade is what will motivate future attacks). But not so on American soil.

Economically, he may be going out on a down note, but if he takes the hit for that, he gets credit for holding the economy together after 9/11 when it was highly vulnerable. In November 2004, the common wisdom was whoever won the election was about to preside over a national economic nightmare and the biggest bubble burst imaginable. 9/11 hardly made that tenuous situation more stable. And yet we've done okay. If all he did was forestall an economic downturn until now, that is itself impressive when all things are considered.

The bottom line, for me, is that he can't be the worst President. He's the President that this nation deserved for these times. That is a compliment in some respects. An indictment in others. But in most respects, he's been a President who reflects the state of our nation. And to be the worst President ever, I think you've got to first cut against the grain and then do so in a way that makes the public look like they were the visionaries and prophetic force. Bush isn't that. He's just swimming with the school of fish.

The easier proof of this is to measure him against the worst President prior to his Administration. For my money, that has to be James Buchanan...the man most responsible for inciting the Civil War and the one person who, more than any other, deserves to burn in Hell for this nation's persistent and pervasive dysfunctionality with race relations. I don't think Bush comes anywhere close to the evil, vile and sinister use of the Executive Office to press the slavery issue until it went critical.

One of the measures, I think, of a failed Presidency has to account for the temperament of the nation at the time.

Great Presidents understand the good and bad temperaments of the country and make policies to encourage or thwart those tendencies for the good of the country. Bush will go down as a man who exploited the worst tendencies (fear, xenophobia etc) for his own personal political gain. He will also go down in history to enable the worst tendencies of Wall Street, which has dug us into one of the largest financial holes in our history.

One of the worst provides a large gray area and greater room for disagreement as to whether he falls in to that chasm or merely teeters on the edge. Let's just agree that he's not "one of the greatest," however that may be defined.

stupid nation.

Jim, I never took you for a self-righteous, self-loathing, a-hole liberal. Maybe I was mistaken.

Stating that this nation got sucked into the Bush idiocy twice, only the second time we knew for sure he was a liar, not unlike Clinton, and took us deeper into an occupation which has all but killed our global cred. destroyed our treasury, had killed thousands of soldiers etc. etc.? What asshole thing?

Because you kowtow to this admin doesn't mean I have to. Not only that; did you ever once say a negative about Clinton? I know I did and still do.

is pretty much an asshole thing to say. That statement exudes A HOLE. You, my friend, are no a-hole.

I kowtow to no one. If you'd actually read my posts, I've said I disagree with some of what president Bush has done. Unlike you, I will not ever call a President of the United States an idiot. If Obama wins, you won't see me berating him like you do President Bush. It's completely and unequivocally disrespectful.

"Did you ever once say a negative about Clinton?" Of course I did, but you will not find a post where I called him an idiot. Clinton made as many mistakes as Bush. Did you know that there were more military deaths during Clinton's 8 years than GW Bush's 7? If you'd like the stat, I'd be happy to post it.

The rest of your post is just regurgitated liberal blather. Been there, done that.

I'll disagree that Clinton is as Feckless as Bush and though he made many mistakes as President, none, I repeat, none are as grievous as any by Bush, son of idiot "the idiocy" or the sequel.


PS. I'll stand by my statement about a stupid nation. Unfortunately because I'm an American I have that tag too, and not to my liking.

I'm proud of my country. Is this country perfect? Hell no. Would I rather live somewhere else? Hell no. Since you think you're amongst a bunch of stupid idiots, try living somewhere else.

Thank you for spending the time enlightening everyone, me included.

Your response to CC post was very repectful and Classy, and I commend you for that. Even though you may not agree with what he said you had an open mind and could understand his points.



Go Irish !!!

Differentiate the article's author's opinion of Bush from mine. I offered no opinion on him being the worst I just posted someone else's opinion. I'm definitely in the camp that he's far from the best, but I don't know enough to claim he's the worst.

(no message)

Throw Nixon, Pierce, Andrew Johnson, Grant, and Harding in with Buchanan, and you have your "Mount Suckmore" that's largely agreed upon by conservative and liberal historians alike. I just don't see GWB making the ballot for that Hall of Shame.

(no message)

(no message)

but I liked what he said, and I was just backing It. I'm not a person on with blinders, I give credit where it is due. Even if we were hated Enemies , I would do that in any situation in Life.



Go Irish !!!

I was just being a wizeass.

BTW, how often do you have to shave that dome?

Feel free anytime, I guess I haven't dealt you enough to know when you are serious and when you are not. I'm a smart ass as well so I appreciate your attempt.



Go Irish !!!

