# Who is the most over-rated president of all-time?



## TheGreatGatsby

For the purposes of so-called historical perspective, I won't include recent presidents.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

For purposes of discussion; this is the rankings we will use.

Historical rankings of Presidents of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## edthecynic

TheGreatGatsby said:


> For the purposes of so-called historical perspective, I won't include recent presidents.


St Ronnie, of course.

Trick Lib Question of Reagan
March 28, 2008

CALLER:  Ronald Reagan, why did he never respond to the Marine barracks bombing in Lebanon in 1983?

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH:  By the way, to answer the guy's question, "Why didn't Reagan respond?" He did.  It's one of the most underreported aspects in world history. Amir Taheri wrote about it on April 18th, 2007, in a publication called Gulf News.  Basically, *Reagan sunk Iran's navy*, if I could just sum this up. * We sunk Iran's navy. *The attacks from Lebanon came from Iran, as they still do to this day. * We sunk Iran's navy,* but we didn't talk about it much then because that would have made us look mean, and the mullahs didn't talk about it because they didn't want the world to know* their navy had been sunk,* but it happened.  
END TRANSCRIPT

Operation Praying Mantis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Operation Praying Mantis was an April 18, 1988 attack by U.S. naval forces in retaliation for the Iranian mining of the Persian Gulf and the subsequent damage to an American warship.

*In short, Iran lost one major warship and a smaller gunboat.*


----------



## Mr. H.

For purposes of brevity


----------



## elvis

Truman.


----------



## jillian

you need to include reagan...

the most overrated president of all time.


----------



## uscitizen

George Washington.

He started the whiskey rax.


----------



## Sallow

edthecynic said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the purposes of so-called historical perspective, I won't include recent presidents.
> 
> 
> 
> St Ronnie, of course.
> 
> Trick Lib Question of Reagan
> March 28, 2008
> 
> CALLER:  Ronald Reagan, why did he never respond to the Marine barracks bombing in Lebanon in 1983?
> 
> BREAK TRANSCRIPT
> 
> RUSH:  By the way, to answer the guy's question, "Why didn't Reagan respond?" He did.  It's one of the most underreported aspects in world history. Amir Taheri wrote about it on April 18th, 2007, in a publication called Gulf News.  Basically, *Reagan sunk Iran's navy*, if I could just sum this up. * We sunk Iran's navy. *The attacks from Lebanon came from Iran, as they still do to this day. * We sunk Iran's navy,* but we didn't talk about it much then because that would have made us look mean, and the mullahs didn't talk about it because they didn't want the world to know* their navy had been sunk,* but it happened.
> END TRANSCRIPT
> 
> Operation Praying Mantis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Operation Praying Mantis was an April 18, 1988 attack by U.S. naval forces in retaliation for the Iranian mining of the Persian Gulf and the subsequent damage to an American warship.
> 
> *In short, Iran lost one major warship and a smaller gunboat.*
Click to expand...


Agreed.

Ronald Reagan was a law breaker and committed Treason.


----------



## syrenn

kennedy

THE most over rated president of ALL time.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

syrenn said:


> kennedy
> 
> THE most over rated president of ALL time.



Possibly the most over hyped president of all-time if I may split hairs. He's not the most over-rated to me though.


----------



## del

wilson is almost as overrated as reagan and kennedy makes three.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

Sallow said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the purposes of so-called historical perspective, I won't include recent presidents.
> 
> 
> 
> St Ronnie, of course.
> 
> Trick Lib Question of Reagan
> March 28, 2008
> 
> CALLER:  Ronald Reagan, why did he never respond to the Marine barracks bombing in Lebanon in 1983?
> 
> BREAK TRANSCRIPT
> 
> RUSH:  By the way, to answer the guy's question, "Why didn't Reagan respond?" He did.  It's one of the most underreported aspects in world history. Amir Taheri wrote about it on April 18th, 2007, in a publication called Gulf News.  Basically, *Reagan sunk Iran's navy*, if I could just sum this up. * We sunk Iran's navy. *The attacks from Lebanon came from Iran, as they still do to this day. * We sunk Iran's navy,* but we didn't talk about it much then because that would have made us look mean, and the mullahs didn't talk about it because they didn't want the world to know* their navy had been sunk,* but it happened.
> END TRANSCRIPT
> 
> Operation Praying Mantis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Operation Praying Mantis was an April 18, 1988 attack by U.S. naval forces in retaliation for the Iranian mining of the Persian Gulf and the subsequent damage to an American warship.
> 
> *In short, Iran lost one major warship and a smaller gunboat.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> Ronald Reagan was a law breaker and committed Treason.
Click to expand...


How did he commit treason?


----------



## Big Fitz

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> St Ronnie, of course.
> 
> Trick Lib Question of Reagan
> March 28, 2008
> 
> CALLER:  Ronald Reagan, why did he never respond to the Marine barracks bombing in Lebanon in 1983?
> 
> BREAK TRANSCRIPT
> 
> RUSH:  By the way, to answer the guy's question, "Why didn't Reagan respond?" He did.  It's one of the most underreported aspects in world history. Amir Taheri wrote about it on April 18th, 2007, in a publication called Gulf News.  Basically, *Reagan sunk Iran's navy*, if I could just sum this up. * We sunk Iran's navy. *The attacks from Lebanon came from Iran, as they still do to this day. * We sunk Iran's navy,* but we didn't talk about it much then because that would have made us look mean, and the mullahs didn't talk about it because they didn't want the world to know* their navy had been sunk,* but it happened.
> END TRANSCRIPT
> 
> Operation Praying Mantis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Operation Praying Mantis was an April 18, 1988 attack by U.S. naval forces in retaliation for the Iranian mining of the Persian Gulf and the subsequent damage to an American warship.
> 
> *In short, Iran lost one major warship and a smaller gunboat.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> Ronald Reagan was a law breaker and committed Treason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How did he commit treason?
Click to expand...

He used to be a democrat.  That's how.


----------



## Big Fitz

Overrated to me means, credit and adoration given versus actual accomplishments?  Kennedy.  Has to be.  Truman second, and Eisenhower third.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

It's easily FDR. Everything that is f'd up about our society is traced to him. And it was his policies that extended a recession into The Great Depression. And he was asleep at the wheel on Pearl Harbor. And his apathy led to Hitler's dominance and consequently millions in casualties. All of that, and the idiot "historians" and liberals celebrate him as the second best president when he's really the worst ever. You can't get more over-rated than that.


----------



## Artevelde

TheGreatGatsby said:


> For the purposes of so-called historical perspective, I won't include recent presidents.



The most overrated is John F. Kennedy.


----------



## Artevelde

Big Fitz said:


> Overrated to me means, credit and adoration given versus actual accomplishments?  Kennedy.  Has to be.  Truman second, and Eisenhower third.



I agree with Kennedy. I don't think Truman is terribly overrated. Eisenhower is somewhat overrated I feel, but in any event nowhere near as much as Kennedy.


----------



## Artevelde

TheGreatGatsby said:


> It's easily FDR. Everything that is f'd up about our society is traced to him. And it was his policies that extended a recession into The Great Depression. And he was asleep at the wheel on Pearl Harbor. And his apathy led to Hitler's dominance and consequently millions in casualties. All of that, and the idiot "historians" and liberals celebrate him as the second best president when he's really the worst ever. You can't get more over-rated than that.



I have to disagree. Franklin Roosevelt was one of the truly great Presidents. Doesn't mean each and every one of his policies was the best, but overal he was a great leader and what the nation needed at that time. Very much like Reagan really.


----------



## there4eyeM

The winner is not on the list.

'W' is by far the most overrated individual to have held this post. 

The only question is, can one count down from zero?

He started at rock bottom and immediately began drilling and using explosives to proceed downward.


----------



## JWBooth

uscitizen said:


> George Washington.
> 
> He started the whiskey rax.


And sent in troops to enforce it.


----------



## regent

Reagan, but he did have that impish little movie grin so he made America feel good as he wandered about the White House.


----------



## konradv

TheGreatGatsby said:


> It's easily FDR. Everything that is f'd up about our society is traced to him. And it was his policies that extended a recession into The Great Depression. And he was asleep at the wheel on Pearl Harbor. And his apathy led to Hitler's dominance and consequently millions in casualties. All of that, and the idiot "historians" and liberals celebrate him as the second best president when he's really the worst ever. You can't get more over-rated than that.



It couldn't have been Hoover's three years of inaction that extended the Great Depression?

Asleep at the wheel?  He was trying to do everything short of war to rein in the Japanese.  It was the local commander that was asleep at the wheel.  He knew it and took off his stars immediately.

Apathy towards Hitler?  He recognized the danger, but had to deal with people, including the Republican presidential candidate, who wanted to turn a blind eye to what was happening in Europe.


----------



## konradv

Reagan #1-  He was given credit for actions to end the Cold War that had actually accumulated over 40+ years and 7 administrations of both parties.


----------



## Intense

JWBooth said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> George Washington.
> 
> He started the whiskey rax.
> 
> 
> 
> And sent in troops to enforce it.
Click to expand...


I blame Hamilton, not Washington for that. One example of one of His Schemes/Scams blowing up in His face. Washington was totally blind to what was going on right under his nose.


----------



## zzzz

Thomas Woodrow Wilson.

Wilson pushed started the Federal income tax and the Federal Reserve Act which are anchors on his presidency.


----------



## Papageorgio

Easily FDR, he was constantly looking at ways for government to take away freedom. He used fear as a weapon to try to implement his polices. He did guide us through WWII, but he is by no means a top ten President.


----------



## Artevelde

konradv said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's easily FDR. Everything that is f'd up about our society is traced to him. And it was his policies that extended a recession into The Great Depression. And he was asleep at the wheel on Pearl Harbor. And his apathy led to Hitler's dominance and consequently millions in casualties. All of that, and the idiot "historians" and liberals celebrate him as the second best president when he's really the worst ever. You can't get more over-rated than that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It couldn't have been Hoover's three years of inaction that extended the Great Depression?
> 
> Asleep at the wheel?  He was trying to do everything short of war to rein in the Japanese.  It was the local commander that was asleep at the wheel.  He knew it and took off his stars immediately.
> 
> Apathy towards Hitler?  He recognized the danger, but had to deal with people, including the Republican presidential candidate, who wanted to turn a blind eye to what was happening in Europe.
Click to expand...


Actually, while I agree with you that FDR is NOT overrated, each of your statements is factually incorrect:

Hoover was not inactive, quite the contrary.

The blame for the Pearl Harbour debacle can not be laid at the feet of the local commanders. They were quickly scapegoated, but the blame for the inadequate preparation of the fleet lies much higher up.

Roosevelt had at least as much trouble with his own party on isolationism and actually had a bit of an isolationist streak himself, at certain points. His overcautious approach often exasperated the minority in his cabinet who were more interventionist.


----------



## Unkotare

Artevelde said:


> Franklin Roosevelt was one of the truly great Presidents.




He was scum


----------



## Artevelde

konradv said:


> Reagan #1-  He was given credit for actions to end the Cold War that had actually accumulated over 40+ years and 7 administrations of both parties.



Again wrong, Reagan's policies had a major impact in bringing the Soviet Union to its knees. He broke with more than a decade of detente to achieve this.


----------



## Big Fitz

zzzz said:


> Thomas Woodrow Wilson.
> 
> Wilson pushed started the Federal income tax and the Federal Reserve Act which are anchors on his presidency.


He and FDR did too much damage to this nation to be considered 'overrated'.  They're overWORSHIPPED yes.  Overrated, no.


----------



## deaddogseye

TheGreatGatsby said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> kennedy
> 
> THE most over rated president of ALL time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Possibly the most over hyped president of all-time if I may split hairs. He's not the most over-rated to me though.
Click to expand...


i agree with that. Even his worshipers are hard pressed to point to anything.

He owes Oswald for his place in the history books. Otherwise he'd be totally insignificant except for sexual scandals


----------



## Wry Catcher

TheGreatGatsby said:


> For the purposes of so-called historical perspective, I won't include recent presidents.




I will include a recent President since only two on the  list were in office during my lifetime.

Ronald Reagan is way overrated.


----------



## rightwinger

syrenn said:


> kennedy
> 
> THE most over rated president of ALL time.



Have to agree with JFK with Reagan a close second

Lincoln is interesting. He was not loved when he was president and became a god when he was assasinated. I think his rating would have dropped in a second term but he still would be an all time great


----------



## Truthmatters

Reagan.

its the best answer and its not there


----------



## Darkwind

Obama
Kennedy
FDR
Wilson

In that order


----------



## aaronleland

I disagree that George Washington was overrated because of the whiskey tax. If I remember correctly wasn't the purpose of the tax to pay off our debt from the revolution? He tried to set a precedent for future presidents. If it would have worked as he planned maybe we would still be paying off our debts.

But I would have to agree that JFK was the most overrated.


----------



## Dante

TheGreatGatsby said:


> For the purposes of so-called historical perspective, I won't include recent presidents.



Ronald Reagan was the greatest liar of the 20th Century.

Reagan said he did not authorize Poindexter to mislead Congress, contradicting Poindexter's argument that Reagan knew of and authorized his activities..*.The words ``I don't remember'' or their equivalents occurred at least 124 times in his eight hours of testimony.* The lapses in memory ranged from the identity of Rep. Lee Hamilton, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee during several of the key years of Reagan's presidency, to the central conclusions of the Tower Commission, which Reagan appointed to investigate the Iran-contra affair.

Reagan, now 79, also didn't remember that Robert McFarlane, who served as his national security adviser, had pleaded guilty to a charge of withholding information from Congress.

*Reagan's memory lapses, however, never occurred on answers that bolstered his longstanding position that he, himself, had done nothing wrong. Repeatedly, he emphasized that while he might not be able to recall the names of the subordinates he gave instructions to - even at Cabinet rank - he recalled clearly the content of the instructions: ``Stay within the law.''*
. - Business | Iran-Contra Deposition -- Reagan Testimony Bares Memory Loss, But Not Much Else | Seattle Times Newspaper


----------



## Leweman

It really is Kennedy.


----------



## sitarro

konradv said:


> Reagan #1-  He was given credit for actions to end the Cold War that had actually accumulated over 40+ years and 7 administrations of both parties.



How old are you kon?


----------



## Mr Natural

Where's St Reagan?


----------



## sitarro

Wry Catcher said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the purposes of so-called historical perspective, I won't include recent presidents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will include a recent President since only two on the  list were in office during my lifetime.
> 
> Ronald Reagan is way overrated.
Click to expand...


That explains a lot.


----------



## Dante

sitarro said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan #1-  He was given credit for actions to end the Cold War that had actually accumulated over 40+ years and 7 administrations of both parties.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How old are you kon?
Click to expand...


kon is right on the money here


----------



## Dante

*]Ronald Reagan was perhaps the greatest liar of the 20th Century.*



konradv said:


> Reagan #1-  He was given credit for actions to end the Cold War that had actually accumulated over 40+ years and 7 administrations of both parties.



so very true

and Reagan lied more than any other President. 



> Ronald Reagan was perhaps the greatest liar of the 20th Century.
> 
> Reagan said he did not authorize Poindexter to mislead Congress, contradicting Poindexter's argument that Reagan knew of and authorized his activities..*.The words ``I don't remember'' or their equivalents occurred at least 124 times in his eight hours of testimony.* The lapses in memory ranged from the identity of Rep. Lee Hamilton, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee during several of the key years of Reagan's presidency, to the central conclusions of the Tower Commission, which Reagan appointed to investigate the Iran-contra affair.
> 
> Reagan, now 79, also didn't remember that Robert McFarlane, who served as his national security adviser, had pleaded guilty to a charge of withholding information from Congress.
> 
> *Reagan's memory lapses, however, never occurred on answers that bolstered his longstanding position that he, himself, had done nothing wrong. Repeatedly, he emphasized that while he might not be able to recall the names of the subordinates he gave instructions to - even at Cabinet rank - he recalled clearly the content of the instructions: ``Stay within the law.''*
> . - Business | Iran-Contra Deposition -- Reagan Testimony Bares Memory Loss, But Not Much Else | Seattle Times Newspaper


----------



## old navy

Since others are throwing in presidents not on the list due to them serving in recent history, I will add Obama.

Over-rated, over-loved and worshiped, and way under-qualified. History will show this to be the truth.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

Artevelde said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's easily FDR. Everything that is f'd up about our society is traced to him. And it was his policies that extended a recession into The Great Depression. And he was asleep at the wheel on Pearl Harbor. And his apathy led to Hitler's dominance and consequently millions in casualties. All of that, and the idiot "historians" and liberals celebrate him as the second best president when he's really the worst ever. You can't get more over-rated than that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have to disagree. Franklin Roosevelt was one of the truly great Presidents. Doesn't mean each and every one of his policies was the best, but overal he was a great leader and what the nation needed at that time. Very much like Reagan really.
Click to expand...


Yea? What did FDR do that was so great? You're just buying into the liberal propaganda. I used to think FDR was great too, because the public indoctrination system (public schools and media) and told me it was so so many times. But then I studied economics and history further and I learned that that is a bold faced lie.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

konradv said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's easily FDR. Everything that is f'd up about our society is traced to him. And it was his policies that extended a recession into The Great Depression. And he was asleep at the wheel on Pearl Harbor. And his apathy led to Hitler's dominance and consequently millions in casualties. All of that, and the idiot "historians" and liberals celebrate him as the second best president when he's really the worst ever. You can't get more over-rated than that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It couldn't have been Hoover's three years of inaction that extended the Great Depression?
> 
> Asleep at the wheel?  He was trying to do everything short of war to rein in the Japanese.  It was the local commander that was asleep at the wheel.  He knew it and took off his stars immediately.
> 
> Apathy towards Hitler?  He recognized the danger, but had to deal with people, including the Republican presidential candidate, who wanted to turn a blind eye to what was happening in Europe.
Click to expand...


You want to blame a decade of the worst economy ever on Hoover, who wasn't even in charge? Typical lib nonsense.  You like to blame Obama's sudden b.s. economy on Bush.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

zzzz said:


> Thomas Woodrow Wilson.
> 
> Wilson pushed started the Federal income tax and the Federal Reserve Act which are anchors on his presidency.



Ah. I was thinking Wilson. I had thought the income tax came a a decade or two later. Still, I think it's FDR's advancing of social security and other unneeded compulsory taxes that just punched holes in the Constitution.


----------



## Dante

TheGreatGatsby said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's easily FDR. Everything that is f'd up about our society is traced to him. And it was his policies that extended a recession into The Great Depression. And he was asleep at the wheel on Pearl Harbor. And his apathy led to Hitler's dominance and consequently millions in casualties. All of that, and the idiot "historians" and liberals celebrate him as the second best president when he's really the worst ever. You can't get more over-rated than that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It couldn't have been Hoover's three years of inaction that extended the Great Depression?
> 
> Asleep at the wheel?  He was trying to do everything short of war to rein in the Japanese.  It was the local commander that was asleep at the wheel.  He knew it and took off his stars immediately.
> 
> Apathy towards Hitler?  He recognized the danger, but had to deal with people, including the Republican presidential candidate, who wanted to turn a blind eye to what was happening in Europe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You want to blame a decade of the worst economy ever on Hoover, who wasn't even in charge? Typical lib nonsense.  You like to blame Obama's sudden b.s. economy on Bush.
Click to expand...


then how does Reagan get credit and blame for everything from fiscal budgets to the fall of the Berlin Wall?


----------



## Dante

TheGreatGatsby said:


> What did FDR do that was so great...I used to think FDR was great too...



then you got indoctrinated into the Right Wing Lunatic Clique


----------



## regent

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's easily FDR. Everything that is f'd up about our society is traced to him. And it was his policies that extended a recession into The Great Depression. And he was asleep at the wheel on Pearl Harbor. And his apathy led to Hitler's dominance and consequently millions in casualties. All of that, and the idiot "historians" and liberals celebrate him as the second best president when he's really the worst ever. You can't get more over-rated than that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have to disagree. Franklin Roosevelt was one of the truly great Presidents. Doesn't mean each and every one of his policies was the best, but overal he was a great leader and what the nation needed at that time. Very much like Reagan really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yea? What did FDR do that was so great? You're just buying into the liberal propaganda. I used to think FDR was great too, because the public indoctrination system (public schools and media) and told me it was so so many times. But then I studied economics and history further and I learned that that is a bold faced lie.
Click to expand...


So you disagree with the 238 noted historians and presidential experts that recently rated FDR as America's greatest president. The historians have never rated FDR less than third greatest and now he's rated the greatest. Perhaps they are unaware that you have studied history and economics? So, OK, the historian rated him the greatest what about the people? They elected FDR four times, that's four times. 
The best response is historians are communists.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

Dante said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> It couldn't have been Hoover's three years of inaction that extended the Great Depression?
> 
> Asleep at the wheel?  He was trying to do everything short of war to rein in the Japanese.  It was the local commander that was asleep at the wheel.  He knew it and took off his stars immediately.
> 
> Apathy towards Hitler?  He recognized the danger, but had to deal with people, including the Republican presidential candidate, who wanted to turn a blind eye to what was happening in Europe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You want to blame a decade of the worst economy ever on Hoover, who wasn't even in charge? Typical lib nonsense.  You like to blame Obama's sudden b.s. economy on Bush.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> then how does Reagan get credit and blame for everything from fiscal budgets to the fall of the Berlin Wall?
Click to expand...


Are you unaware of the Reagan economy vs. the Carter economy? Do some homework and you won't have to ask.

As for the Berlin Wall, did Kennedy or Carter demand the wall be torn down and then back it up? Maybe if they did, they'd be getting credit. They never had their eye against oppression and in fact they envied their far left control  tactics.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

regent said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to disagree. Franklin Roosevelt was one of the truly great Presidents. Doesn't mean each and every one of his policies was the best, but overal he was a great leader and what the nation needed at that time. Very much like Reagan really.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea? What did FDR do that was so great? You're just buying into the liberal propaganda. I used to think FDR was great too, because the public indoctrination system (public schools and media) and told me it was so so many times. But then I studied economics and history further and I learned that that is a bold faced lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you disagree with the 238 noted historians and presidential experts that recently rated FDR as America's greatest president. The historians have never rated FDR less than third greatest and now he's rated the greatest. Perhaps they are unaware that you have studied history and economics? So, OK, the historian rated him the greatest what about the people? They elected FDR four times, that's four times.
> The best response is historians are communists.
Click to expand...


The historians clearly have an agenda that goes beyond merely rating the presidents. Likely, they like FDR's socialistic policies (even though they hurt prosperity). That is the general bias of people inside of the public indoctrination system. It's literally in their own personal financial interests to rate FDR so high.


----------



## Dante

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want to blame a decade of the worst economy ever on Hoover, who wasn't even in charge? Typical lib nonsense.  You like to blame Obama's sudden b.s. economy on Bush.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> then how does Reagan get credit and blame for everything from fiscal budgets to the fall of the Berlin Wall?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you unaware of the Reagan economy vs. the Carter economy? Do some homework and you won't have to ask.
> 
> As for the Berlin Wall, did Kennedy or Carter demand the wall be torn down and then back it up? Maybe if they did, they'd be getting credit. They never had their eye against oppression and in fact they envied their far left control  tactics.
Click to expand...


First: "did Kennedy or Carter demand the wall be torn down and then back it up?"


*Reagan demanded the wall be torn down so the East Germans and Soviets complied?* And backed it up how? Like he backed it up with the US response to the worst attack on US Marines in a single day? Lebanon: _There was no serious retaliation for the Beirut bombing from the Americans, besides a few shellings._ _In retaliation for the attacks, France launched an airstrike in the Bekaa Valley against alleged Islamic Revolutionary Guards positions_

The Beirut Barracks Bombing (October 23, 1983 in Beirut, Lebanon) --- U.S. President Ronald Reagan called the attack a "despicable act" and pledged to keep a military force in Lebanon...*On October 24, French President François Mitterrand visited the bombed French site.*  U.S. Vice President George H. W. Bush toured the Marine bombed-site on October 26 and said the U.S. "would not be cowed by terrorists."

On February 7, 1984, *President Reagan *ordered the Marines to begin withdrawing *from Lebanon. *
---

Who was comparing the Carter and Reagan economies? here is your homework: Carter's Economy



> Jimmy Carter inherited a deeply troubled economy. The "great inflation" that is associated with his presidency in fact began in the latter part of the Johnson years, and the oil crisis Carter faced was the second oil price shock of the decade. In addition, a decline in worker productivity and a rise in competition from Germany and Japan compounded the nation's economic problems.



btw, I was NEVER a fan of the evangelical Presidency of Jimmy Carter. I was with Ted Kennedy in 1980.



> Economy: stagflation and the appointment of Volcker
> 
> The economic history of the Carter Administration can be divided in two roughly equal periods. The first two years were a time of continuing recovery from the severe 1973&#8211;75 recession, which had left fixed investment at its lowest level since the 1970 recession and unemployment at 9%.[24] The second two years were marked by double-digit inflation, coupled with very high interest rates,[25] oil shortages, and slow economic growth.[26] The nation's economy grew by an average of 3.4% during the Carter Administration (at par with the historical average).[27] Each of these two-year periods, however, would differ dramatically.
> 
> The U.S. economy, which had grown by 5% in 1976, continued to grow at a similar pace during 1977 and 1978.[27] Unemployment declined from 7.5% in January 1977 to 5.6% by May 1979, with over 9 million net new jobs created during that interim,[28] and real median household income grew by 5% from 1976 to 1978.[29] The recovery in business investment in evidence during 1976 strengthened as well. Fixed private investment (machinery and construction) grew by 30% from 1976 to 1979, home sales and construction grew another one third by 1978, and industrial production, motor vehicle output and sales did so by nearly 15%; with the exception of new housing starts, which remained slightly below their 1972 peak, each of these benchmarks reached record levels in 1978 or 1979.[24]
> 
> The 1979 energy crisis ended this period of growth, however, and as both inflation and interest rates rose, economic growth, job creation, and consumer confidence declined sharply.[25]
> 
> Presidency of Jimmy Carter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Vidi

The most over rated presidenty in history is Ronald Reagan. End of thread.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

FDR and it's not close

Kept unemployment at 20% for 8 years and gave away Eastern Europe and China to history's 2 biggest mass murderers: Mao and Uncle Joe


----------



## Dante

TheGreatGatsby said:


> The historians clearly have an agenda that goes beyond merely rating the presidents.



Oh, clearly!


----------



## Vidi

CrusaderFrank said:


> FDR and it's not close
> 
> Kept unemployment at 20% for 8 years and gave away Eastern Europe and China to history's 2 biggest mass murderers: Mao and Uncle Joe




I SAID END OF THREAD!


----------



## del

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want to blame a decade of the worst economy ever on Hoover, who wasn't even in charge? Typical lib nonsense.  You like to blame Obama's sudden b.s. economy on Bush.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> then how does Reagan get credit and blame for everything from fiscal budgets to the fall of the Berlin Wall?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you unaware of the Reagan economy vs. the Carter economy? Do some homework and you won't have to ask.
> 
> As for the Berlin Wall, did Kennedy or Carter demand the wall be torn down and then back it up? Maybe if they did, they'd be getting credit. They never had their eye against oppression and in fact they envied their far left control  tactics.
Click to expand...




damn, you really believe this shit.

ask an adult about the cuban missile crisis and get back to me.

reagan made good speeches; he sucked otherwise.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

del said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> then how does Reagan get credit and blame for everything from fiscal budgets to the fall of the Berlin Wall?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you unaware of the Reagan economy vs. the Carter economy? Do some homework and you won't have to ask.
> 
> As for the Berlin Wall, did Kennedy or Carter demand the wall be torn down and then back it up? Maybe if they did, they'd be getting credit. They never had their eye against oppression and in fact they envied their far left control  tactics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> damn, you really believe this shit.
> 
> ask an adult about the cuban missile crisis and get back to me.
> 
> reagan made good speeches; he sucked otherwise.
Click to expand...


Ask an adult about the Bay Of Pigs.


----------



## del

TheGreatGatsby said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you unaware of the Reagan economy vs. the Carter economy? Do some homework and you won't have to ask.
> 
> As for the Berlin Wall, did Kennedy or Carter demand the wall be torn down and then back it up? Maybe if they did, they'd be getting credit. They never had their eye against oppression and in fact they envied their far left control  tactics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> damn, you really believe this shit.
> 
> ask an adult about the cuban missile crisis and get back to me.
> 
> reagan made good speeches; he sucked otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ask an adult about the Bay Of Pigs.
Click to expand...


i already know about the bay of pigs, sonny.

do you have a point or are you just making sure the whole world knows you're a braying jackass?


----------



## Dante

del said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> then how does Reagan get credit and blame for everything from fiscal budgets to the fall of the Berlin Wall?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you unaware of the Reagan economy vs. the Carter economy? Do some homework and you won't have to ask.
> 
> As for the Berlin Wall, did Kennedy or Carter demand the wall be torn down and then back it up? Maybe if they did, they'd be getting credit. They never had their eye against oppression and in fact they envied their far left control  tactics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> damn, you really believe this shit.
> 
> ask an adult about the cuban missile crisis and get back to me.
> 
> reagan made good speeches; he sucked otherwise.
Click to expand...


damn you del. damn you!  how's splash?


----------



## del

Dante said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you unaware of the Reagan economy vs. the Carter economy? Do some homework and you won't have to ask.
> 
> As for the Berlin Wall, did Kennedy or Carter demand the wall be torn down and then back it up? Maybe if they did, they'd be getting credit. They never had their eye against oppression and in fact they envied their far left control  tactics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> damn, you really believe this shit.
> 
> ask an adult about the cuban missile crisis and get back to me.
> 
> reagan made good speeches; he sucked otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> damn you del. damn you!  how's splash?
Click to expand...


entered in the chappaquidick triathalon the last i heard, d.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Reagan called the USSR an Evil Empire and vowed to defeat them, and he did


----------



## Dante

bad


----------



## Dante

CrusaderFrank said:


> Reagan called the USSR an Evil Empire and vowed to defeat them, and he did



wow!  just like in the movies, eh?


----------



## del

CrusaderFrank said:


> Reagan called the USSR an Evil Empire and vowed to defeat them, and he did



sure he did, and the tooth fairy and the easter bunny helped.

santa was unavailable


----------



## Dante

del said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan called the USSR an Evil Empire and vowed to defeat them, and he did
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sure he did, and the tooth fairy and the easter bunny helped.
> 
> santa was unavailable
Click to expand...


that's not fair. They had no pull like Bonzo did. 


[youtube]_zHN4vCfwh4[/youtube]


----------



## Unkotare

CrusaderFrank said:


> FDR and it's not close
> 
> Kept unemployment at 20% for 8 years and gave away Eastern Europe and China to history's 2 biggest mass murderers: Mao and Uncle Joe




Don't forget throwing over 100,000 innocent, loyal Americans into concentration camps. Show me another US president who ever committed such an outrage.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Unkotare said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR and it's not close
> 
> Kept unemployment at 20% for 8 years and gave away Eastern Europe and China to history's 2 biggest mass murderers: Mao and Uncle Joe
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't forget throwing over 100,000 innocent, loyal Americans into concentration camps. Show me another US president who ever committed such an outrage.
Click to expand...


Turning back Jews looking for refuge from Hitler's Germany too was an FDR high point


----------



## Ernie S.

syrenn said:


> kennedy
> 
> THE most over rated president of ALL time.



John Kennedy would never have been reelected. He seriously fucked up the Bay of Pigs. He broke his word to the Cuban people.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

del said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan called the USSR an Evil Empire and vowed to defeat them, and he did
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sure he did, and the tooth fairy and the easter bunny helped.
> 
> santa was unavailable
Click to expand...


So, the Soviet Union magically crumbled? They tried to compete with us as a super power and Reagan out lasted them b/c he knew capitalism was superior.


----------



## Ernie S.

Of those on your list, FDR was the worst. He singlehandedly took a recession and turned it into 12 years of depression.


----------



## del

TheGreatGatsby said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan called the USSR an Evil Empire and vowed to defeat them, and he did
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sure he did, and the tooth fairy and the easter bunny helped.
> 
> santa was unavailable
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, the Soviet Union magically crumbled? They tried to compete with us as a super power and Reagan out lasted them b/c he knew capitalism was superior.
Click to expand...


of course he did- he turned lead into gold in his spare time, too.

would you like to buy a piece of the cherry tree that washington chopped down?

i've got one piece left, just for you, snookums.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

del said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> sure he did, and the tooth fairy and the easter bunny helped.
> 
> santa was unavailable
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, the Soviet Union magically crumbled? They tried to compete with us as a super power and Reagan out lasted them b/c he knew capitalism was superior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> of course he did- he turned lead into gold in his spare time, too.
> 
> would you like to buy a piece of the cherry tree that washington chopped down?
> 
> i've got one piece left, just for you, snookums.
Click to expand...


Give me an example in which communism has thrived? Even China only began prospering by adopting capitalistic means.


----------



## del

TheGreatGatsby said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, the Soviet Union magically crumbled? They tried to compete with us as a super power and Reagan out lasted them b/c he knew capitalism was superior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> of course he did- he turned lead into gold in his spare time, too.
> 
> would you like to buy a piece of the cherry tree that washington chopped down?
> 
> i've got one piece left, just for you, snookums.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give me an example in which communism has thrived? Even China only began prospering by adopting capitalistic means.
Click to expand...







show me one season when babe ruth led the al in triples.


----------



## Two Thumbs

FDR

He introduced more crap that we carry around to this day, that just doesn't work.
he confiscated peoples gold
couldn't get us out of the depression w/o war
got us involved in WW2
served 3 terms, breaking tradition, "for our own good".
Every American death in WW2 is on him.

Wilson and JFK


----------



## Vidi

TheGreatGatsby said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's easily FDR. Everything that is f'd up about our society is traced to him. And it was his policies that extended a recession into The Great Depression. And he was asleep at the wheel on Pearl Harbor. And his apathy led to Hitler's dominance and consequently millions in casualties. All of that, and the idiot "historians" and liberals celebrate him as the second best president when he's really the worst ever. You can't get more over-rated than that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It couldn't have been Hoover's three years of inaction that extended the Great Depression?
> 
> Asleep at the wheel?  He was trying to do everything short of war to rein in the Japanese.  It was the local commander that was asleep at the wheel.  He knew it and took off his stars immediately.
> 
> Apathy towards Hitler?  He recognized the danger, but had to deal with people, including the Republican presidential candidate, who wanted to turn a blind eye to what was happening in Europe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You want to blame a decade of the worst economy ever on Hoover, who wasn't even in charge? Typical lib nonsense.  You like to blame Obama's sudden b.s. economy on Bush.
Click to expand...


Are you on crack?

Hoover took office on March 4, 1929. Black Tuesday was on October 29, 1929.

Hoover was very much in charge when the Depression came to be.

You may not understand history but you do understand how a calendar works right?


----------



## Two Thumbs

Two Thumbs said:


> FDR
> 
> He introduced more crap that we carry around to this day, that just doesn't work.
> he confiscated peoples gold
> couldn't get us out of the depression w/o war
> got us involved in WW2
> served 3 terms, breaking tradition, "for our own good".
> Every American death in WW2 is on him.
> 
> Wilson and JFK



Oh and lets not forget;

FDR was the only Pres to put law abiding citizens in detainment camps.

yeah, he's the most vile man to ever disgrace the WH


----------



## regent

And it's still there FDR rated by 238 historians and presidential experts as America's greatest president. 

PS, also elected four times by the America people. 

(Save a poster the trouble)
Of course historians, scientists, college professors are all commie-socialists and don't eat their veggies.


----------



## Papageorgio

regent said:


> And it's still there FDR rated by 238 historians and presidential experts as America's greatest president.
> 
> PS, also elected four times by the America people.
> 
> (Save a poster the trouble)
> Of course historians, scientists, college professors are all commie-socialists and don't eat their veggies.



Presidential experts? Now that's funny, must be an eight year degree.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

Two Thumbs said:


> FDR
> 
> He introduced more crap that we carry around to this day, that just doesn't work.
> he confiscated peoples gold
> couldn't get us out of the depression w/o war
> got us involved in WW2
> served 3 terms, breaking tradition, "for our own good".
> Every American death in WW2 is on him.
> 
> Wilson and JFK




FDR ran for the 4th term even though he knew it was likely he would die during it. That's how much the man hungered for power and control.

He cut his former very liberal VP Harry Wallace from the ticket, in favor of the moderate, Harry Truman, a man who he detested.  

There was a great chance that he would have lost the 1944 election without Truman. Truman had headed the Truman Committee that had cut $15 billion and saved thousands of lives for the war effort. He was seen as a man that countered FDR's waste and were it not for Truman being on the ticket, it was likely that FDR would have lost that election.

FDR was that worried about his legacy and retaining power and having his pulse on the affairs of the nation that he was willing sacrifice his real choice to be his successor in favor of a man he severely disliked and distrusted.


----------



## rightwinger

Papageorgio said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> And it's still there FDR rated by 238 historians and presidential experts as America's greatest president.
> 
> PS, also elected four times by the America people.
> 
> (Save a poster the trouble)
> Of course historians, scientists, college professors are all commie-socialists and don't eat their veggies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Presidential experts? Now that's funny, must be an eight year degree.
Click to expand...


Hell yea....noted presidential scholars can't hold a candle to Republican revisionist history


----------



## Unkotare

Two Thumbs said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR
> 
> He introduced more crap that we carry around to this day, that just doesn't work.
> he confiscated peoples gold
> couldn't get us out of the depression w/o war
> got us involved in WW2
> served 3 terms, breaking tradition, "for our own good".
> Every American death in WW2 is on him.
> 
> Wilson and JFK
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh and lets not forget;
> 
> FDR was the only Pres to put law abiding citizens in detainment camps.
> 
> yeah, he's the most vile man to ever disgrace the WH
Click to expand...



He put innocent, loyal Americans in _concentration camps_. Some of the very best Americans of the day, as it turns out.


----------



## Papageorgio

rightwinger said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> And it's still there FDR rated by 238 historians and presidential experts as America's greatest president.
> 
> PS, also elected four times by the America people.
> 
> (Save a poster the trouble)
> Of course historians, scientists, college professors are all commie-socialists and don't eat their veggies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Presidential experts? Now that's funny, must be an eight year degree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hell yea....noted presidential scholars can't hold a candle to Republican revisionist history
Click to expand...


What is there criteria, just calling your self a name, means shit! Look at your name, you are a dumb shit, not a rightwinger.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

Papageorgio said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Presidential experts? Now that's funny, must be an eight year degree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hell yea....noted presidential scholars can't hold a candle to Republican revisionist history
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is there criteria, just calling your self a name, means shit! Look at your name, you are a dumb shit, not a rightwinger.
Click to expand...


Public educators are all about revising history.


----------



## Vidi

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hell yea....noted presidential scholars can't hold a candle to Republican revisionist history
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is there criteria, just calling your self a name, means shit! Look at your name, you are a dumb shit, not a rightwinger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Public educators are all about revising history.
Click to expand...


Yeah its the educators not the lobbyists at all

oh wait!

Tea Party Groups In Tennessee Demand Textbooks Overlook U.S. Founder's Slave-Owning History

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/education/13texas.html

dang! Fact foil fiction yet again!


----------



## jillian

Big Fitz said:


> Overrated to me means, credit and adoration given versus actual accomplishments?  Kennedy.  Has to be.  Truman second, and Eisenhower third.



Most historians think Eisenhower is underrated.


----------



## Vidi

jillian said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Overrated to me means, credit and adoration given versus actual accomplishments?  Kennedy.  Has to be.  Truman second, and Eisenhower third.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most historians think Eisenhower is underrated.
Click to expand...


Most historians are right on that.But shouldnt they then rate him higher?


----------



## rightwinger

Vidi said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Overrated to me means, credit and adoration given versus actual accomplishments?  Kennedy.  Has to be.  Truman second, and Eisenhower third.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most historians think Eisenhower is underrated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most historians are right on that.But shouldnt they then rate him higher?
Click to expand...


He is rated eighth. Hard to be rated higher in a period of relative peace. Following FDR and Truman is tough also


----------



## Big Fitz

Other than the Interstate system, what'd he do?


----------



## Moonglow

Calvin Coolidge

Coolidge was "distinguished for character more than for heroic achievement,".


----------



## del

Big Fitz said:


> Other than the Interstate system, what'd he do?



read a book and find out, you ignorant putz.


----------



## Moonglow

del said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Other than the Interstate system, what'd he do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> read a book and find out, you ignorant putz.
Click to expand...


smoked tobacco.


----------



## Big Fitz

del said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Other than the Interstate system, what'd he do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> read a book and find out, you ignorant putz.
Click to expand...

Who put the 'fucktard drops' in your drink tonight?


----------



## del

Big Fitz said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Other than the Interstate system, what'd he do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> read a book and find out, you ignorant putz.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who put the 'fucktard drops' in your drink tonight?
Click to expand...


no one.

who told you there's a second e in argument, you ignorant buffoon?


----------



## Unkotare

del said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Other than the Interstate system, what'd he do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> read a book and find out, you ignorant putz.
Click to expand...



That was a very, very weak non-answer (no surprise considering the source).