(no message)

(no message)

Name one that was worse

(no message)

(no message)

says. In fact, who gives a flying fuck what Canada thinks. My opinion is that W falls somewhere in the middle. He's made some mistakes and he's done some good things. Was Iraq a mistake? Only time will tell. The Toronto Red Star is a non-factor as is Canada. No offense of course. BTW, without the US, Canada ain't shit.

want to get all worked up this early in the week first thing in the morning, so I back tracked, but then you came along and said what needed to be said, and I thank you for it. The fact is Bush ain't all that bad, Everybody Screams the War, that it was unjustified , no Weapons of Mass destruction , but they forget we told them we were coming way in advanced. It would be like the DEA telling a drug dealer , we are gonna raid your house next week.....ummmm duh they wouldn't find anything. But outside of the war what else has he done so majorly wrong, there are certain problems , but they happen in every presidency. The fact is he isn't the worst president ever, the fact is we are the worst people ever. (I say we collectively as a whole, and of course there are exceptions) We are a fucking spoiled , lazy , greedy , brats , that don't appreciate anything we are tearing up this country and allowing others to come in and do the same, most of the we I'm talking about are non-conservative, and think its OK to to be gay and to take god out of school. And so on and so on. So before all these pieces of shit go pointing the finger at Mr. Bush they need to take a look at themselves and what they've done to make this country what it is. And shit they need to not take that re-bate check coming in May since Mr.Bush is sop evil ! I could say more but I won't, again I thank you for your post !



Go Irish !!!

(no message)

that would be a unanimous "yes!"

Listening to Jabi play the internet tough guy is like seeing a kid sitting on his dad's motorcycle yelling "Vroooom!!!....vrooom!".

You know it makes me smile when I see you cry.

(no message)

and that clearly goes to Canada. I guess that explains why so many French are in Canada.

If I were to be more serious, I would say something like, if history were to cast cities as people, Paris would be the guy with impeccable taste in wine and women, Montreal would be the firey revolutionary, and LA would be the crack-addled prostitute.

I've hit a nerve. Me likey.

Don't forget to include the French Canucks. They do want to secede and all.

I must recuse myself from any Quebec bashing.

I'd rank at least six in front of Bush--Nixon, Pierce, Andrew Johnson, Grant, Buchanan and Harding. In my book, Dubya deserves his props. He is a solid 37 out of 43.

And FWIW, I think I have a fairly realistic perception of past presidencies. I would rank Reagan in my Top 10 without hesitation.

He was one of the more intelligent presidents. He was also one of the more ineffective presidents.

To Carter's credit, since leaving office, he has immersed himself in many great charitable efforts. I think he's been one of the most successful ex-presidents in that respect.

To Carter's credit, he orchestrated the Camp David Peace Accords that not only led to a real and binding armistice between Eqypt and Israel, but perhaps more importantly turned Egypt into a US-dependent ally. Not only did Egypt turn its back on decades of foreign aid from the Soviets, their flip-flop forever fractured the united Arab front against Israel. This achievement alone recuses him from the bottom 10-15 presidents.

Also, the legislation Reagan got through Congress to deregulate oil and natural gas prices was originally Carter's bill, not to mention it was Nixon who instituted the original price fixing. In other words, conservative historians have seen fit to blame Carter for something Nixon caused and unduly give Reagan all the credit for fixing it. (Granted, Reagan deserves much of the credit. Carter's inability to influence a Democratic-controlled Congress--something at which Reagan was more effectual even as a Republican--was pathetic.)

Like I said, a mid-lister: somewhere in the 20s.

.. The USA its government and its citizens had adopted the correct political and economic course as demonstrated to us by the super intelligent European and Canadian Fabian Socialists, then we could all be equally miserable in our restricted individual liberties, and there would be no country to provide an economic base for the free world.

Then life would truly be Utopia, and finally our here leaders would be smart.

(no message)

Gimme something. I'm openminded on this.

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

And I think history will soon judge him as such. It's tough to judge these things sometimes, and history's judgment tends to be more dynamic with the time period than a static, linear line. However, I cannot recall a President whose policies will have more far reaching foreign and domestic policy damage than Bush's.

Never-the-less, Congress, and the American people, deserve their share of the blame.

tomorrow's edition of the LA Times will feature an article entitled, "Is Bush the worst human being ever?"

The body of the article will read, "Yes."

Well done.

(no message)

I'm convinced that Mulroney is a myth made up to scare kids into voting NDP. He never actually existed. Nope...never....

One of my favorite Mulroney lines was, "There's no whore like an old whore". (referring to patronage and Mackasey)

Not Mulroney, but his most colorful minister, John Crosby (no relation to Sid I think).

Crosby, as minister of such and such, speaking to then junior Rat Packer but future federal minister under Chretien, Sheila Copps, during one heated exchange in Parliament...."Put down the tequila Sheila and lay down and love me again."

Instead we have the likes of:

Link: Mike Huckabee

...Funny how.Grant, Harding, Hoover. Ike, Nixon, and Bush are all Republicans and all suck...talk about a one-string guitar...but hey, it sells papers...

..."he seems to be observing events from another dimension" ?...Is Walkom an expert on The Twighlight Zone?


Link: Walkom

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

That was a little too harsh.

Actually I didn't see what you had posted and deleted- so go ahead and put it back up there so I can read it !
Thanks



Go Irish !!!