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

Big Fitz said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Other than the Interstate system, what'd he do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> read a book and find out, you ignorant putz.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who put the 'fucktard drops' in your drink tonight?
Click to expand...


LOL - He gets it straight from the tap.


----------



## del

Unkotare said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Other than the Interstate system, what'd he do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> read a book and find out, you ignorant putz.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That was a very, very weak non-answer (no surprise considering the source).
Click to expand...


he was very fond of orientals


































had one in his parlor at gettysburg


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

It's funny how we get the lib line: "It's 50 years before you can adequately judge a president" when we talk about Clinton or Obama, but they're all too willing to harshly judge Reagan. Typical lib bull shit.


----------



## Big Fitz

del said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> read a book and find out, you ignorant putz.
> 
> 
> 
> Who put the 'fucktard drops' in your drink tonight?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no one.
> 
> who told you there's a second e in argument, you ignorant buffoon?
Click to expand...

Stick to the flame zone and be happy in your little feifdom.  You've lost the temperament to be outside it.


----------



## Vidi

TheGreatGatsby said:


> It's funny how we get the lib line: "It's 50 years before you can adequately judge a president" when we talk about Clinton or Obama, but they're all too willing to harshly judge Reagan. Typical lib bull shit.




Id happily wait if you folks wouldnt revere the man like he was the messiah. ( Thats clearly Obama, right?  )

Reagan was a damn good President ( even if I disagee with his policies ) but no where near what you folks paint him to be. Hence, overrated.


----------



## Vidi

rightwinger said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most historians think Eisenhower is underrated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most historians are right on that.But shouldnt they then rate him higher?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He is rated eighth. Hard to be rated higher in a period of relative peace. Following FDR and Truman is tough also
Click to expand...


ahem...Korea. He ended it by scaring the bejebus out of China. Implemented the desegragation of the armed forces ( originally ordered by Truman in 48 ), signed the civil rights acts of 57 and 60, expanded social security and he said this:

I have just one purpose...and that is to build up a strong progressive Republican Party in this country. If the right wing wants a fight, they are going to get it...before I end up, either this Republican Party will reflect progressivism or I won't be with them anymore."[


----------



## Artevelde

jillian said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Overrated to me means, credit and adoration given versus actual accomplishments?  Kennedy.  Has to be.  Truman second, and Eisenhower third.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most historians think Eisenhower is underrated.
Click to expand...


You are about 20 years behind the curve as regards academia. The real wave of positive Eisenhower revisionism ("hidden hand presidency" and such) dates from the mate 80's and early 90's of the previous century. The pro-eisenhower wave has run its course however. And while he was a good President, I don't think he was really very great.


----------



## Artevelde

rightwinger said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> And it's still there FDR rated by 238 historians and presidential experts as America's greatest president.
> 
> PS, also elected four times by the America people.
> 
> (Save a poster the trouble)
> Of course historians, scientists, college professors are all commie-socialists and don't eat their veggies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Presidential experts? Now that's funny, must be an eight year degree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hell yea....noted presidential scholars can't hold a candle to Republican revisionist history
Click to expand...


Actually, "scholars" have a demonstrated capacity for being every bit as wrong as anybody else.


----------



## konradv

Artevelde said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's easily FDR. Everything that is f'd up about our society is traced to him. And it was his policies that extended a recession into The Great Depression. And he was asleep at the wheel on Pearl Harbor. And his apathy led to Hitler's dominance and consequently millions in casualties. All of that, and the idiot "historians" and liberals celebrate him as the second best president when he's really the worst ever. You can't get more over-rated than that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It couldn't have been Hoover's three years of inaction that extended the Great Depression?
> 
> Asleep at the wheel?  He was trying to do everything short of war to rein in the Japanese.  It was the local commander that was asleep at the wheel.  He knew it and took off his stars immediately.
> 
> Apathy towards Hitler?  He recognized the danger, but had to deal with people, including the Republican presidential candidate, who wanted to turn a blind eye to what was happening in Europe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, while I agree with you that FDR is NOT overrated, each of your statements is factually incorrect:
> 
> Hoover was not inactive, quite the contrary.
Click to expand...


OK, bad actions.  He signed a tariff that hampered international trade.  He also did something that today's conservatives would have screamed about, raising corporate taxes and the top income tax bracket from 25 to 63%.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

konradv said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> It couldn't have been Hoover's three years of inaction that extended the Great Depression?
> 
> Asleep at the wheel?  He was trying to do everything short of war to rein in the Japanese.  It was the local commander that was asleep at the wheel.  He knew it and took off his stars immediately.
> 
> Apathy towards Hitler?  He recognized the danger, but had to deal with people, including the Republican presidential candidate, who wanted to turn a blind eye to what was happening in Europe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, while I agree with you that FDR is NOT overrated, each of your statements is factually incorrect:
> 
> Hoover was not inactive, quite the contrary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, bad actions.  He signed a tariff that hampered international trade.  He also did something that today's conservatives would have screamed about, raising corporate taxes and the top income tax bracket from 25 to 63%.
Click to expand...


And then the stock market crashed. Hmmm


----------



## konradv

TheGreatGatsby said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, while I agree with you that FDR is NOT overrated, each of your statements is factually incorrect:
> 
> Hoover was not inactive, quite the contrary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, bad actions.  He signed a tariff that hampered international trade.  He also did something that today's conservatives would have screamed about, raising corporate taxes and the top income tax bracket from 25 to 63%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And then the stock market crashed. Hmmm
Click to expand...


NO, that was after the crash.  Read some before shooting from the hip!


----------



## konradv

Big Fitz said:


> Other than the Interstate system, what'd he do?



Korea, Little Rock, NASA


----------



## Artevelde

konradv said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> It couldn't have been Hoover's three years of inaction that extended the Great Depression?
> 
> Asleep at the wheel?  He was trying to do everything short of war to rein in the Japanese.  It was the local commander that was asleep at the wheel.  He knew it and took off his stars immediately.
> 
> Apathy towards Hitler?  He recognized the danger, but had to deal with people, including the Republican presidential candidate, who wanted to turn a blind eye to what was happening in Europe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, while I agree with you that FDR is NOT overrated, each of your statements is factually incorrect:
> 
> Hoover was not inactive, quite the contrary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, bad actions.  He signed a tariff that hampered international trade.  He also did something that today's conservatives would have screamed about, raising corporate taxes and the top income tax bracket from 25 to 63%.
Click to expand...


It's always handy if you actually know what you're talking about.

It's true that Hoover did sign the Smooth-Hawley-tariff act, even though he opposed it. It was however very popular at the time.

For the rest is was refeering to his massive public works programs. Much like Obama today he believed in stimulus through investment in infrastructure projects (Hoover Dam, San Francisco Bay Bridge, Los Angeles Aquaduct, etc. . He also set up the Reconstruction Finance Corporation to help state and local government, railroad projects, etc.

I'm not claiming Hoover's policies were succesful (they were not). But he was very interventionist (much like the current administration).


----------



## JWBooth

Artevelde said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, while I agree with you that FDR is NOT overrated, each of your statements is factually incorrect:
> 
> Hoover was not inactive, quite the contrary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, bad actions.  He signed a tariff that hampered international trade.  He also did something that today's conservatives would have screamed about, raising corporate taxes and the top income tax bracket from 25 to 63%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's always handy if you actually know what you're talking about.
> 
> It's true that Hoover did sign the Smooth-Hawley-tariff act, even though he opposed it. It was however very popular at the time.
> 
> For the rest is was refeering to his massive public works programs. Much like Obama today he believed in stimulus through investment in infrastructure projects (Hoover Dam, San Francisco Bay Bridge, Los Angeles Aquaduct, etc. . He also set up the Reconstruction Finance Corporation to help state and local government, railroad projects, etc.
> 
> I'm not claiming Hoover's policies were succesful (they were not). But he was very interventionist (much like the current administration).
Click to expand...


During the campaign Roosevelt condemned the very spending programs Hoover had initiated that he expanded on while in office.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Many people in FDR's White House admired Stalin and the USSR, which should come as no surprise because they worked directly for Uncle Joe


----------



## Dante

JWBooth said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, bad actions.  He signed a tariff that hampered international trade.  He also did something that today's conservatives would have screamed about, raising corporate taxes and the top income tax bracket from 25 to 63%.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's always handy if you actually know what you're talking about.
> 
> It's true that Hoover did sign the Smooth-Hawley-tariff act, even though he opposed it. It was however very popular at the time.
> 
> For the rest is was refeering to his massive public works programs. Much like Obama today he believed in stimulus through investment in infrastructure projects (Hoover Dam, San Francisco Bay Bridge, Los Angeles Aquaduct, etc. . He also set up the Reconstruction Finance Corporation to help state and local government, railroad projects, etc.
> 
> I'm not claiming Hoover's policies were succesful (they were not). But he was very interventionist (much like the current administration).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> During the campaign Roosevelt condemned the very spending programs Hoover had initiated that he expanded on while in office.
Click to expand...


yeah, yeah, yeah, And Republican Ronald Reagan promised smaller government and G.W. Bush promised to be a uniter and not a divider.


----------



## Pho_King

I vote for Obama.  A very significant percentage of the population believes he will stop the rising of the seas, pay their mortgage and bills, and slash the deficit with a massive government power grab. Hell, for leading progressive idiots to believe in unicorns, he has been given a Nobel prize....


----------



## Dante

[youtube]_zHN4vCfwh4[/youtube]


----------



## Nosmo King

Andrew Jackson.  Terrible human being!  Screwed the Cherokee out of everything while ignoring a ruling from the Supreme Court not to do it.  Yet this fiend graces our twenties and is lionized.  Shameful wreck of a man.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Lincoln. He solidified the already over reaching authorities given to the federal govt when the constitution was ratified. He was a tyrant, plain and simple. And yet almost all of written history treats him as though he "saved America". The states should have been allowed to secede from the union without physical or economic violence. 

After him, I'd go with FDR. For the same reasons. His programs were unconstitutional and he cheated to get them into law. They are a looming disaster today and yet, most main stream history holds this man up as some sort of savior of the country. He too was a tyrant.


----------



## Vidi

Pho_King said:


> I vote for Obama.  A very significant percentage of the population believes he will stop the rising of the seas, pay their mortgage and bills, and slash the deficit with a massive government power grab. Hell, for leading progressive idiots to believe in unicorns, he has been given a Nobel prize....



That Nobel does in fact make a strong case for Obama being overrated. Its unbelievable to me he was awarded it. He had done NOTHING at the time. Even now I dont find his accomplishments deserving of a Nobel. That whole thing is just crazy.


----------



## Unkotare

TakeAStepBack said:


> And yet almost all of written history treats him as though he "saved America".




That's because he did.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

NO, he saved the "union" at the expense of state rights. He consolidated powers through force and violence. rather than diplomatic negotiations. That's what tyrants do.


----------



## Nosmo King

TakeAStepBack said:


> NO, he saved the "union" at the expense of state rights. He consolidated powers through force and violence. rather than diplomatic negotiations. That's what tyrants do.



He saved the union and that's what made America the nation it is today.  A dissolved union would mean independent states negotiating who knows what treaties with foreign governments.  Without the union, we could have fought the battles of World Wars I and II right here in North America and not Europe and Asia and Africa.

And those "state's rights" he abolished meant human beings could no longer be bought and sold.  The least noble thing in a long line of ignoble things ever to come out of the Deep South.


----------



## Unkotare

TakeAStepBack said:


> NO, he saved the "union" at the expense of state rights.




He saved America - THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.


The confederacy lost. Get over it.


----------



## Unkotare

Nosmo King said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> NO, he saved the "union" at the expense of state rights. He consolidated powers through force and violence. rather than diplomatic negotiations. That's what tyrants do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He saved the union and that's what made America the nation it is today.  A dissolved union would mean independent states negotiating who knows what treaties with foreign governments.
Click to expand...




People forget that France was right there in Mexico watching and waiting. The other European powers were ready and willing to take advantage depending upon how things turned out. Seward spent the war convincing the Europeans that the North would prevail and any interference would carry consequences.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Yes, the boogeyman in the closet. Statists the world over have been having this very orgasm of power consolidation for centuries.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Unkotare said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> NO, he saved the "union" at the expense of state rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He saved America - THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
> 
> 
> The confederacy lost. Get over it.
Click to expand...


No shit the confederacy lost. Actually, we all lost. Because that is where the states became nothign more than ceremonial to the all mighty federal power. It's been downhill from there for liberty.


----------



## BluePhantom

I would have to say JFK.  Disastrous foreign policy that emboldened Khrushchev and never got a single major piece of legislation through congress.  His chances for re-election were almost zero...after he got shot *THEN *everyone acted like he walked on water and was this fantastic president.  In reality he was a disaster.


----------



## Unkotare

TakeAStepBack said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> NO, he saved the "union" at the expense of state rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He saved America - THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
> 
> 
> The confederacy lost. Get over it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No shit the confederacy lost. Actually, we all lost.
Click to expand...




No, just the confederacy. The North didn't lose and the slaves sure as hell didn't lose. The UNION won.


----------



## regent

Well the Reagan administration did one major thing better, it had more convictions for corruption than even the Nixon administration. 138 to 43. I wonder if the Gipper had a 3 by 5 card with a cute saying for presidential corruption?


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Unkotare said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> He saved America - THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
> 
> 
> The confederacy lost. Get over it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No shit the confederacy lost. Actually, we all lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, just the confederacy. The North didn't lose and the slaves sure as hell didn't lose. The UNION won.
Click to expand...


Spoken like a true statist.


----------



## Dante

regent said:


> Well the Reagan administration did one major thing better, it had more convictions for corruption than even the Nixon administration. 138 to 43. I wonder if the Gipper had a 3 by 5 card with a cute saying for presidential corruption?



*he had a VP willing to pardon all his criminal henchmen*

The following is a list of the 75 pardons and 3 commutations by President George H. W. Bush. The list is organized by the date on which President George H. W. Bush granted the pardon or commutation.

This list is a subset of the list of people pardoned by a United States president

List of people pardoned by George H. W. Bush - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Unkotare

TakeAStepBack said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> No shit the confederacy lost. Actually, we all lost.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, just the confederacy. The North didn't lose and the slaves sure as hell didn't lose. The UNION won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Spoken like a true statist.
Click to expand...



You mean spoken like a true AMERICAN.


----------



## rightwinger

BluePhantom said:


> I would have to say JFK.  Disastrous foreign policy that emboldened Khrushchev and never got a single major piece of legislation through congress.  His chances for re-election were almost zero...after he got shot *THEN *everyone acted like he walked on water and was this fantastic president.  In reality he was a disaster.



His chances for re-election were close to zero?

Against Goldwater?


----------



## BluePhantom

Dante said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well the Reagan administration did one major thing better, it had more convictions for corruption than even the Nixon administration. 138 to 43. I wonder if the Gipper had a 3 by 5 card with a cute saying for presidential corruption?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *he had a VP willing to pardon all his criminal henchmen*
> 
> The following is a list of the 75 pardons and 3 commutations by President George H. W. Bush. The list is organized by the date on which President George H. W. Bush granted the pardon or commutation.
> 
> This list is a subset of the list of people pardoned by a United States president
> 
> List of people pardoned by George H. W. Bush - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


Kind of pales next to the 459 people pardoned by Clinton don't you think?


----------



## BluePhantom

rightwinger said:


> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would have to say JFK.  Disastrous foreign policy that emboldened Khrushchev and never got a single major piece of legislation through congress.  His chances for re-election were almost zero...after he got shot *THEN *everyone acted like he walked on water and was this fantastic president.  In reality he was a disaster.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His chances for re-election were close to zero?
> 
> Against Goldwater?
Click to expand...


Hard to tell who would have won that election.  The campaign strategies would have been totally different.  After JFK got shot he was canonized.  The same people who were bitching about him a week before were suddenly talking like he was the greatest thing since the wheel. LBJ rode that popularity into the White House, which of course was a very smart political move, and it was difficult for the Republicans to make an attack since it could be twisted as showing disrespect to a murdered president. 

Had JFK not been killed, there's a reasonable argument to be made that *IF *he was re-elected it certainly would not have been the crushing that the 1964 election was.


----------



## rightwinger

BluePhantom said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would have to say JFK.  Disastrous foreign policy that emboldened Khrushchev and never got a single major piece of legislation through congress.  His chances for re-election were almost zero...after he got shot *THEN *everyone acted like he walked on water and was this fantastic president.  In reality he was a disaster.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His chances for re-election were close to zero?
> 
> Against Goldwater?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hard to tell who would have won that election.  The campaign strategies would have been totally different.  After JFK got shot he was canonized.  The same people who were bitching about him a week before were suddenly talking like he was the greatest thing since the wheel. LBJ rode that popularity into the White House, which of course was a very smart political move, and it was difficult for the Republicans to make an attack since it could be twisted as showing disrespect to a murdered president.
> 
> Had JFK not been killed, there's a reasonable argument to be made that *IF *he was re-elected it certainly would not have been the crushing that the 1964 election was.
Click to expand...


I can agree that JFK was martyred but he was still a popular and charasmatic president. The GOP field was weak...Goldwater and Rockefeller. Neither would have looked good side by side with Kennedy.  VietNam had not happened yet and Civil Rights had not kicked off in high gear. 
Kennedys legacy if he had brought us down the same path in VietNam would have been a disaster


----------



## there4eyeM

What president was more stupid than 'W'?


----------



## Dante

BluePhantom said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well the Reagan administration did one major thing better, it had more convictions for corruption than even the Nixon administration. 138 to 43. I wonder if the Gipper had a 3 by 5 card with a cute saying for presidential corruption?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *he had a VP willing to pardon all his criminal henchmen*
> 
> The following is a list of the 75 pardons and 3 commutations by President George H. W. Bush. The list is organized by the date on which President George H. W. Bush granted the pardon or commutation.
> 
> This list is a subset of the list of people pardoned by a United States president
> 
> List of people pardoned by George H. W. Bush - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kind of pales next to the 459 people pardoned by Clinton don't you think?
Click to expand...


It's about pardoning your fellow criminals. Bush pardoned Reagan cabinet officials he served with. 

So your defense of Reagan Administration criminal behavior is that President Clinton pardoned more people than Reagan's VP did when he had the chance?

How many Clinton cabinet officials were convicted of crimes?


----------



## Billo_Really

Ronald Reagan was the most over-rated President of all-time.


----------



## Unkotare

there4eyeM said:


> What president was more stupid than 'W'?




And I suppose you think you are smarter than President Bush?


----------



## Billo_Really

Unkotare said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> What president was more stupid than 'W'?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I suppose you think you are smarter than President Bush?
Click to expand...

I dunno, you tell me.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptZISU03kHc]Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay George W Bush getting High - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## there4eyeM

Unkotare said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> What president was more stupid than 'W'?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I suppose you think you are smarter than President Bush?
Click to expand...



Think would mean doubt..


----------



## Unkotare

there4eyeM said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> What president was more stupid than 'W'?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I suppose you think you are smarter than President Bush?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Think would mean doubt..
Click to expand...




Upon what do you base this high regard of yourself?


----------



## Unkotare

loinboy said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> What president was more stupid than 'W'?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I suppose you think you are smarter than President Bush?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I dunno, you tell me.
> ]
Click to expand...



I didn't ask you. Your inability to follow along answers that question in any case.


----------



## Billo_Really

Unkotare said:


> I didn't ask you. Your inability to follow along answers that question in any case.


My inability to what?

That statement makes no sense whatsoever.


----------



## there4eyeM

"Upon what do you base this high regard of yourself?"

Was it a statement about my or his intelligence? One's I.Q. need not be very high to be smarter than that individual.


----------



## there4eyeM

loinboy said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't ask you. Your inability to follow along answers that question in any case.
> 
> 
> 
> My inability to what?
> 
> That statement makes no sense whatsoever.
Click to expand...


Don't question his answer.


----------



## Unkotare

loinboy said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't ask you. Your inability to follow along answers that question in any case.
> 
> 
> 
> My inability to what?
> 
> That statement makes no sense whatsoever.
Click to expand...




And now you've really confirmed it...


----------



## Unkotare

there4eyeM said:


> "Upon what do you base this high regard of yourself?"
> 
> Was it a statement about my or his intelligence? One's I.Q. need not be very high to be smarter than that individual.




Ok, let's go by what you've actually accomplished. Education seems a good place to begin. Bush graduated from both Harvard and Yale. How about you?


Later we can compare career accomplishments.


----------



## there4eyeM

Einstein did not graduate from Harvard, so Bush is more intelligent?
Is this a serious offer of comparison?
As for career accomplishments, I have been successful in business in contrast to his 'W'ness.
But this is not about me, it's about the war criminal and collaborator with those who would destroy what is human.


----------



## Unkotare

there4eyeM said:


> Einstein did not graduate from Harvard, so Bush is more intelligent?.





So now you're comparing your accomplishments to those of Einstein? Wow, you really do think highly of yourself.



Anyway, I take it that's a 'no' on Harvard and Yale? Ok. You've got your GED, right?


----------



## Unkotare

there4eyeM said:


> As for career accomplishments, I have been successful in business in contrast to his 'W'ness.
> .





Ok, let's be clear. You are claiming to have accomplished more than President Bush. Is that right?


----------



## Unkotare

there4eyeM said:


> But this is not about me.





Of course it is. You are the one who claimed to be smarter than President Bush. Now it's up to you to prove it. So far you have failed miserably.


----------



## there4eyeM

The dog in you picture is smarter than that Bush.


----------



## Unkotare

there4eyeM said:


> The dog in you[sic] picture is smarter than that Bush.



Let's see if _you_ are before we raise the bar.


----------



## there4eyeM

Perhaps I should be flattered at your personal interest in me, but I am neither attractive nor rich, so don't bother.
As for 'W' (must stand for 'W'ar criminal), history will certainly allot him a place close to that I would give him.
Though not a great admirer of some of the other less popular candidates on this list of poor performers, GBII showed the least knowledge of history, the least understanding of America's place in the world, the least capacity to maintain America's power, the greatest co-operation with the despoilers of America's riches. It is unbelievable that at the start we had people like Adams, Franklin, Jefferson, Washington and so many other great minds to help form a nation, and today we can even think of electing someone like 'W'.


----------



## Unkotare

You haven't come anywhere near to proving your claim of being smarter than President Bush. What are you waiting for?


----------



## chikenwing

TheGreatGatsby said:


> It's easily FDR. Everything that is f'd up about our society is traced to him. And it was his policies that extended a recession into The Great Depression. And he was asleep at the wheel on Pearl Harbor. And his apathy led to Hitler's dominance and consequently millions in casualties. All of that, and the idiot "historians" and liberals celebrate him as the second best president when he's really the worst ever. You can't get more over-rated than that.



Agreed,and you left out our concentration camps,we didn't kill millions but we locked up a lot of US citizens a really bad bad thing.


----------



## Vidi

loinboy said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't ask you. Your inability to follow along answers that question in any case.
> 
> 
> 
> My inability to what?
> 
> That statement makes no sense whatsoever.
Click to expand...


That is Unkboys tactic. He likes to ask unrelated out of the bloue off the wall questions and then accuse YOU of being too stupid or too cowardly to allow him to derail the subject into something else entirely.


Doncha, Unkboy?


----------



## Vidi

TakeAStepBack said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> NO, he saved the "union" at the expense of state rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He saved America - THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
> 
> 
> The confederacy lost. Get over it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No shit the confederacy lost. Actually, we all lost. Because that is where the states became nothign more than ceremonial to the all mighty federal power. It's been downhill from there for liberty.
Click to expand...


yes because we all know the ultimate liberty was the right to own slaves. /sarcasm


----------



## Vidi

BluePhantom said:


> I would have to say JFK.  Disastrous foreign policy that emboldened Khrushchev and never got a single major piece of legislation through congress.  His chances for re-election were almost zero...after he got shot *THEN *everyone acted like he walked on water and was this fantastic president.  In reality he was a disaster.




Cuban Missle Crisis. That ONE thing along keeps him in the top ten.

And he was shagging Marilyn Monroe. If youre going to cheat on your wife, Marilyn ( not Monica ) is the one to go with.


----------



## Vidi

TakeAStepBack said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> No shit the confederacy lost. Actually, we all lost.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, just the confederacy. The North didn't lose and the slaves sure as hell didn't lose. The UNION won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Spoken like a true statist.
Click to expand...



Spoken like a true nutter


----------



## Unkotare

Vidi said:


> loinboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't ask you. Your inability to follow along answers that question in any case.
> 
> 
> 
> My inability to what?
> 
> That statement makes no sense whatsoever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is Unkboys tactic. He likes to ask unrelated out of the bloue off the wall questions and then accuse YOU of being too stupid or too cowardly to allow him to derail the subject into something else entirely.
> 
> 
> Doncha, Unkboy?
Click to expand...




Did you say "out of the bloue"? What the hell is that? Gonna try and call that a "typo" as well? You seriously need to work on your English.

Now then, I believe you made some claim about logic a while back? Are you ready to try and support your claim? Or are you too stupid and cowardly to stand by your own words? Your little disclaimer above doesn't change anything, despite what you were hoping.


----------



## Vidi

BluePhantom said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would have to say JFK.  Disastrous foreign policy that emboldened Khrushchev and never got a single major piece of legislation through congress.  His chances for re-election were almost zero...after he got shot *THEN *everyone acted like he walked on water and was this fantastic president.  In reality he was a disaster.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His chances for re-election were close to zero?
> 
> Against Goldwater?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hard to tell who would have won that election.  The campaign strategies would have been totally different.  After JFK got shot he was canonized.  The same people who were bitching about him a week before were suddenly talking like he was the greatest thing since the wheel. LBJ rode that popularity into the White House, which of course was a very smart political move, and it was difficult for the Republicans to make an attack since it could be twisted as showing disrespect to a murdered president.
> 
> Had JFK not been killed, there's a reasonable argument to be made that *IF *he was re-elected it certainly would not have been the crushing that the 1964 election was.
Click to expand...


True. Kennedy beat Nixon by only a 100,000 or so votes in the popular vote. Chances are..had he survived and had he won, it would have been just as close.


----------



## Vidi

Unkotare said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> loinboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> My inability to what?
> 
> That statement makes no sense whatsoever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is Unkboys tactic. He likes to ask unrelated out of the bloue off the wall questions and then accuse YOU of being too stupid or too cowardly to allow him to derail the subject into something else entirely.
> 
> 
> Doncha, Unkboy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you say "out of the bloue"? What the hell is that? Gonna try and call that a "typo" as well? You seriously need to work on your English.
> 
> Now then, I believe you made some claim about logic a while back? Are you ready to try and support your claim? Or are you too stupid and cowardly to stand by your own words? Your little disclaimer above doesn't change anything, despite what you were hoping.
Click to expand...


I type fast and dont look to see if its all perfect enough to pass your typing tests. You want to focus on that instead of the content, feel free. Maybe someday youll get that stick out of your ass and realize you should check your FACTS before you worry about your spelling.


----------



## Vidi

Unkotare said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> loinboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> My inability to what?
> 
> That statement makes no sense whatsoever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is Unkboys tactic. He likes to ask unrelated out of the bloue off the wall questions and then accuse YOU of being too stupid or too cowardly to allow him to derail the subject into something else entirely.
> 
> 
> Doncha, Unkboy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you say "out of the bloue"? What the hell is that? Gonna try and call that a "typo" as well? You seriously need to work on your English.
> 
> Now then, I believe you made some claim about logic a while back? Are you ready to try and support your claim? Or are you too stupid and cowardly to stand by your own words? Your little disclaimer above doesn't change anything, despite what you were hoping.
Click to expand...



Your logic is indeed flawed. Its flawed because you cant see the forest for the trees, as demonstarted by your grammer nazi mentality. You spellcheck instead of FACTcheck.

Now how about YOU stop being a coward and actually focus on the topic in the thread instead of derailing everything with your innane and utterly dictatorial demands, hmmm?

Can ya do that, UnkBoi? or are you too afraid of what might happen if you actually had to back your shit up with links and facts?


----------



## Unkotare

Vidi said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is Unkboys tactic. He likes to ask unrelated out of the bloue off the wall questions and then accuse YOU of being too stupid or too cowardly to allow him to derail the subject into something else entirely.
> 
> 
> Doncha, Unkboy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you say "out of the bloue"? What the hell is that? Gonna try and call that a "typo" as well? You seriously need to work on your English.
> 
> Now then, I believe you made some claim about logic a while back? Are you ready to try and support your claim? Or are you too stupid and cowardly to stand by your own words? Your little disclaimer above doesn't change anything, despite what you were hoping.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I type fast and dont look to see if its all perfect enough to pass your typing tests. You want to focus on that instead of the content, feel free. Maybe someday youll get that stick out of your ass and realize you should check your FACTS before you worry about your spelling.
Click to expand...



Why don't you just admit your errors instead of trying to pass them off as "typos"? Too much ego?


----------



## Unkotare

Vidi said:


> Your logic is indeed flawed. Its[sic] flawed because you cant[sic] see the forest for the trees, as demonstarted[sic] by your grammer[sic] nazi mentality.







Can't you even _try_?


Spelling issues aside, what you describe above would not be a problem of logic even if it were true and you somehow managed to write about it in proper English.


----------



## Unkotare

Vidi said:


> if you actually had to back your shit up with links and facts?




I almost always do.


----------



## Vidi

Unkotare said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your logic is indeed flawed. Its[sic] flawed because you cant[sic] see the forest for the trees, as demonstarted[sic] by your grammer[sic] nazi mentality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't you even _try_?
> 
> 
> Spelling issues aside, what you describe above would not be a problem of logic even if it were true and you somehow managed to write about it in proper English.
Click to expand...



Im going full on msesed pu jsut ot ese uyo olse ti.


----------



## Vidi

Unkotare said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> if you actually had to back your shit up with links and facts?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I almost always do.
Click to expand...


lIl ebielve ti ehwn I ese ti

can you translate this: _|_


----------



## Unkotare

Down to your last excuse, eh?


----------



## Ernie S.

Vidi said:


> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> His chances for re-election were close to zero?
> 
> Against Goldwater?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hard to tell who would have won that election.  The campaign strategies would have been totally different.  After JFK got shot he was canonized.  The same people who were bitching about him a week before were suddenly talking like he was the greatest thing since the wheel. LBJ rode that popularity into the White House, which of course was a very smart political move, and it was difficult for the Republicans to make an attack since it could be twisted as showing disrespect to a murdered president.
> 
> Had JFK not been killed, there's a reasonable argument to be made that *IF *he was re-elected it certainly would not have been the crushing that the 1964 election was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True. Kennedy beat Nixon by only a 100,000 or so votes in the popular vote. Chances are..had he survived and had he won, it would have been just as close.
Click to expand...

Was Daily still mayor of Chicago in '64?


----------



## Unkotare

Vidi said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> if you actually had to back your shit up with links and facts?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I almost always do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lIl ebielve ti ehwn I ese ti
Click to expand...



Try paying attention then.


----------



## Vidi

Ernie S. said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hard to tell who would have won that election.  The campaign strategies would have been totally different.  After JFK got shot he was canonized.  The same people who were bitching about him a week before were suddenly talking like he was the greatest thing since the wheel. LBJ rode that popularity into the White House, which of course was a very smart political move, and it was difficult for the Republicans to make an attack since it could be twisted as showing disrespect to a murdered president.
> 
> Had JFK not been killed, there's a reasonable argument to be made that *IF *he was re-elected it certainly would not have been the crushing that the 1964 election was.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True. Kennedy beat Nixon by only a 100,000 or so votes in the popular vote. Chances are..had he survived and had he won, it would have been just as close.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Was Daily still mayor of Chicago in '64?
Click to expand...



Even if you gave all 27 electorals from Illinois to Nixon. Kennedy still wins by 29 electtoral votes, so corruption in Chicago would have had very little impact at all.


----------



## del

Vidi said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> True. Kennedy beat Nixon by only a 100,000 or so votes in the popular vote. Chances are..had he survived and had he won, it would have been just as close.
> 
> 
> 
> Was Daily still mayor of Chicago in '64?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Even if you gave all 27 electorals from Illinois to Nixon. Kennedy still wins by 29 electtoral votes, so corruption in Chicago would have had very little impact at all.
Click to expand...


yeah, stealing all those votes in texas put him over the top.


----------



## Vidi

del said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was Daily still mayor of Chicago in '64?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if you gave all 27 electorals from Illinois to Nixon. Kennedy still wins by 29 electtoral votes, so corruption in Chicago would have had very little impact at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yeah, stealing all those votes in texas put him over the top.
Click to expand...



Texas is only 24 electoral votes. Kennedy still wins by five.

However, That most likely would have forced the 15 electorals for Byrd to choose either Kennedy or Nixon. As those electorals came from Mississipi, Alabama and Oklahoma, AND that was still in Democrat South times, chances are good those electorals go to Kennedy.


----------



## rdean

George W. Bush.  An approval rating of 10 is about 9 points too high.


----------



## rightwinger

Unkotare said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> What president was more stupid than 'W'?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I suppose you think you are smarter than President Bush?
Click to expand...


Having a daddy who was President makes you smart?


----------



## Middleoftheroad

To those that are saying Kennedy would have lost or had zero chance of being re-elected.  Lets take a look at history.  Everyone seems to think he was unpopular during his presidency and only popular after his death, this is completely untrue.  In fact, during his presidency, it could be argued he was the most popular president in the last 60 years.
Presidential Approval Ratings -- Gallup Historical Statistics and Trends
According to Gallup, since they have kept track, JFK has had the highest average approval rating of any president, at 70.1% approval rating during his time in office, Ike comes in 2nd at 65%.

The lowest he was ever rated was 56%, which is the best since Gallup has been keeping track.  2nd was Ike again at 48%.  When he died he had a 59% approval rating.  No president has ever lost an election with over a 48% approval rating (since Gallup has been keeping track, also there were no presidents rated between 49-51).

So to assume that he had 0 chance of winning, you would have to assume that his approval would drop at least 8 points and more likely around 12 points.


----------



## MuadDib

TakeAStepBack said:


> Lincoln. He solidified the already over reaching authorities given to the federal govt when the constitution was ratified. He was a tyrant, plain and simple. And yet almost all of written history treats him as though he "saved America". The states should have been allowed to secede from the union without physical or economic violence.
> 
> After him, I'd go with FDR. For the same reasons. His programs were unconstitutional and he cheated to get them into law. They are a looming disaster today and yet, most main stream history holds this man up as some sort of savior of the country. He too was a tyrant.



Easily, the worst was Lincoln. And thanks to him, the government created by the Founders was destroyed and socialism was introduced into America.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

MuadDib said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln. He solidified the already over reaching authorities given to the federal govt when the constitution was ratified. He was a tyrant, plain and simple. And yet almost all of written history treats him as though he "saved America". The states should have been allowed to secede from the union without physical or economic violence.
> 
> After him, I'd go with FDR. For the same reasons. His programs were unconstitutional and he cheated to get them into law. They are a looming disaster today and yet, most main stream history holds this man up as some sort of savior of the country. He too was a tyrant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Easily, the worst was Lincoln. And thanks to him, the government created by the Founders was destroyed and socialism was introduced into America.
Click to expand...


How do you figure?


----------



## freedombecki

Sorry, I didn't vote correctly. I would have voted on a contemporary person, except I didn't realize it was limited to historic figures. In that case, I would change my vote to Andrew Jackson.

Andrew Jackson engaged in the craven displacement of tribal Americans to the worst lands in America through ethnic cleansing of regions owned by natives. Today, the people in those desolate places have one of the highest ethnic suicide rates in the world and occupy the very poorest counties in this nation.

Andrew Jackson made a small number of Europeans wealthy at the expense of all native tribal people, by giving them the best hunting grounds, mineral resource areas, etc., as these resources became known and exploited.

Not much of a human being was Jackson, and he taught European Americans the idea that if you make racial and ethnic displacement a law, you can benefit extraordinarily and kid yourself that the people you displaced were animals or insects.

Andrew Jackson set a precedent of things to come for ethnic groups in this part of North America.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

freedombecki said:


> Sorry, I didn't vote correctly. I would have voted on a contemporary person, except I didn't realize it was limited to historic figures. In that case, I would change my vote to Andrew Jackson.
> 
> Andrew Jackson engaged in the craven displacement of tribal Americans to the worst lands in America through ethnic cleansing of regions owned by natives. Today, the people in those desolate places have one of the highest ethnic suicide rates in the world and occupy the very poorest counties in this nation.
> 
> Andrew Jackson made a small number of Europeans wealthy at the expense of all native tribal people, by giving them the best hunting grounds, mineral resource areas, etc., as these resources became known and exploited.
> 
> Not much of a human being was Jackson, and he taught European Americans the idea that if you make racial and ethnic displacement a law, you can benefit extraordinarily and kid yourself that the people you displaced were animals or insects.
> 
> Andrew Jackson set a precedent of things to come for ethnic groups in this part of North America.



I agree that it looks bad on paper; but I don't think people really understand the times. There was a lot of Indian savagery during that time. I'd be interested to learn more about it. I know that what I've read on some of the Western tribes, they were quite barbaric and murderous. I will say that there is some history to indicate that the white men did mistreat peaceful Indians as well.


----------



## Vidi

TheGreatGatsby said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I didn't vote correctly. I would have voted on a contemporary person, except I didn't realize it was limited to historic figures. In that case, I would change my vote to Andrew Jackson.
> 
> Andrew Jackson engaged in the craven displacement of tribal Americans to the worst lands in America through ethnic cleansing of regions owned by natives. Today, the people in those desolate places have one of the highest ethnic suicide rates in the world and occupy the very poorest counties in this nation.
> 
> Andrew Jackson made a small number of Europeans wealthy at the expense of all native tribal people, by giving them the best hunting grounds, mineral resource areas, etc., as these resources became known and exploited.
> 
> Not much of a human being was Jackson, and he taught European Americans the idea that if you make racial and ethnic displacement a law, you can benefit extraordinarily and kid yourself that the people you displaced were animals or insects.
> 
> Andrew Jackson set a precedent of things to come for ethnic groups in this part of North America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that it looks bad on paper; but I don't think people really understand the times. There was a lot of Indian savagery during that time. I'd be interested to learn more about it. I know that what I've read on some of the Western tribes, they were quite barbaric and murderous. I will say that there is some history to indicate that the white men did mistreat peaceful Indians as well.
Click to expand...


Andrew Jackson was a land stealing racist who force marched nearly 50,000 natives, over 4,000 to their deaths.

Fuck him.

And the next time someone brings up FDR as the only president to intern a population, mention Andrew Jackson, the Trail of Tears, Indian Reservations and OH YEAH, slavery. Amazing how partisan minds like to conveniently forget all of that.


----------



## Vidi

Middleoftheroad said:


> To those that are saying Kennedy would have lost or had zero chance of being re-elected.  Lets take a look at history.  Everyone seems to think he was unpopular during his presidency and only popular after his death, this is completely untrue.  In fact, during his presidency, it could be argued he was the most popular president in the last 60 years.
> Presidential Approval Ratings -- Gallup Historical Statistics and Trends
> According to Gallup, since they have kept track, JFK has had the highest average approval rating of any president, at 70.1% approval rating during his time in office, Ike comes in 2nd at 65%.
> 
> The lowest he was ever rated was 56%, which is the best since Gallup has been keeping track.  2nd was Ike again at 48%.  When he died he had a 59% approval rating.  No president has ever lost an election with over a 48% approval rating (since Gallup has been keeping track, also there were no presidents rated between 49-51).
> 
> So to assume that he had 0 chance of winning, you would have to assume that his approval would drop at least 8 points and more likely around 12 points.




How the hell do you only have 28 rep when you post brilliant data and analysis like that?


----------



## Vidi

MuadDib said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln. He solidified the already over reaching authorities given to the federal govt when the constitution was ratified. He was a tyrant, plain and simple. And yet almost all of written history treats him as though he "saved America". The states should have been allowed to secede from the union without physical or economic violence.
> 
> After him, I'd go with FDR. For the same reasons. His programs were unconstitutional and he cheated to get them into law. They are a looming disaster today and yet, most main stream history holds this man up as some sort of savior of the country. He too was a tyrant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Easily, the worst was Lincoln. And thanks to him, the government created by the Founders was destroyed and socialism was introduced into America.
Click to expand...


Wow, that's ...just...ignorant.

If I hadn't already given out the stupid hat today, you would be the winner. But you know what, your post is so stupid and historically inaccurate that it may just trump everything tomorrow and you'll get to drool in the corner and wear it tomorrow.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

Vidi said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I didn't vote correctly. I would have voted on a contemporary person, except I didn't realize it was limited to historic figures. In that case, I would change my vote to Andrew Jackson.
> 
> Andrew Jackson engaged in the craven displacement of tribal Americans to the worst lands in America through ethnic cleansing of regions owned by natives. Today, the people in those desolate places have one of the highest ethnic suicide rates in the world and occupy the very poorest counties in this nation.
> 
> Andrew Jackson made a small number of Europeans wealthy at the expense of all native tribal people, by giving them the best hunting grounds, mineral resource areas, etc., as these resources became known and exploited.
> 
> Not much of a human being was Jackson, and he taught European Americans the idea that if you make racial and ethnic displacement a law, you can benefit extraordinarily and kid yourself that the people you displaced were animals or insects.
> 
> Andrew Jackson set a precedent of things to come for ethnic groups in this part of North America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that it looks bad on paper; but I don't think people really understand the times. There was a lot of Indian savagery during that time. I'd be interested to learn more about it. I know that what I've read on some of the Western tribes, they were quite barbaric and murderous. I will say that there is some history to indicate that the white men did mistreat peaceful Indians as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Andrew Jackson was a land stealing racist who force marched nearly 50,000 natives, over 4,000 to their deaths.
> 
> Fuck him.
> 
> And the next time someone brings up FDR as the only president to intern a population, mention Andrew Jackson, the Trail of Tears, Indian Reservations and OH YEAH, slavery. Amazing how partisan minds like to conveniently forget all of that.
Click to expand...


Too bad there were plenty of incidents like this that preceded 'The trail of tears.'



> On December 28, 1835 a group of Seminoles and blacks ambushed a U.S. Army company marching from Fort Brooke in Tampa to Fort King in Ocala. Out of 110 army troops only 3 survived, this came to be known as the Dade Massacre.



Stop being a revisionist historian that sees things with an agenda.


----------



## Vidi

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that it looks bad on paper; but I don't think people really understand the times. There was a lot of Indian savagery during that time. I'd be interested to learn more about it. I know that what I've read on some of the Western tribes, they were quite barbaric and murderous. I will say that there is some history to indicate that the white men did mistreat peaceful Indians as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andrew Jackson was a land stealing racist who force marched nearly 50,000 natives, over 4,000 to their deaths.
> 
> Fuck him.
> 
> And the next time someone brings up FDR as the only president to intern a population, mention Andrew Jackson, the Trail of Tears, Indian Reservations and OH YEAH, slavery. Amazing how partisan minds like to conveniently forget all of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too bad there were plenty of incidents like this that preceded 'The trail of tears.'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On December 28, 1835 a group of Seminoles and blacks ambushed a U.S. Army company marching from Fort Brooke in Tampa to Fort King in Ocala. Out of 110 army troops only 3 survived, this came to be known as the Dade Massacre.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop being a revisionist historian that sees things with an agenda.
Click to expand...


Really? You want to throw out revisionist like that while accusing native Americans of " savagery" for protecting their homeland from invaders?

Wake the fuck up, white kid. It wax THEIR land. You really gonna sit there with the 2nd amendment in your pocket and call them savages for dong EXACTLY what you or I would do if the situation were reversed?

Oh and while we are on the subject of your revisionism. I've seen what you post and I've seen your name. The Great Gatsby was a condemnation of the upper class and their elitism. It was a condemnation of the elitists., something your posts have shown you know nothing about.

Perhaps you should consider Gatsbys library of uncut books and the request a name change, because you exemplify everything that book condemned.

And until you can explain "uncut books" you've proven yourself an idiot.


----------



## Unkotare

Vidi said:


> Oh and while we are on the subject of your revisionism. I've seen what you post and I've seen your name. The Great Gatsby was a condemnation of the upper class and their elitism. It was a condemnation of the elitists.





That simplification demonstrates an extremely superficial understanding of the novel. 



And here you thought you were being 'intellectual.'


----------



## Vidi

Unkotare said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh and while we are on the subject of your revisionism. I've seen what you post and I've seen your name. The Great Gatsby was a condemnation of the upper class and their elitism. It was a condemnation of the elitists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That simplification demonstrates an extremely superficial understanding of the novel.
> 
> 
> 
> And here you thought you were being 'intellectual.'
Click to expand...


Yeah like the grammar nazi with no opinion of his own has any real understanding.

"uncut books" or you're a fraud too.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

Vidi said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Andrew Jackson was a land stealing racist who force marched nearly 50,000 natives, over 4,000 to their deaths.
> 
> Fuck him.
> 
> And the next time someone brings up FDR as the only president to intern a population, mention Andrew Jackson, the Trail of Tears, Indian Reservations and OH YEAH, slavery. Amazing how partisan minds like to conveniently forget all of that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Too bad there were plenty of incidents like this that preceded 'The trail of tears.'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On December 28, 1835 a group of Seminoles and blacks ambushed a U.S. Army company marching from Fort Brooke in Tampa to Fort King in Ocala. Out of 110 army troops only 3 survived, this came to be known as the Dade Massacre.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop being a revisionist historian that sees things with an agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? You want to throw out revisionist like that while accusing native Americans of " savagery" for protecting their homeland from invaders?
> 
> Wake the fuck up, white kid. It wax THEIR land. You really gonna sit there with the 2nd amendment in your pocket and call them savages for dong EXACTLY what you or I would do if the situation were reversed?
> 
> Oh and while we are on the subject of your revisionism. I've seen what you post and I've seen your name. The Great Gatsby was a condemnation of the upper class and their elitism. It was a condemnation of the elitists., something your posts have shown you know nothing about.
> 
> Perhaps you should consider Gatsbys library of uncut books and the request a name change, because you exemplify everything that book condemned.
> 
> And until you can explain "uncut books" you've proven yourself an idiot.
Click to expand...


Well then__ taking the subjective language out of it, you pretty much nailed why the Indians would be forced to go. If you fear for your lives and livelihood then you do something about it.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

^^ 

BTW - "Their land?" Indian tribes fought each other for land all the time. Take race out of it. That was the nature of the beast back then. The score's been settled. You lost. Get the fuck over it "black boy."


----------



## Unkotare

Vidi said:


> "uncut books" or you're a fraud too.






LOL. Congratulations on discovering Sparknotes...


----------



## konradv

TheGreatGatsby said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I didn't vote correctly. I would have voted on a contemporary person, except I didn't realize it was limited to historic figures. In that case, I would change my vote to Andrew Jackson.
> 
> Andrew Jackson engaged in the craven displacement of tribal Americans to the worst lands in America through ethnic cleansing of regions owned by natives. Today, the people in those desolate places have one of the highest ethnic suicide rates in the world and occupy the very poorest counties in this nation.
> 
> Andrew Jackson made a small number of Europeans wealthy at the expense of all native tribal people, by giving them the best hunting grounds, mineral resource areas, etc., as these resources became known and exploited.
> 
> Not much of a human being was Jackson, and he taught European Americans the idea that if you make racial and ethnic displacement a law, you can benefit extraordinarily and kid yourself that the people you displaced were animals or insects.
> 
> Andrew Jackson set a precedent of things to come for ethnic groups in this part of North America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that it looks bad on paper; but I don't think people really understand the times. There was a lot of Indian savagery during that time. I'd be interested to learn more about it. I know that what I've read on some of the Western tribes, they were quite barbaric and murderous. I will say that there is some history to indicate that the white men did mistreat peaceful Indians as well.
Click to expand...


Nice try, but the ones he moved were the "civilized" eastern tribes.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

konradv said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I didn't vote correctly. I would have voted on a contemporary person, except I didn't realize it was limited to historic figures. In that case, I would change my vote to Andrew Jackson.
> 
> Andrew Jackson engaged in the craven displacement of tribal Americans to the worst lands in America through ethnic cleansing of regions owned by natives. Today, the people in those desolate places have one of the highest ethnic suicide rates in the world and occupy the very poorest counties in this nation.
> 
> Andrew Jackson made a small number of Europeans wealthy at the expense of all native tribal people, by giving them the best hunting grounds, mineral resource areas, etc., as these resources became known and exploited.
> 
> Not much of a human being was Jackson, and he taught European Americans the idea that if you make racial and ethnic displacement a law, you can benefit extraordinarily and kid yourself that the people you displaced were animals or insects.
> 
> Andrew Jackson set a precedent of things to come for ethnic groups in this part of North America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that it looks bad on paper; but I don't think people really understand the times. There was a lot of Indian savagery during that time. I'd be interested to learn more about it. I know that what I've read on some of the Western tribes, they were quite barbaric and murderous. I will say that there is some history to indicate that the white men did mistreat peaceful Indians as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice try, but the ones he moved were the "civilized" eastern tribes.
Click to expand...


"Civilized" or not they made an act of war by butchering 107 Americans (in one particular attack among others). I don't have to agree with everything that happened regarding the Trail of Tears but I'm not going to be a dullard and pretend that the Indians did not have blood on their hands.


----------



## rightwinger

Vidi said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Andrew Jackson was a land stealing racist who force marched nearly 50,000 natives, over 4,000 to their deaths.
> 
> Fuck him.
> 
> And the next time someone brings up FDR as the only president to intern a population, mention Andrew Jackson, the Trail of Tears, Indian Reservations and OH YEAH, slavery. Amazing how partisan minds like to conveniently forget all of that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Too bad there were plenty of incidents like this that preceded 'The trail of tears.'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On December 28, 1835 a group of Seminoles and blacks ambushed a U.S. Army company marching from Fort Brooke in Tampa to Fort King in Ocala. Out of 110 army troops only 3 survived, this came to be known as the Dade Massacre.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop being a revisionist historian that sees things with an agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? You want to throw out revisionist like that while accusing native Americans of " savagery" for protecting their homeland from invaders?
> 
> Wake the fuck up, white kid. It wax THEIR land. You really gonna sit there with the 2nd amendment in your pocket and call them savages for dong EXACTLY what you or I would do if the situation were reversed?
> 
> Oh and while we are on the subject of your revisionism. I've seen what you post and I've seen your name. The Great Gatsby was a condemnation of the upper class and their elitism. It was a condemnation of the elitists., something your posts have shown you know nothing about.
> 
> Perhaps you should consider Gatsbys library of uncut books and the request a name change, because you exemplify everything that book condemned.
> 
> And until you can explain "uncut books" you've proven yourself an idiot.
Click to expand...


It is easy to condemn Jackson using 21st century morality. In the early 19th century, Indians were looked at as savages who were a dangerous impediment to the expansion of our young country. Jackson looked at them like a military man would, an enemy to be eliminated

I do not see any record of 19th century Americans being outraged at the treatment of Indians or calling it a Trail of Tears


----------



## demiurge

Gotta go with Jefferson.   A man with soaring principles - which he himself rarely lived up to.

He invented the political attack ad, hiring the first propagandist/political hatchetman to go after his mentor John Adams.  

He totally failed as governor of Virginia, handing the most prosperous colony of the nascent USA to the British.  He failed to call up the militia, and fled in a panic.  He was later accused of cowardice and derelection of duty, but he managed to talk his way out of it.  He remained in hiding for most of the Revolutionary War.

He let his own family live as slaves in his household.  Sally Hemmings was 75% white, either Jefferson or one of his male relatives was the father of many of her children - by law they could not be held as slaves if this was true.  He refused to admit to their parentage, he refused to free them.   Slimey beyond belief.

He couldn't run his own household, living well beyond his means, leaving a massive debt to his family.

He held a deep moral revulsion at the institution of slavery - yet profited it from it and never freed a slave in his life time.

Its hard to argue his relationship with Sally Hemmings was anything other than rape.   How can you say no when the person you are refusing can legally kill you?

So while his achievements were soaring, his personal character was at times deplorable.   I'd say he has a reputation well beyond what he deserves.


----------



## tjvh

syrenn said:


> kennedy
> 
> THE most over rated president of ALL time.



Plus one... My reason for choosing "other".


----------



## PredFan

Of those on the actual list, I had to pick Lincoln. He did quite a bit of damage to the country. But, of those not on the list in the OP, I would agree that it was Kennedy hands down.


----------



## regent

I don't think this was supposed to be worst or  best president but the president that did badly but the public believed he did well. In short a president that was lousy but people thought what a great president. It can only be Reagan. We know Bush did badly and FDR well but the president that did badly but the public believed he did well has to be Reagan. 
That impish little Reagan-grin does not make up for what Reagan did as president.


----------



## Unkotare

The answer is still FDR.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

Look at all these "nutters" voting (other) Reagan or Bush. What happened to the liberal logic; it takes 50 years before you can adequately judge a president. I always knew that was a bunch of BS.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

PredFan said:


> Of those on the actual list, I had to pick Lincoln. He did quite a bit of damage to the country. But, of those not on the list in the OP, I would agree that it was Kennedy hands down.



Any supporting details for this answer?


----------



## regent

TheGreatGatsby said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of those on the actual list, I had to pick Lincoln. He did quite a bit of damage to the country. But, of those not on the list in the OP, I would agree that it was Kennedy hands down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any supporting details for this answer?
Click to expand...


The American people are not only asked to make this judgement before a candidate has served one day, but millions are spent helping the citizen make the decision a year or so before he even votes. Historians are pretty accurate but they do on occassion change a president few notches up or down. FDR has been rated since the first poll of historians ever taken, as one of the top three president, and recently as the number one best president. 
So how does the Republican party handle that? Well, FDR's a communist, historians are communist, college professors are communist, college graduates are communist, high school graduates are communist, schools are communist, teacher unions are communist.


----------



## Unkotare

regent said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of those on the actual list, I had to pick Lincoln. He did quite a bit of damage to the country. But, of those not on the list in the OP, I would agree that it was Kennedy hands down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any supporting details for this answer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The American people are not only asked to make this judgement before a candidate has served one day, but millions are spent helping the citizen make the decision a year or so before he even votes. Historians are pretty accurate but they do on occassion change a president few notches up or down. FDR has been rated since the first poll of historians ever taken, as one of the top three president, and recently as the number one best president.
> So how does the Republican party handle that? Well, FDR's a communist, historians are communist, college professors are communist, college graduates are communist, high school graduates are communist, schools are communist, teacher unions are communist.
Click to expand...



And how do you address the many failings, gluttony for power, and atrocities of FDR pointed out on this very thread? You know, without simply appealing to the 'authority' of people ensconced in an academic world that we know is anything but objective?


----------



## Artevelde

tjvh said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> kennedy
> 
> THE most over rated president of ALL time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plus one... My reason for choosing "other".
Click to expand...


Same here.


----------



## rightwinger

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Look at all these "nutters" voting (other) Reagan or Bush. What happened to the liberal logic; it takes 50 years before you can adequately judge a president. I always knew that was a bunch of BS.



The 30-50 years crap is BS. You might not have complete historical hindsight but many blunders and many successes show themselves immediately. 

What changes most is perception. A cooling off period makes some stars fade and some busts look not soo bad


----------



## rightwinger

Unkotare said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any supporting details for this answer?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The American people are not only asked to make this judgement before a candidate has served one day, but millions are spent helping the citizen make the decision a year or so before he even votes. Historians are pretty accurate but they do on occassion change a president few notches up or down. FDR has been rated since the first poll of historians ever taken, as one of the top three president, and recently as the number one best president.
> So how does the Republican party handle that? Well, FDR's a communist, historians are communist, college professors are communist, college graduates are communist, high school graduates are communist, schools are communist, teacher unions are communist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And how do you address the many failings, gluttony for power, and atrocities of FDR pointed out on this very thread? You know, without simply appealing to the 'authority' of people ensconced in an academic world that we know is anything but objective?
Click to expand...


Any credible list has FDR as the greatest modern President and a top three overall. FDR recreated the office of President and launched the US into Superpower status.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

FDR was one of the worst ever. He advanced the remake of America into a Neo-Socialist Clusterfuck, abusing and ignoring the Constitution in the process. He stole our gold, interred 100,000 citizens and turned Jews trying to flee Hitler back over to the Third Reich

Fuck him.


----------



## Unkotare

rightwinger said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The American people are not only asked to make this judgement before a candidate has served one day, but millions are spent helping the citizen make the decision a year or so before he even votes. Historians are pretty accurate but they do on occassion change a president few notches up or down. FDR has been rated since the first poll of historians ever taken, as one of the top three president, and recently as the number one best president.
> So how does the Republican party handle that? Well, FDR's a communist, historians are communist, college professors are communist, college graduates are communist, high school graduates are communist, schools are communist, teacher unions are communist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And how do you address the many failings, gluttony for power, and atrocities of FDR pointed out on this very thread? You know, without simply appealing to the 'authority' of people ensconced in an academic world that we know is anything but objective?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any credible list has FDR as the greatest modern President and a top three overall. FDR recreated the office of President and launched the US into Superpower status.
Click to expand...


Way to avoid the question. Not too fucking obvious.


----------



## rightwinger

Unkotare said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> And how do you address the many failings, gluttony for power, and atrocities of FDR pointed out on this very thread? You know, without simply appealing to the 'authority' of people ensconced in an academic world that we know is anything but objective?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any credible list has FDR as the greatest modern President and a top three overall. FDR recreated the office of President and launched the US into Superpower status.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Way to avoid the question. Not too fucking obvious.
Click to expand...


Drastic times called for drastic measures


----------



## GHook93

TheGreatGatsby said:


> For the purposes of so-called historical perspective, I won't include recent presidents.



FDR in my mind. WW II was fought and won by others! He just lead the charge after Pearl Harbor.  And I don't think any of his policies reversed the Great Depression, I believe they prolonged them.


Most underrated?  Thomas Jefferson hand down! Even though he is ranked high, he should be the undisputed #1. The guy doubled the size of the country without a size shot being fired. He kept us out of war. He was a small government conservative who actually lived by what he preached. He lead an era of unprecedenced economic growth throughout the country. He was a god amongst men!


----------



## regent

Does the average American know what went on during those FDR years? Well the historians know and they have never rated FDR below the top three presidents, and recently they rated FDR number one. Strong presidents are usually called tyrants, dictators, kings, and so forth and the good strong presidents are called great. Who mentions  Martin Van Buren or Taft in our list of presidents why? But we still remember Harding, Hoover and soon Bush as bad. If Republicans thought highly of Bush he would be their poster boy for this election, but Republicans have by-passed Bush and gone back to Reagan, a president rated by historians as slightly above average. Best they got. But Republicans have one president rated Near-Great, Teddy Roosevelt, yet Republicans avoid Teddy like the plague? Wonder why? 
We either have faith in the hundreds of historians that rate presidents or faith in the ratings of our political party. I choose the historians.


----------



## Artevelde

regent said:


> Does the average American know what went on during those FDR years? Well the historians know and they have never rated FDR below the top three presidents, and recently they rated FDR number one. Strong presidents are usually called tyrants, dictators, kings, and so forth and the good strong presidents are called great. Who mentions  Martin Van Buren or Taft in our list of presidents why? But we still remember Harding, Hoover and soon Bush as bad. If Republicans thought highly of Bush he would be their poster boy for this election, but Republicans have by-passed Bush and gone back to Reagan, a president rated by historians as slightly above average. Best they got. But Republicans have one president rated Near-Great, Teddy Roosevelt, yet Republicans avoid Teddy like the plague? Wonder why?
> We either have faith in the hundreds of historians that rate presidents or faith in the ratings of our political party. I choose the historians.



Maybe you should try thinking for yourself sometime. Or is that too challenging?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

regent said:


> Does the average American know what went on during those FDR years? Well the historians know and they have never rated FDR below the top three presidents, and recently they rated FDR number one. Strong presidents are usually called tyrants, dictators, kings, and so forth and the good strong presidents are called great. Who mentions  Martin Van Buren or Taft in our list of presidents why? But we still remember Harding, Hoover and soon Bush as bad. If Republicans thought highly of Bush he would be their poster boy for this election, but Republicans have by-passed Bush and gone back to Reagan, a president rated by historians as slightly above average. Best they got. But Republicans have one president rated Near-Great, Teddy Roosevelt, yet Republicans avoid Teddy like the plague? Wonder why?
> We either have faith in the hundreds of historians that rate presidents or faith in the ratings of our political party. I choose the historians.



FDR couldn't change Harding jock strap.

IF FDR was "great" for giving us 20% Average unemployment for 8 years then FDR should crazyglue his lips to Harding's nut sack.


----------



## Artevelde

CrusaderFrank said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does the average American know what went on during those FDR years? Well the historians know and they have never rated FDR below the top three presidents, and recently they rated FDR number one. Strong presidents are usually called tyrants, dictators, kings, and so forth and the good strong presidents are called great. Who mentions  Martin Van Buren or Taft in our list of presidents why? But we still remember Harding, Hoover and soon Bush as bad. If Republicans thought highly of Bush he would be their poster boy for this election, but Republicans have by-passed Bush and gone back to Reagan, a president rated by historians as slightly above average. Best they got. But Republicans have one president rated Near-Great, Teddy Roosevelt, yet Republicans avoid Teddy like the plague? Wonder why?
> We either have faith in the hundreds of historians that rate presidents or faith in the ratings of our political party. I choose the historians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FDR couldn't change Harding jock strap.
> 
> IF FDR was "great" for giving us 20% Average unemployment for 8 years then FDR should crazyglue his lips to Harding's nut sack.
Click to expand...


Not really an appealing image.


----------



## regent

Artevelde said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does the average American know what went on during those FDR years? Well the historians know and they have never rated FDR below the top three presidents, and recently they rated FDR number one. Strong presidents are usually called tyrants, dictators, kings, and so forth and the good strong presidents are called great. Who mentions  Martin Van Buren or Taft in our list of presidents why? But we still remember Harding, Hoover and soon Bush as bad. If Republicans thought highly of Bush he would be their poster boy for this election, but Republicans have by-passed Bush and gone back to Reagan, a president rated by historians as slightly above average. Best they got. But Republicans have one president rated Near-Great, Teddy Roosevelt, yet Republicans avoid Teddy like the plague? Wonder why?
> We either have faith in the hundreds of historians that rate presidents or faith in the ratings of our political party. I choose the historians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you should try thinking for yourself sometime. Or is that too challenging?
Click to expand...


That's why we have historians, doctors, scientists, they may no more about their field than the average citizen or even a political party, in fact, I often feel political parties are not totally objective or honest.


----------



## Unkotare

regent said:


> Does the average American know what went on during those FDR years? Well the historians know and they have never rated FDR below the top three presidents, and recently they rated FDR number one. Strong presidents are usually called tyrants, dictators, kings, and so forth and the good strong presidents are called great. Who mentions  Martin Van Buren or Taft in our list of presidents why? But we still remember Harding, Hoover and soon Bush as bad. If Republicans thought highly of Bush he would be their poster boy for this election, but Republicans have by-passed Bush and gone back to Reagan, a president rated by historians as slightly above average. Best they got. But Republicans have one president rated Near-Great, Teddy Roosevelt, yet Republicans avoid Teddy like the plague? Wonder why?
> We either have faith in the hundreds of historians that rate presidents or faith in the ratings of our political party. I choose the historians.





Appeal to authority: fallacy


----------



## Artevelde

regent said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does the average American know what went on during those FDR years? Well the historians know and they have never rated FDR below the top three presidents, and recently they rated FDR number one. Strong presidents are usually called tyrants, dictators, kings, and so forth and the good strong presidents are called great. Who mentions  Martin Van Buren or Taft in our list of presidents why? But we still remember Harding, Hoover and soon Bush as bad. If Republicans thought highly of Bush he would be their poster boy for this election, but Republicans have by-passed Bush and gone back to Reagan, a president rated by historians as slightly above average. Best they got. But Republicans have one president rated Near-Great, Teddy Roosevelt, yet Republicans avoid Teddy like the plague? Wonder why?
> We either have faith in the hundreds of historians that rate presidents or faith in the ratings of our political party. I choose the historians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you should try thinking for yourself sometime. Or is that too challenging?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's why we have historians, doctors, scientists, they may no more about their field than the average citizen or even a political party, in fact, I often feel political parties are not totally objective or honest.
Click to expand...


And you believe historians are totally objective or honest? How stupid are you?


----------



## Nosmo King

Perhaps to satisfy the rabid partisans, the question should be phrased differently.

"Given that you view the entirety of history through politically biased glasses and your partisanship does not allow for clear retrospective, which is the most politically under rated President?"

That way those goofy historical facts and true representations of the men discussed here cannot cloud the judgement of the open minded and well schooled "Conservatives" trying to answer.  After all, if they didn't hear it from Limbaugh, Beck or Fox news, how trustworthy can facts be?


----------



## regent

Unkotare said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does the average American know what went on during those FDR years? Well the historians know and they have never rated FDR below the top three presidents, and recently they rated FDR number one. Strong presidents are usually called tyrants, dictators, kings, and so forth and the good strong presidents are called great. Who mentions  Martin Van Buren or Taft in our list of presidents why? But we still remember Harding, Hoover and soon Bush as bad. If Republicans thought highly of Bush he would be their poster boy for this election, but Republicans have by-passed Bush and gone back to Reagan, a president rated by historians as slightly above average. Best they got. But Republicans have one president rated Near-Great, Teddy Roosevelt, yet Republicans avoid Teddy like the plague? Wonder why?
> We either have faith in the hundreds of historians that rate presidents or faith in the ratings of our political party. I choose the historians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Appeal to authority: fallacy
Click to expand...


Yes, appeal to authority can be a fallacy, depending on the authority and how it's used. The authority I'm using are hundreds of noted historians and presidential experts, and your authority?


----------



## OohPooPahDoo

thegreatgatsby said:


> for the purposes of so-called historical perspective, i won't include recent presidents.



reagan


----------



## regent

CrusaderFrank said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does the average American know what went on during those FDR years? Well the historians know and they have never rated FDR below the top three presidents, and recently they rated FDR number one. Strong presidents are usually called tyrants, dictators, kings, and so forth and the good strong presidents are called great. Who mentions  Martin Van Buren or Taft in our list of presidents why? But we still remember Harding, Hoover and soon Bush as bad. If Republicans thought highly of Bush he would be their poster boy for this election, but Republicans have by-passed Bush and gone back to Reagan, a president rated by historians as slightly above average. Best they got. But Republicans have one president rated Near-Great, Teddy Roosevelt, yet Republicans avoid Teddy like the plague? Wonder why?
> We either have faith in the hundreds of historians that rate presidents or faith in the ratings of our political party. I choose the historians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FDR couldn't change Harding jock strap.
> 
> IF FDR was "great" for giving us 20% Average unemployment for 8 years then FDR should crazyglue his lips to Harding's nut sack.
Click to expand...

Sorry, not into those kind of things.


----------



## regent

Artevelde said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you should try thinking for yourself sometime. Or is that too challenging?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's why we have historians, doctors, scientists, they may no more about their field than the average citizen or even a political party, in fact, I often feel political parties are not totally objective or honest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you believe historians are totally objective or honest? How stupid are you?
Click to expand...


I think historians are more objective and honest about history than politicians, or even some posters. Do you believe that historians you disagree with are communists?


----------



## notatallanti

No single president has done as much to destroy the influence and power of America in the world as Bush II.

Many people have good points about other presidents, but the facts are there before our eyes.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

OK, let me say this, if FDR is "Great", Harding and Coolidge must be God


----------



## regent

CrusaderFrank said:


> OK, let me say this, if FDR is "Great", Harding and Coolidge must be God



Harding, like Reagan,didn't seem to know what was going on in his own administration. With bribery, Tea Pot Dome, Veterans Administration and other scandals, historians have rated harding as America's worst president. Of course that is the rating by historians and maybe in Republican circles Harding may be spoken of as a God. I hope not.


----------



## Desperado

Ronald Reagan did not make the list?
If there ever was a Over rated President it was Reagan.


----------



## GHook93

(a) I am liberal, so I say Ronald Reagan.
(b) I am conservative, so I say FDR.


----------



## Unkotare

regent said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does the average American know what went on during those FDR years? Well the historians know and they have never rated FDR below the top three presidents, and recently they rated FDR number one. Strong presidents are usually called tyrants, dictators, kings, and so forth and the good strong presidents are called great. Who mentions  Martin Van Buren or Taft in our list of presidents why? But we still remember Harding, Hoover and soon Bush as bad. If Republicans thought highly of Bush he would be their poster boy for this election, but Republicans have by-passed Bush and gone back to Reagan, a president rated by historians as slightly above average. Best they got. But Republicans have one president rated Near-Great, Teddy Roosevelt, yet Republicans avoid Teddy like the plague? Wonder why?
> We either have faith in the hundreds of historians that rate presidents or faith in the ratings of our political party. I choose the historians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Appeal to authority: fallacy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, appeal to authority can be a fallacy,
Click to expand...




It is, because you are not making a case, you are merely insisting that it is so because someone else said so.


----------



## rightwinger

Unkotare said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Appeal to authority: fallacy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, appeal to authority can be a fallacy,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is, because you are not making a case, you are merely insisting that it is so because someone else said so.
Click to expand...


Appeal to one authority can be a fallacy

Appeal to hundreds of authorities.......not so much


----------



## Sallow

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> St Ronnie, of course.
> 
> Trick Lib Question of Reagan
> March 28, 2008
> 
> CALLER:  Ronald Reagan, why did he never respond to the Marine barracks bombing in Lebanon in 1983?
> 
> BREAK TRANSCRIPT
> 
> RUSH:  By the way, to answer the guy's question, "Why didn't Reagan respond?" He did.  It's one of the most underreported aspects in world history. Amir Taheri wrote about it on April 18th, 2007, in a publication called Gulf News.  Basically, *Reagan sunk Iran's navy*, if I could just sum this up. * We sunk Iran's navy. *The attacks from Lebanon came from Iran, as they still do to this day. * We sunk Iran's navy,* but we didn't talk about it much then because that would have made us look mean, and the mullahs didn't talk about it because they didn't want the world to know* their navy had been sunk,* but it happened.
> END TRANSCRIPT
> 
> Operation Praying Mantis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Operation Praying Mantis was an April 18, 1988 attack by U.S. naval forces in retaliation for the Iranian mining of the Persian Gulf and the subsequent damage to an American warship.
> 
> *In short, Iran lost one major warship and a smaller gunboat.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> Ronald Reagan was a law breaker and committed Treason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How did he commit treason?
Click to expand...


Sold arms to a known enemy of the United States without the approval of congress.

That's how.


----------



## freedombecki

Sallow said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> Ronald Reagan was a law breaker and committed Treason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How did he commit treason?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sold arms to a known enemy of the United States without the approval of congress.
> 
> That's how.
Click to expand...

As I recollect, Ollie North was called onto Congress' carpet for that, wasn't he?


----------



## regent

Unkotare said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Appeal to authority: fallacy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, appeal to authority can be a fallacy,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is, because you are not making a case, you are merely insisting that it is so because someone else said so.
Click to expand...


Yes that is how one uses argument by authority. It is when the authority is not, or the wrong type of authority that it becomes fallacious. Or as one book I have on logic says, "When we argue that a given conclusion is correct on the on the ground that an expert authority has come to that judgement, we commit no fallacy." In this case a couple of hundred experts came to the conclusion that FDR was America's greatest president.


----------



## rightwinger

GHook93 said:


> (a) I am liberal, so I say Ronald Reagan.
> (b) I am conservative, so I say FDR.



I'm liberal and I said JFK


----------



## freedombecki

TheGreatGatsby said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I didn't vote correctly. I would have voted on a contemporary person, except I didn't realize it was limited to historic figures. In that case, I would change my vote to Andrew Jackson.
> 
> Andrew Jackson engaged in the craven displacement of tribal Americans to the worst lands in America through ethnic cleansing of regions owned by natives. Today, the people in those desolate places have one of the highest ethnic suicide rates in the world and occupy the very poorest counties in this nation.
> 
> Andrew Jackson made a small number of Europeans wealthy at the expense of all native tribal people, by giving them the best hunting grounds, mineral resource areas, etc., as these resources became known and exploited.
> 
> Not much of a human being was Jackson, and he taught European Americans the idea that if you make racial and ethnic displacement a law, you can benefit extraordinarily and kid yourself that the people you displaced were animals or insects.
> 
> Andrew Jackson set a precedent of things to come for ethnic groups in this part of North America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that it looks bad on paper; but I don't think people really understand the times. There was a lot of Indian savagery during that time. I'd be interested to learn more about it. I know that what I've read on some of the Western tribes, they were quite barbaric and murderous. I will say that there is some history to indicate that the white men did mistreat peaceful Indians as well.
Click to expand...

Well, the Indians thought the lands were their domain, and they had no concept of a deed contract, they depended on the person they allowed land use to to respect the tribe's changing needs if necessary. They were confused when their European counterparts were willing to fight and kill to keep a deed, and when they did die, the deeds were passed to other white persons, and not the tribe. This was the behavior of usurping enemy tribes, which the Indians knew must be dealt with sternly by daubing bright paint on their faces and chests and going to war to get their hunting grounds back. The Europeans could not be taught anything that was right or sacred to the tribal Americans and became their most lethal of all enemies. The whites were equally confused by what they considered great expectations of the tribes to keep a controlling interest on land use when they had a property deed. As more people came by ship to America into populated areas, more land was expropriated by the British for colonists to exploit. 

Eventually, the surplus people from Britain, France, and all the EU countries pushed their way into the Indian territories, claiming all for their flag's profit for all future times with no regard for the natives who used the vast woodlands for hunting and harvest, extracting berries and the flesh of wild animals for making pemican to sustain them through wintertime, and there was some planting seeds for corn to make meal and pumpkins which contain nutrients for keen eyesight, lifelong. They shared their knowledge and saved the Pilgrims many times over with helping them establish fields and gardens of native seeds after their supplies of food from Europe ran down.

Europeans took no responsibility for the welfare of the people who saved the first colonists by taking pity on them and teaching them how to plant and process staples for all-year-long use.

Jackson just epitomizes a lot of wrong that were done to the tribes of America. His job as he viewed it was to get them out of the way of "progress" so they marched, mostly to their early death, along the Trail of Tears, to Oklahoma at his behest.

I just wonder what it was like for that 1/32 of my ancestors to wind up in Oklahoma and relearn a world of things to help them survive, including becoming nomads following herds of buffalo, blending in with tribes more different from each other than Europeans, Chinese, and Africans and try to compensate to their children for the hard prairie life full of water shortages and drought and the smell of death as they died of fevers no natives had before 1492 and 1607, respectively, when white men began showing up on the shores of Virginia, Manhattan, and Massachusetts.


----------



## freedombecki

Desperado said:


> Ronald Reagan did not make the list?
> If there ever was a Over rated President it was Reagan.


Recent presidents were not included according to the OP, Desperado.


----------



## rightwinger

freedombecki said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I didn't vote correctly. I would have voted on a contemporary person, except I didn't realize it was limited to historic figures. In that case, I would change my vote to Andrew Jackson.
> 
> Andrew Jackson engaged in the craven displacement of tribal Americans to the worst lands in America through ethnic cleansing of regions owned by natives. Today, the people in those desolate places have one of the highest ethnic suicide rates in the world and occupy the very poorest counties in this nation.
> 
> Andrew Jackson made a small number of Europeans wealthy at the expense of all native tribal people, by giving them the best hunting grounds, mineral resource areas, etc., as these resources became known and exploited.
> 
> Not much of a human being was Jackson, and he taught European Americans the idea that if you make racial and ethnic displacement a law, you can benefit extraordinarily and kid yourself that the people you displaced were animals or insects.
> 
> Andrew Jackson set a precedent of things to come for ethnic groups in this part of North America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that it looks bad on paper; but I don't think people really understand the times. There was a lot of Indian savagery during that time. I'd be interested to learn more about it. I know that what I've read on some of the Western tribes, they were quite barbaric and murderous. I will say that there is some history to indicate that the white men did mistreat peaceful Indians as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, the Indians thought the lands were their domain, and they had no concept of a deed contract, they depended on the person they allowed land use to to respect the tribe's changing needs if necessary. They were confused when their European counterparts were willing to fight and kill to keep a deed, and when they did die, the deeds were passed to other white persons, and not the tribe. This was the behavior of usurping enemy tribes, which the Indians knew must be dealt with sternly by daubing bright paint on their faces and chests and going to war to get their hunting grounds back. The Europeans could not be taught anything that was right or sacred to the tribal Americans and became their most lethal of all enemies. The whites were equally confused by what they considered great expectations of the tribes to keep a controlling interest on land use when they had a property deed. As more people came by ship to America into populated areas, more land was expropriated by the British for colonists to exploit.
> 
> Eventually, the surplus people from Britain, France, and all the EU countries pushed their way into the Indian territories, claiming all for their flag's profit for all future times with no regard for the natives who used the vast woodlands for hunting and harvest, extracting berries and the flesh of wild animals for making pemican to sustain them through wintertime, and there was some planting seeds for corn to make meal and pumpkins which contain nutrients for keen eyesight, lifelong. They shared their knowledge and saved the Pilgrims many times over with helping them establish fields and gardens of native seeds after their supplies of food from Europe ran down.
> 
> Europeans took no responsibility for the welfare of the people who saved the first colonists by taking pity on them and teaching them how to plant and process staples for all-year-long use.
> 
> Jackson just epitomizes a lot of wrong that were done to the tribes of America. His job as he viewed it was to get them out of the way of "progress" so they marched, mostly to their early death, along the Trail of Tears, to Oklahoma at his behest.
> 
> I just wonder what it was like for that 1/32 of my ancestors to wind up in Oklahoma and relearn a world of things to help them survive, including becoming nomads following herds of buffalo, blending in with tribes more different from each other than Europeans, Chinese, and Africans and try to compensate to their children for the hard prairie life full of water shortages and drought and the smell of death as they died of fevers no natives had before 1492 and 1607, respectively, when white men began showing up on the shores of Virginia, Manhattan, and Massachusetts.
Click to expand...


The idea of owning land was alien to nomadic people. Why would you want to restrict yourself to one piece of land?  In the spring, you went where the fish were, in the summer you planted, in the winter you hunted. Can you imagine doing that in the same 40 acres?

What made it possible to exist on one piece of land was a monetary system. You planted crops and sold them for money which you used to get through the rest of the year.


----------



## Unkotare

regent said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, appeal to authority can be a fallacy,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is, because you are not making a case, you are merely insisting that it is so because someone else said so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes that is how one uses argument by authority. It is when the authority is not, or the wrong type of authority that it becomes fallacious. Or as one book I have on logic says, "When we argue that a given conclusion is correct on the on the ground that an expert authority has come to that judgement, we commit no fallacy." In this case a couple of hundred experts came to the conclusion that FDR was America's greatest president.
Click to expand...




You didn't read the sentences in your book that came before and after that quote (unless you did, and are being deliberately dishonest now). I suppose it's possible you didn't understand what was written in your book. You commit a fallacy in your appeal to authority in the way you tried to use it here, not in support of but in place of your own reasoning.


----------



## Artevelde

regent said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's why we have historians, doctors, scientists, they may no more about their field than the average citizen or even a political party, in fact, I often feel political parties are not totally objective or honest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you believe historians are totally objective or honest? How stupid are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think historians are more objective and honest about history than politicians, or even some posters. Do you believe that historians you disagree with are communists?
Click to expand...


As a historian I know that historians disagree among each other and often change their mind. The way historians have evaluated Presidents, for example, has varied quite wildly over time.

No historian worth his or her salt would claim that historians are per definition more objective about history than other people.

I find it very weak that you apparently don't feel you can make a judgement for yourself, based on your own reasoning.


----------



## Artevelde

notatallanti said:


> No single president has done as much to destroy the influence and power of America in the world as Bush II.
> 
> Many people have good points about other presidents, but the facts are there before our eyes.



Complete nonsense.


----------



## Artevelde

GHook93 said:


> (a) I am liberal, so I say Ronald Reagan.
> (b) I am conservative, so I say FDR.



While in reality both FDR and Reagan were among history's top Presidents.


----------



## Artevelde

regent said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, appeal to authority can be a fallacy,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is, because you are not making a case, you are merely insisting that it is so because someone else said so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes that is how one uses argument by authority. It is when the authority is not, or the wrong type of authority that it becomes fallacious. Or as one book I have on logic says, "When we argue that a given conclusion is correct on the on the ground that an expert authority has come to that judgement, we commit no fallacy." In this case a couple of hundred experts came to the conclusion that FDR was America's greatest president.
Click to expand...


Actually for most of the past decades historians have ranked Abraham Lincoln (quite rightly) as America's greatest President.
In the sixties and seventies historians ranked Eisenhower abysmally low. By the nineties, he was considered a very good President. Truman went through various phases too.


----------



## JWBooth

Artevelde said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> (a) I am liberal, so I say Ronald Reagan.
> (b) I am conservative, so I say FDR.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While in reality both FDR and Reagan were among history's top Presidents.
Click to expand...


Especially amongst those who advocate for a large, activist government.


----------



## regent

Unkotare said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is, because you are not making a case, you are merely insisting that it is so because someone else said so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes that is how one uses argument by authority. It is when the authority is not, or the wrong type of authority that it becomes fallacious. Or as one book I have on logic says, "When we argue that a given conclusion is correct on the on the ground that an expert authority has come to that judgement, we commit no fallacy." In this case a couple of hundred experts came to the conclusion that FDR was America's greatest president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't read the sentences in your book that came before and after that quote (unless you did, and are being deliberately dishonest now). I suppose it's possible you didn't understand what was written in your book. You commit a fallacy in your appeal to authority in the way you tried to use it here, not in support of but in place of your own reasoning.
Click to expand...


Either way you want to view it, the argument remains the same: over two hundred historians were questioned and they declared FDR America's greatest president. Are you able to respond to the argument or not?


----------



## Artevelde

regent said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes that is how one uses argument by authority. It is when the authority is not, or the wrong type of authority that it becomes fallacious. Or as one book I have on logic says, "When we argue that a given conclusion is correct on the on the ground that an expert authority has come to that judgement, we commit no fallacy." In this case a couple of hundred experts came to the conclusion that FDR was America's greatest president.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't read the sentences in your book that came before and after that quote (unless you did, and are being deliberately dishonest now). I suppose it's possible you didn't understand what was written in your book. You commit a fallacy in your appeal to authority in the way you tried to use it here, not in support of but in place of your own reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Either way you want to view it, the argument remains the same: over two hundred historians were questioned and they declared FDR America's greatest president. Are you able to respond to the argument or not?
Click to expand...


200 historians out of how many thousands?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

FDR 

1. changed Hoovers limited Syphilis experiment program, where the subjects were all to receive treatment into a eugenicists paradise where subjects went untreated to death known as Tuskegee Experiments

2. Interred 100,000 us citizens in camps and got his SCOTUS to go along with him (Korematsu)

3. turned away Jews trying to flee Hitlers Third Reich


----------



## rightwinger

Artevelde said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't read the sentences in your book that came before and after that quote (unless you did, and are being deliberately dishonest now). I suppose it's possible you didn't understand what was written in your book. You commit a fallacy in your appeal to authority in the way you tried to use it here, not in support of but in place of your own reasoning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Either way you want to view it, the argument remains the same: over two hundred historians were questioned and they declared FDR America's greatest president. Are you able to respond to the argument or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 200 historians out of how many thousands?
Click to expand...


200 out of 200 who were questioned

Do you think a poll has to question every historian to be valid?


----------



## Artevelde

rightwinger said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Either way you want to view it, the argument remains the same: over two hundred historians were questioned and they declared FDR America's greatest president. Are you able to respond to the argument or not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 200 historians out of how many thousands?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 200 out of 200 who were questioned
> 
> Do you think a poll has to question every historian to be valid?
Click to expand...


You really don't have a clue about the historical profession do you?


----------



## regent

Artevelde said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't read the sentences in your book that came before and after that quote (unless you did, and are being deliberately dishonest now). I suppose it's possible you didn't understand what was written in your book. You commit a fallacy in your appeal to authority in the way you tried to use it here, not in support of but in place of your own reasoning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Either way you want to view it, the argument remains the same: over two hundred historians were questioned and they declared FDR America's greatest president. Are you able to respond to the argument or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 200 historians out of how many thousands?
Click to expand...


Only noted historians and presidential experts were asked. So how did polling the American people on FDR go? Well the people elected FDR four times, a record that will stand for some time. With the people that lived during his time and the historians since 1948 voting for him I can understand the conservative's frustration. 
Perhaps their best argument, is to keep using the "historians are communist" thing. Maybe expand it to include the people that voted for him too so it would read: Historians and the greatest generation were communists. Might work?  

But we must remember that historians are mostly leftists, liberals, socialists, bordering on communists.


----------



## Artevelde

regent said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Either way you want to view it, the argument remains the same: over two hundred historians were questioned and they declared FDR America's greatest president. Are you able to respond to the argument or not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 200 historians out of how many thousands?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only noted historians and presidential experts were asked. So how did polling the American people on FDR go? Well the people elected FDR four times, a record that will stand for some time. With the people that lived during his time and the historians since 1948 voting for him I can understand the conservative's frustration.
> Perhaps their best argument, is to keep using the "historians are communist" thing. Maybe expand it to include the people that voted for him too so it would read: Historians and the greatest generation were communists. Might work?
> 
> But we must remember that historians are mostly leftists, liberals, socialists, bordering on communists.
Click to expand...


Polling among American historians about US Presidents has been going on for decades and results have fluctuated wildly. If you weren't too stupid to read this thread you would know that I rank FDR as one of the top Presidents too (Abraham Lincoln outranks him for sure, and the vast majority of historians (in polss and otherwise) have always thought so. Your problem is that you are apparently unwilling to make even an effort to think for yourself. Which makes you a moron.


----------



## rightwinger

Artevelde said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> 
> 200 historians out of how many thousands?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 200 out of 200 who were questioned
> 
> Do you think a poll has to question every historian to be valid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really don't have a clue about the historical profession do you?
Click to expand...


You really don't have a clue about what a poll is do you?


----------



## Artevelde

rightwinger said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 200 out of 200 who were questioned
> 
> Do you think a poll has to question every historian to be valid?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really don't have a clue about the historical profession do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really don't have a clue about what a poll is do you?
Click to expand...


I know a lot more about these polls among historians than you do.


----------



## regent

Artevelde said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> 
> 200 historians out of how many thousands?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only noted historians and presidential experts were asked. So how did polling the American people on FDR go? Well the people elected FDR four times, a record that will stand for some time. With the people that lived during his time and the historians since 1948 voting for him I can understand the conservative's frustration.
> Perhaps their best argument, is to keep using the "historians are communist" thing. Maybe expand it to include the people that voted for him too so it would read: Historians and the greatest generation were communists. Might work?
> 
> But we must remember that historians are mostly leftists, liberals, socialists, bordering on communists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Polling among American historians about US Presidents has been going on for decades and results have fluctuated wildly. If you weren't too stupid to read this thread you would know that I rank FDR as one of the top Presidents too (Abraham Lincoln outranks him for sure, and the vast majority of historians (in polss and otherwise) have always thought so. Your problem is that you are apparently unwilling to make even an effort to think for yourself. Which makes you a moron.
Click to expand...


By thinking for myself you really mean thinking like you. Most polls, using historians have not fluctuated wildly they remain fairly stable. As you say, FDR has been one of the top three for some time, and the latest moved him to the top. Harding has been at the bottom or close to it with little movement. Bush will probably always be a contender for failure.  In a poll of 744 historians in 2006 they were asked how Bush would be rated if this was his last day as president,  24% said below average and 58% said failure. What rank did Bush get when he left the presidency. What rank will he have in 2040?


----------



## Unkotare

regent said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes that is how one uses argument by authority. It is when the authority is not, or the wrong type of authority that it becomes fallacious. Or as one book I have on logic says, "When we argue that a given conclusion is correct on the on the ground that an expert authority has come to that judgement, we commit no fallacy." In this case a couple of hundred experts came to the conclusion that FDR was America's greatest president.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't read the sentences in your book that came before and after that quote (unless you did, and are being deliberately dishonest now). I suppose it's possible you didn't understand what was written in your book. You commit a fallacy in your appeal to authority in the way you tried to use it here, not in support of but in place of your own reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Either way you want to view it, the argument remains the same: over two hundred historians were questioned and they declared FDR America's greatest president. Are you able to respond to the argument or not?
Click to expand...


_You_ haven't made an argument.

You're doing it again. Go try and read your book.


----------



## regent

Unkotare said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't read the sentences in your book that came before and after that quote (unless you did, and are being deliberately dishonest now). I suppose it's possible you didn't understand what was written in your book. You commit a fallacy in your appeal to authority in the way you tried to use it here, not in support of but in place of your own reasoning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Either way you want to view it, the argument remains the same: over two hundred historians were questioned and they declared FDR America's greatest president. Are you able to respond to the argument or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _You_ haven't made an argument.
> 
> You're doing it again. Go try and read your book.
Click to expand...


Well as long as you accept my conclusion that FDR is now rated as the greatest American president. Make you feel better to be on a winning side? Our next project rather than  fallacies, will be premises and conclusions.


----------



## Unkotare

regent said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Either way you want to view it, the argument remains the same: over two hundred historians were questioned and they declared FDR America's greatest president. Are you able to respond to the argument or not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _You_ haven't made an argument.
> 
> You're doing it again. Go try and read your book.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well as long as you accept my conclusion .
Click to expand...



Stop right there. YOU haven't made a conclusion you can claim as your own. You have only parroted the conclusion of others. Are you sure you ever opened a book of logic? Show me your reasoning without appeal to authority and maybe we can talk about YOUR conclusion.


----------



## regent

Unkotare said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> _You_ haven't made an argument.
> 
> You're doing it again. Go try and read your book.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well as long as you accept my conclusion .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Stop right there. YOU haven't made a conclusion you can claim as your own. You have only parroted the conclusion of others. Are you sure you ever opened a book of logic? Show me your reasoning without appeal to authority and maybe we can talk about YOUR conclusion.
Click to expand...


Are you trying to say that two parties cannot have the same conclusion? I have to tell you that I was flattered that the 238 historians came to the same conclusion that I have had for some years now. It is like they were not just agreeing with me but adding some valuable scholarship to my conclusion. I also have some conclusions about the worst American presidents and I'll be danged if those scholars don't agree there too. I have some conclusions on worst generals, worst scandals, worst military engagements, worst economic period and so forth. But as for submitting to demands for my evidence, my book on logic says that is my decision, unless supenoenaed.


----------



## Unkotare

regent said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well as long as you accept my conclusion .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop right there. YOU haven't made a conclusion you can claim as your own. You have only parroted the conclusion of others. Are you sure you ever opened a book of logic? Show me your reasoning without appeal to authority and maybe we can talk about YOUR conclusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you trying to say that two parties cannot have the same conclusion?
Click to expand...




Did you ever take a math test in high school? Show me your work. How did YOU reach the conclusion in question?


----------



## Unkotare

Oh, and you need a new book.


----------



## Artevelde

regent said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only noted historians and presidential experts were asked. So how did polling the American people on FDR go? Well the people elected FDR four times, a record that will stand for some time. With the people that lived during his time and the historians since 1948 voting for him I can understand the conservative's frustration.
> Perhaps their best argument, is to keep using the "historians are communist" thing. Maybe expand it to include the people that voted for him too so it would read: Historians and the greatest generation were communists. Might work?
> 
> But we must remember that historians are mostly leftists, liberals, socialists, bordering on communists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polling among American historians about US Presidents has been going on for decades and results have fluctuated wildly. If you weren't too stupid to read this thread you would know that I rank FDR as one of the top Presidents too (Abraham Lincoln outranks him for sure, and the vast majority of historians (in polss and otherwise) have always thought so. Your problem is that you are apparently unwilling to make even an effort to think for yourself. Which makes you a moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By thinking for myself you really mean thinking like you. Most polls, using historians have not fluctuated wildly they remain fairly stable. As you say, FDR has been one of the top three for some time, and the latest moved him to the top. Harding has been at the bottom or close to it with little movement. Bush will probably always be a contender for failure.  In a poll of 744 historians in 2006 they were asked how Bush would be rated if this was his last day as president,  24% said below average and 58% said failure. What rank did Bush get when he left the presidency. What rank will he have in 2040?
Click to expand...


Eisenhower, Truman and Reagan used to rank near the bottom before moving up very high.

And by thinking for yourself I mean exactly that. Earlier in this thread you explicitely stated that you just relied on this poll (which is one of many, by the way, and only polls a tiny number of historians).


----------



## regent

Artevelde said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> 
> Polling among American historians about US Presidents has been going on for decades and results have fluctuated wildly. If you weren't too stupid to read this thread you would know that I rank FDR as one of the top Presidents too (Abraham Lincoln outranks him for sure, and the vast majority of historians (in polss and otherwise) have always thought so. Your problem is that you are apparently unwilling to make even an effort to think for yourself. Which makes you a moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By thinking for myself you really mean thinking like you. Most polls, using historians have not fluctuated wildly they remain fairly stable. As you say, FDR has been one of the top three for some time, and the latest moved him to the top. Harding has been at the bottom or close to it with little movement. Bush will probably always be a contender for failure.  In a poll of 744 historians in 2006 they were asked how Bush would be rated if this was his last day as president,  24% said below average and 58% said failure. What rank did Bush get when he left the presidency. What rank will he have in 2040?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Eisenhower, Truman and Reagan used to rank near the bottom before moving up very high.
> 
> And by thinking for yourself I mean exactly that. Earlier in this thread you explicitely stated that you just relied on this poll (which is one of many, by the way, and only polls a tiny number of historians).
Click to expand...



I'm interested in all polls even those that do not include historians, but I rely on presidential polls to see if the historians agree with me. Most do.


----------



## Artevelde

regent said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> By thinking for myself you really mean thinking like you. Most polls, using historians have not fluctuated wildly they remain fairly stable. As you say, FDR has been one of the top three for some time, and the latest moved him to the top. Harding has been at the bottom or close to it with little movement. Bush will probably always be a contender for failure.  In a poll of 744 historians in 2006 they were asked how Bush would be rated if this was his last day as president,  24% said below average and 58% said failure. What rank did Bush get when he left the presidency. What rank will he have in 2040?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eisenhower, Truman and Reagan used to rank near the bottom before moving up very high.
> 
> And by thinking for yourself I mean exactly that. Earlier in this thread you explicitely stated that you just relied on this poll (which is one of many, by the way, and only polls a tiny number of historians).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm interested in all polls even those that do not include historians, but I rely on presidential polls to see if the historians agree with me. Most do.
Click to expand...


That historians' poll is a very small sample. Not really representative for the whole academic community. I prefer to think for myself.


----------



## regent

Artevelde said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eisenhower, Truman and Reagan used to rank near the bottom before moving up very high.
> 
> And by thinking for yourself I mean exactly that. Earlier in this thread you explicitely stated that you just relied on this poll (which is one of many, by the way, and only polls a tiny number of historians).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm interested in all polls even those that do not include historians, but I rely on presidential polls to see if the historians agree with me. Most do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That historians' poll is a very small sample. Not really representative for the whole academic community. I prefer to think for myself.
Click to expand...


Would the polls change if every historian were polled instead of the ones respected by other historians for thei scholarship? The best attack on historians and their polls is, I still believe, is the charge that historians are communists, it seems to register with more  people.


----------



## Unkotare

regent said:


> I'm interested in all polls even those that do not include historians, but I rely on presidential polls to see if the historians agree with me. Most do.




Agree with you ~ LOL 


YOU are not in agreement with them, you are merely parroting.


----------



## Artevelde

regent said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm interested in all polls even those that do not include historians, but I rely on presidential polls to see if the historians agree with me. Most do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That historians' poll is a very small sample. Not really representative for the whole academic community. I prefer to think for myself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would the polls change if every historian were polled instead of the ones respected by other historians for thei scholarship? The best attack on historians and their polls is, I still believe, is the charge that historians are communists, it seems to register with more  people.
Click to expand...


No, that's a stupid attack. I know the historical profession in the US very well and it's ludicrous to claim most or even many historians are communists.


----------



## theliq

del said:


> wilson is almost as overrated as reagan and kennedy makes three.



That's a THREESOME then


----------



## theliq

syrenn said:


> kennedy
> 
> THE most over rated president of ALL time.


 Well that's as maybe Sy,but he definately the most over sexed


----------



## SayMyName

Jfk.


----------



## Peach

Sallow said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the purposes of so-called historical perspective, I won't include recent presidents.
> 
> 
> 
> St Ronnie, of course.
> 
> Trick Lib Question of Reagan
> March 28, 2008
> 
> CALLER:  Ronald Reagan, why did he never respond to the Marine barracks bombing in Lebanon in 1983?
> 
> BREAK TRANSCRIPT
> 
> RUSH:  By the way, to answer the guy's question, "Why didn't Reagan respond?" He did.  It's one of the most underreported aspects in world history. Amir Taheri wrote about it on April 18th, 2007, in a publication called Gulf News.  Basically, *Reagan sunk Iran's navy*, if I could just sum this up. * We sunk Iran's navy. *The attacks from Lebanon came from Iran, as they still do to this day. * We sunk Iran's navy,* but we didn't talk about it much then because that would have made us look mean, and the mullahs didn't talk about it because they didn't want the world to know* their navy had been sunk,* but it happened.
> END TRANSCRIPT
> 
> Operation Praying Mantis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Operation Praying Mantis was an April 18, 1988 attack by U.S. naval forces in retaliation for the Iranian mining of the Persian Gulf and the subsequent damage to an American warship.
> 
> *In short, Iran lost one major warship and a smaller gunboat.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> Ronald Reagan was a law breaker and committed Treason.
Click to expand...


Reagan for 20th century Presidents; Lincoln if one goes back to the beginning of our nation; he suspended the Writ.


----------



## JimBowie1958

LBJ is easily the most over rated PResident in US history.

The Great Society Programs have been a huge disaster for most and were merely another outlet for Democrat criminal syndicates to steal money from the government, which LBJ was OK with as he was as corrupt as any of them.


----------



## Black_Label

Reagan, the right wingers worship him like the 2nd coming of christ. They don't know why, you're just suppose to in the "how to be a good republican" handbook.


----------



## JimBowie1958

Black_Label said:


> Reagan, the right wingers worship him like the 2nd coming of christ. They don't know why, you're just suppose to in the "how to be a good republican" handbook.



They know why, but like your avatar illustrates, you have your head too far up your ass to hear anyone say why.


----------



## notatallanti

Artevelde said:


> notatallanti said:
> 
> 
> 
> No single president has done as much to destroy the influence and power of America in the world as Bush II.
> 
> Many people have good points about other presidents, but the facts are there before our eyes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Complete nonsense.
Click to expand...


Yes, it was absolute nonsense that such a hopelessly inadequate individual could have become president.


----------



## Douger

syrenn said:


> kennedy
> 
> THE most over rated president of ALL time.


Had Reagan or any Bush been at the wheel instead of Kennedy neither murka or Russia would exist (not that would be a bad thing)


----------



## JimBowie1958

Douger said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> kennedy
> 
> THE most over rated president of ALL time.
> 
> 
> 
> Had Reagan or any Bush been at the wheel instead of Kennedy neither murka or Russia would exist (not that would be a bad thing)
Click to expand...


You do know that you are an absolute ass-wipe POS, right?


----------



## WilliamCody

My vote would be Reagan.  Not because he was a bad president, but it seems many love him without actually accounting for his decisions and policies, which were quite varied.  Plus, Gorbachev should properly get more credit for ending the Cold War.


----------



## Provocateur

I'm glad to see that 14 of my fellow forum members picked FDR.  There is hope after all.


----------



## Provocateur

WilliamCody said:


> My vote would be Reagan.  Not because he was a bad president, but it seems many love him without actually accounting for his decisions and policies, which were quite varied.  Plus, Gorbachev should properly get more credit for ending the Cold War.



That's your reasoning?  Srsly?


----------



## WilliamCody

Provocateur said:


> WilliamCody said:
> 
> 
> 
> My vote would be Reagan.  Not because he was a bad president, but it seems many love him without actually accounting for his decisions and policies, which were quite varied.  Plus, Gorbachev should properly get more credit for ending the Cold War.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's your reasoning?  Srsly?
Click to expand...


What srsly, bro?

The question was overrated.  Not worst.  Reagan was a good president, but not deserving of the veneration he receives by some.  Overrated.  

Going by your previous post, I see you don't like FDR.  I suspect partisanship.  All politics aside, FDR guided through a World War, Reagan had no such test.


----------



## Provocateur

WilliamCody said:


> Provocateur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WilliamCody said:
> 
> 
> 
> My vote would be Reagan.  Not because he was a bad president, but it seems many love him without actually accounting for his decisions and policies, which were quite varied.  Plus, Gorbachev should properly get more credit for ending the Cold War.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's your reasoning?  Srsly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What srsly, bro?
> 
> The question was overrated.  Not worst.  Reagan was a good president, but not deserving of the veneration he receives by some.  Overrated.
> 
> Going by your previous post, I see you don't like FDR.  I suspect partisanship.  All politics aside, *FDR guided through a World War*, Reagan had no such test.
Click to expand...


You lecture about "overrated" and then talk about what FDR did or didn't do, and what Reagan did or didn't do.  All while calling me partisan?


FDR started the progressive ball rolling.  I don't give a shit if he fought 20 WWs in the process, nothing takes away that fact, even though he is put forth in high school textbooks as some sort of hero.


----------



## WilliamCody

Provocateur said:


> WilliamCody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Provocateur said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's your reasoning?  Srsly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What srsly, bro?
> 
> The question was overrated.  Not worst.  Reagan was a good president, but not deserving of the veneration he receives by some.  Overrated.
> 
> Going by your previous post, I see you don't like FDR.  I suspect partisanship.  All politics aside, *FDR guided through a World War*, Reagan had no such test.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You lecture about "overrated" and then talk about what FDR did or didn't do, and what Reagan did or didn't do.  All while calling me partisan?
> 
> 
> *FDR started the progressive ball rolling.*  I don't give a shit if he fought 20 WWs in the process, nothing takes away that fact, even though he is put forth in high school textbooks as some sort of hero.
Click to expand...


This right here shows your lack of knowledge.

TR, Taft, Wilson: all had distinct "progressive" policies well before FDR.

So yeah, this is partisan hackery.


----------



## Oddball

WilliamCody said:


> Provocateur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WilliamCody said:
> 
> 
> 
> My vote would be Reagan.  Not because he was a bad president, but it seems many love him without actually accounting for his decisions and policies, which were quite varied.  Plus, Gorbachev should properly get more credit for ending the Cold War.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's your reasoning?  Srsly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What srsly, bro?
> 
> The question was overrated.  Not worst.  Reagan was a good president, but not deserving of the veneration he receives by some.  Overrated.
> 
> Going by your previous post, I see you don't like FDR.  I suspect partisanship.*  All politics aside, FDR guided through a World War*, Reagan had no such test.
Click to expand...


...which he provoked in the first place.


----------



## Provocateur

WilliamCody said:


> Provocateur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WilliamCody said:
> 
> 
> 
> What srsly, bro?
> 
> The question was overrated.  Not worst.  Reagan was a good president, but not deserving of the veneration he receives by some.  Overrated.
> 
> Going by your previous post, I see you don't like FDR.  I suspect partisanship.  All politics aside, *FDR guided through a World War*, Reagan had no such test.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You lecture about "overrated" and then talk about what FDR did or didn't do, and what Reagan did or didn't do.  All while calling me partisan?
> 
> 
> *FDR started the progressive ball rolling.*  I don't give a shit if he fought 20 WWs in the process, nothing takes away that fact, even though he is put forth in high school textbooks as some sort of hero.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This right here shows your lack of knowledge.
> 
> TR, Taft, Wilson: all had distinct "progressive" policies well before FDR.
> 
> So yeah, this is partisan hackery.
Click to expand...


He took it to a whole new level.  But you can deny that, and bash Reagan if it makes you feel less partisan.


----------



## Provocateur

Oddball said:


> WilliamCody said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Provocateur said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's your reasoning?  Srsly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What srsly, bro?
> 
> The question was overrated.  Not worst.  Reagan was a good president, but not deserving of the veneration he receives by some.  Overrated.
> 
> Going by your previous post, I see you don't like FDR.  I suspect partisanship.*  All politics aside, FDR guided through a World War*, Reagan had no such test.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...which he provoked in the first place.
Click to expand...


Stop it.  Reagan was an old actor.  It is time to focus, Odd one.


----------



## WilliamCody

Dude, please.

I've said I think Reagan was a good president.

srsly.


----------



## Oddball

Provocateur said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WilliamCody said:
> 
> 
> 
> What srsly, bro?
> 
> The question was overrated.  Not worst.  Reagan was a good president, but not deserving of the veneration he receives by some.  Overrated.
> 
> Going by your previous post, I see you don't like FDR.  I suspect partisanship.*  All politics aside, FDR guided through a World War*, Reagan had no such test.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...which he provoked in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop it.  Reagan was an old actor.  It is time to focus, Odd one.
Click to expand...

Don't care...Reagan didn't provoke a war to "lead us through" said war.

Not that I worship at the altar of St. Ronnie, mind you, but FDR truly has the blood of millions on his hands.


----------



## del

Oddball said:


> Provocateur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...which he provoked in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop it.  Reagan was an old actor.  It is time to focus, Odd one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't care...Reagan didn't provoke a war to "lead us through" said war.
> 
> Not that I worship at the altar of St. Ronnie, mind you, but FDR truly has the blood of millions on his hands.
Click to expand...


yeah, and ayn rand was a brilliant writer...


----------



## Black_Label

JimBowie1958 said:


> Black_Label said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan, the right wingers worship him like the 2nd coming of christ. They don't know why, you're just suppose to in the "how to be a good republican" handbook.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They know why, but like your avatar illustrates, you have your head too far up your ass to hear anyone say why.
Click to expand...


My avatar is the official seal of the united states republican party. Stupid posts like you make verifies the serious head up their ass problems the GOP trash have,.


----------



## del

Black_Label said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Black_Label said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan, the right wingers worship him like the 2nd coming of christ. They don't know why, you're just suppose to in the "how to be a good republican" handbook.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They know why, but like your avatar illustrates, you have your head too far up your ass to hear anyone say why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *My avatar is the official seal of the united states republican party*. Stupid posts like you make verifies the serious head up their ass problems the GOP trash have,.
Click to expand...


did you get paid to pose for it or did you do it pro bono?


----------



## Oddball

del said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Provocateur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop it.  Reagan was an old actor.  It is time to focus, Odd one.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't care...Reagan didn't provoke a war to "lead us through" said war.
> 
> Not that I worship at the altar of St. Ronnie, mind you, but FDR truly has the blood of millions on his hands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yeah, and ayn rand was a brilliant writer...
Click to expand...

You will note that the AVG (a.k.a. Flying Tigers) were deployed in China and active well prior to 7 Dec 41...That's provocation in anybody's book....Corky.


----------



## del

Oddball said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't care...Reagan didn't provoke a war to "lead us through" said war.
> 
> Not that I worship at the altar of St. Ronnie, mind you, but FDR truly has the blood of millions on his hands.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yeah, and ayn rand was a brilliant writer...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You will note that the AVG (a.k.a. Flying Tigers) were deployed in China and active well prior to 7 Dec 41...That's provocation in anybody's book....Corky.
Click to expand...


keep telling yourself that, mr galt


----------



## Provocateur

WilliamCody said:


> Dude, please.
> 
> I've said I think Reagan was a good president.
> 
> srsly.



Yet, he was the one that you singled out.  

Howaboutthat.


----------



## Black_Label

del said:


> Black_Label said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They know why, but like your avatar illustrates, you have your head too far up your ass to hear anyone say why.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *My avatar is the official seal of the united states republican party*. Stupid posts like you make verifies the serious head up their ass problems the GOP trash have,.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> did you get paid to pose for it or did you do it pro bono?
Click to expand...


No, Willow graciously posed for it.


----------



## Provocateur

Black_Label said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Black_Label said:
> 
> 
> 
> *My avatar is the official seal of the united states republican party*. Stupid posts like you make verifies the serious head up their ass problems the GOP trash have,.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> did you get paid to pose for it or did you do it pro bono?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, Willow voluntarily posed for it.
Click to expand...


You know this because you took the photo....I'm guessing naked at the time?


----------



## JimBowie1958

Black_Label said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Black_Label said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan, the right wingers worship him like the 2nd coming of christ. They don't know why, you're just suppose to in the "how to be a good republican" handbook.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They know why, but like your avatar illustrates, you have your head too far up your ass to hear anyone say why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My avatar is the official seal of the united states republican party. Stupid posts like you make verifies the serious head up their ass problems the GOP trash have,.
Click to expand...


You invent a ridiculous seal, ascribe it to the GOP as though it proves something, and then tell *me* I am stupid?

ROFLMAO

That is a classic.


----------



## JimBowie1958

Provocateur said:


> WilliamCody said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, please.
> 
> I've said I think Reagan was a good president.
> 
> srsly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, he was the one that you singled out.
> 
> Howaboutthat.
Click to expand...


Except for the statists that are appalled at any heretic that wont worship at the alter of Power and take it up the ass from local commies, Most Americans have a strong and postive regard for Reagan.

I think he is the best President since Truman, and the second best of the 20th century, forth best overall with Teddy fifth.


----------



## notatallanti

The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men. - Plato

He foresaw the Democrats and Republicans.

And just to address another statement, although myself not an FDR admirer, saying he provoked WWII is impossible to understand. It could be said that Japan was provoked, but even in that case they required very little provocation. Otherwise, America had nothing to do with starting that conflict.

Also, the vote for 'W' stands, for whom any rating is overrating.


----------



## notatallanti

"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire,
a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it
be left to irresponsible action." - George Washington

He was warning of 'W' (with Ronnie a close second).


----------



## notatallanti

Speaking of 'W' and Ronnie, I didn't like puppet shows much even as a kid. As an adult, these two charmed not at all.


----------



## SW2SILVER

It seems like president Other won. Who might that be? Polk?  Mckinley? What a mystery. Who chooses the names on that list? Over rated is one thing, but who was the WORST president? Popularity  contests ASIDE... I would like to know why REGAN wasn't on the top of that list? Or even W. Bush?  Hmm. Other....Ok...Ya, right.


----------



## Peach

jillian said:


> you need to include reagan...
> 
> the most overrated president of all time.



Yes, but even calling Bush II a President is overrating him; in same ways Kennedy could be #3. Most UNDERRATED: Ford, Nixon.


----------



## notatallanti

Too bad! I've been encouraging people to vote "Other".


----------



## Friends

zzzz said:


> Thomas Woodrow Wilson.
> 
> Wilson pushed started the Federal income tax and the Federal Reserve Act which are anchors on his presidency.



That sounds pretty good. I'm glad he did it.


----------



## Friends

George Washington. He lost more battles than he won. He left nothing in the way of political writings worth reading. 

The only good things he did was to refrain from doing what he could have done. He could have established a royal dynasty with himself as the absolute monarch. That was the way history had gone up to that time. It was what Napoleon Bonaparte tried to do.

Nevertheless, he had Mount Vernon to retire to. In addition, he had no sons to inherit the throne from him. This reduced his motives.


----------



## Friends

Of recent presidents Ronald Reagan is the most over rated. He was more successful than Jimmy Carter, but Carter was a better president.

There was more job creation per year under Carter than Reagan.

There was less unemployment.

There was of course less deficit spending.

The inflation that ended Carter's presidency, and which declined during the presidency of Ronald Reagan was due to fluctuations in the price of petroleum over which neither president had much control.

Because the Soviet Union was nearing collapse the military buildup under Reagan was unnecessary. Provoking an arms race with the Soviets when Soviet leaders could feel their power disintegrating was catastrophically dangerous.


----------



## Friends

The following websites document the assertions I made in my previous post.

job creation:
Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record - Real Time Economics - WSJ 

unemployment:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/UNRATE.txt 

oil prices:
Historical Oil Prices: InflationData.com


----------



## regent

Friends said:


> zzzz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thomas Woodrow Wilson.
> 
> Wilson pushed started the Federal income tax and the Federal Reserve Act which are anchors on his presidency.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That sounds pretty good. I'm glad he did it.
Click to expand...


The first US income tax was under Lincoln and had a ten year life span. A new one was passed later and declared unconstitutional. Today's income tax is an amendment to the Constitution and that Amendment process was started in 1909, perhaps under Taft a Republican. The Amendment finally was ratified during the Wilson presidency.


----------



## Uncensored2008

jillian said:


> you need to include reagan...
> 
> the most overrated president of all time.



ROFL

What a fucking moron hack you are.


----------



## Uncensored2008

TheGreatGatsby said:


> How did he commit treason?



Reagan destroyed the USSR. Shallow will NEVER forgive him for that. Reagan committed treason against the Worker Paradise that Jim Wright was helping Shallow's beloved Soviet Allies create.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Darkwind said:


> Obama
> Kennedy
> FDR
> Wilson
> 
> In that order



Only problem is that no one claims Obama is a competent president, much less "great."

Most overrated? Lincoln, without a doubt.


----------



## there4eyeM

Reagan destroyed the Soviet Union?!?

Whew....


----------



## Uncensored2008

there4eyeM said:


> Reagan destroyed the Soviet Union?!?
> 
> Whew....



If he didn't, Shallow, Jillian, Blindboo, and a lot of others are worked up over nothing.

Besides, if he didn't, Obama couldn't go to Berlin and demand "Mr. Putin, BUILD THIS WALL!"


----------



## Vidi

Uncensored2008 said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan destroyed the Soviet Union?!?
> 
> Whew....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If he didn't, Shallow, Jillian, Blindboo, and a lot of others are worked up over nothing.
> 
> Besides, if he didn't, Obama couldn't go to Berlin and demand "Mr. Putin, BUILD THIS WALL!"
Click to expand...


lame.

not even close to funny or amusing or even biting.

just lame.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Vidi said:


> lame.
> 
> not even close to funny or amusing or even biting.
> 
> just lame.



The fact is that leftists like the ones mentioned hate Reagan because he cause the Soviet Union to fall.

Ortega and company were engaging in genocide of the Mesquite Indians due to their resistance to collectivized agriculture. Imagine, a 2,000 year old culture not wanting to give up their way of life to conform with the Marxist goals of the Sandinista rulers? So Ortega ordered them eradicated. But Blindboo calls the resistance fighters "terrorists."

You see, Nicaragua was the dream. The Soviets were always "over there." There was never any chance of an invasion, they were across the sea. I mean yeah, there is Cuba, but it's 90 miles of open ocean. 

No, Nicaragua was a Soviet beach head. Nicaragua was the path through Honduras, then Guatemala, and the prize, Mexico. THEN America would have the Soviet Empire at our border. Fifth column member like Jim Wright openly supported the Soviet advance and Jillian could taste the Borscht of a Soviet dominated nation. We were defeated, Shallow knew it, Carter had said it. The Soviet forces only needed move North, and we had a Soviet contingent in Congress to ensure that nothing interfered.   

Then that damned Reagan got elected. 

Ah but Wright and the Bolsheviks moved fast to support their Sandinista allies. The executive branch alone has the constitutional authority to conduct a foreign policy, but at the time, pre-Clinton, congress still created funding. All Wright and the 5th column could do is deny funding. Despite Blindboo's fucking lies, the Executive had the constitutional authority to support the insurgents against their Soviet masters.

The thing about the USSR is that it was like many militaristic empires; it fed on conquest. It needed new conquests to invade and rape in order to survive. If you've ever jumped rocks to get across the river, you can understand the process. You're alright as long as you keep moving, but if you stop, then you will fall in. Reagan stopped the Soviets in Nicaragua and Afghanistan, causing them to collapse. The Soviets had never lost a territory before that.

So yes, the radical left here hate Reagan: Not because he failed or did wrong, but because he succeeded and defeated them.


----------



## Friends

Uncensored2008 said:


> So yes, the radical left here hate Reagan: Not because he failed or did wrong, but because he succeeded and defeated them.



What I regret about Reagan was that he convinced a large percentage of the American people that they could have the government they wanted without paying for it. I do not believe it was necessary to increase military spending during the 1980s, but if it was it was necessary to raise taxes to pay for it. Reagan cut taxes. 

In his book The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution failed, David Stockman said that it was never possible to cut taxes, raise defense spending, and balance the budget like Reagan said it was during the campaign of 1980 without making cuts in domestic spending programs most Republican voters would have opposed. 

In other words, the Reagan Revolution failed because it was fundamentally dishonest.


----------



## Black_Label

Uncensored2008 said:


> So yes, the radical left here hate Reagan: Not because he failed or did wrong, but because he succeeded and defeated them.



That must be why the radical right worship Reagan like the second coming of christ. He created the taliban and did illegal arms deals with muslims in Iran. 

Islam in the middle east is just like america's christian radical right, just with slightly different views of their own kind of sharia law.


----------



## Artevelde

Black_Label said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So yes, the radical left here hate Reagan: Not because he failed or did wrong, but because he succeeded and defeated them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That must be why the radical right worship Reagan like the second coming of christ. He created the taliban and did illegal arms deals with muslims in Iran.
> 
> Islam in the middle east is just like america's christian radical right, just with slightly different views of their own kind of sharia law.
Click to expand...


You are a complete idiot. The Taliban emerged a very long time after Reagan left office.


----------



## Black_Label

Artevelde said:


> Black_Label said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So yes, the radical left here hate Reagan: Not because he failed or did wrong, but because he succeeded and defeated them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That must be why the radical right worship Reagan like the second coming of christ. He created the taliban and did illegal arms deals with muslims in Iran.
> 
> Islam in the middle east is just like america's christian radical right, just with slightly different views of their own kind of sharia law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a complete idiot. The Taliban emerged a very long time after Reagan left office.
Click to expand...


Truth hurts that ol' Ronnie created the terror cell that attacked america, and did illegal arms deals with islamists in Iran, doesn't it?


----------



## there4eyeM

Reagan's administration financed international terrorists, euphemistically named 'Contras', who blew up health care facilities and assassinated teachers and functionaries, just like the cowards portrayed today as our sworn enemies in other parts of the world. Until 'W', no president had done as much to lower the world's esteem of the US. Bush II established a record that will be difficult to beat.
That said, do not take this as an attack on Republicans. Both major parties are the enemy.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Friends said:


> What I regret about Reagan was that he convinced a large percentage of the American people that they could have the government they wanted without paying for it. I do not believe it was necessary to increase military spending during the 1980s, but if it was it was necessary to raise taxes to pay for it. Reagan cut taxes.
> 
> In his book The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution failed, David Stockman said that it was never possible to cut taxes, raise defense spending, and balance the budget like Reagan said it was during the campaign of 1980 without making cuts in domestic spending programs most Republican voters would have opposed.
> 
> In other words, the Reagan Revolution failed because it was fundamentally dishonest.



Assumes facts not in existence; to wit "the Reagan revolution failed."


----------



## Uncensored2008

Artevelde said:


> You are a complete idiot. The Taliban emerged a very long time after Reagan left office.



Yes, but without lying, the left has nothing.


----------



## Uncensored2008

there4eyeM said:


> Reagan's administration financed international terrorists, euphemistically named 'Contras',



So, in your alleged mind, resistance to a Marxist Junta is "terrorism?"



> who blew up health care facilities and assassinated teachers and functionaries,



Well, not so much, but you don't mind lying. I mean, if you had integrity, you couldn't support murderous Marxist dictatorships like the Sandinista.

So let's look at these Communists you support;

{One of the earliest Sandinista public works projects was the construction of a centrally controlled national prison system. Aided by Cuban, East German, and Soviet advisers, the Ministry of Interior built a system designed not only to incarcerate criminals and to punish opponents, but to break the will of the entire population to resist FSLN policies of mass ideological indoctrination, property seizure, conscription, and repression of market activities, political beliefs, and religious practices. }

{Torture of prisoners was routine and widely practiced.36 Prisoners were forced into cells so small that they could neither stand nor sit, they were locked into steel hot boxes outside in the sun, and they were subjected to psychological torture that included sexual assaults on the prisoners daughters or wives.37 Prisoners were occasionally mutilated and skinned alive before being executed, the latter practice attributed almost solely to the DGSE. One practice in the countryside was the corte de cruz, a drawing-and-quartering technique in which the prisoners limbs were severed from the body and the individual was left to bleed to death.

Such killings were time-consuming and inefficient, and the exception to the rule. It appears that they were designed to be carried out on selected targets so that the human remains would be left in a way calculated to sow terror among Sandinista opponents.38 }

Tropical Chekists: The Sandinista secret police legacy in Nicaragua »  News & Publications »  The Institute of World Politics

But these were not the "terrorists" to you, no it was those who OPPOSED them.



> just like the cowards portrayed today as our sworn enemies in other parts of the world.



And of course you have valid evidence of deliberate attacks on Hospitals?
Well, of course not, your job is to smear, not to disseminate fact.



> Until 'W', no president had done as much to lower the world's esteem of the US. Bush II established a record that will be difficult to beat.
> That said, do not take this as an attack on Republicans. Both major parties are the enemy.



Yeah, that Wall falling really diminished the standing of the USA...

You communists sure are smart - and honest too....


----------



## LoThunder

*Reagan doesn't deserve any of the adoration he's received. 
Anything major that happened on his watch on nothing to do with him directly, he just stumbled along- basically PRETENDING to be president. 
I doubt he even knew where he was 90% of the time... *


----------



## there4eyeM

Talk about straw man tactics. 
Facts are presented and then accused of being inaccurate, so they are. Someone does not bow before the disgusting reputation of Ronnie, so the person is a communist, as if 'communist' were necessarily something bad. 
Total categorization such as that clearly reveals the mind behind it. 
Being against one group does not mean being for another, to explain clearly to someone who is doubtless beyond reaching.
Whatever happened in political change Nicaragua certainly was affected by, to put it mildly, poor policies on the part of the US. 
The laundry list of excuses to mis-categorize is too long to address entirely, and far too uninteresting.


----------



## Friends

Uncensored2008 said:


> Friends said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I regret about Reagan was that he convinced a large percentage of the American people that they could have the government they wanted without paying for it. I do not believe it was necessary to increase military spending during the 1980s, but if it was it was necessary to raise taxes to pay for it. Reagan cut taxes.
> 
> In his book The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution failed, David Stockman said that it was never possible to cut taxes, raise defense spending, and balance the budget like Reagan said it was during the campaign of 1980 without making cuts in domestic spending programs most Republican voters would have opposed.
> 
> In other words, the Reagan Revolution failed because it was fundamentally dishonest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Assumes facts not in existence; to wit "the Reagan revolution failed."
Click to expand...

 
It failed to cut taxes, raise defense spending and balance the budget by 1983 without cutting popular middle class entitlements, like Reagan said he could do during the campaign of 1980.


----------



## Indy Terry

My vote is for George W. Bush, 43rd president.  This president got in us in more hot water situations that nobody for the next 25 years will be able to alleviate the problems the US faces because of his presidency.


----------

