# HNN Poll: 61% of Historians Rate the Bush Presidency Worst



## Truthseeker420

A Pew Research Center poll released last week found that the share of the American public that approves of President George W. Bush has dropped to a new low of 28 percent.

An unscientific poll of professional historians completed the same week produced results far worse for a president clinging to the hope that history will someday take a kinder view of his presidency than does contemporary public opinion.

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

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

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

 The reason for the hesitancy some historians had in categorizing the Bush presidency as the worst ever, which led them to place it instead in the nearly the worst group, was well expressed by another historian who said, It is a bit too early to judge whether Bush's presidency is the worst ever, though it certainly has a shot to take the title.  Without a doubt, it is among the worst.

History News Network | Because the Past is the Present, and the Future too.


----------



## rdean

Truthseeker420 said:


> A Pew Research Center poll released last week found that the share of the American public that approves of President George W. Bush has dropped to a new low of 28 percent.
> 
> An unscientific poll of professional historians completed the same week produced results far worse for a president clinging to the hope that history will someday take a kinder view of his presidency than does contemporary public opinion.
> 
> In an informal survey of 109 professional historians conducted over a three-week period through the History News Network, 98.2 percent assessed the presidency of Mr. Bush to be a failure while 1.8 percent classified it as a success.
> 
> Asked to rank the presidency of George W. Bush in comparison to those of the other 41 American presidents, more than 61 percent of the historians concluded that the current presidency is the worst in the nation&#8217;s history. Another 35 percent of the historians surveyed rated the Bush presidency in the 31st to 41st category, while only four of the 109 respondents ranked the current presidency as even among the top two-thirds of American administrations.
> 
> At least two of those who ranked the current president in the 31-41 ranking made it clear that they placed him next-to-last, with only James Buchanan, in their view, being worse. &#8220;He is easily one of the 10-worst of all time and&#8212;if the magnitude of the challenges and opportunities matter&#8212;then probably in the bottom five, alongside Buchanan, Johnson, Fillmore, and Pierce,&#8221; wrote another historian.
> 
> The reason for the hesitancy some historians had in categorizing the Bush presidency as the worst ever, which led them to place it instead in the &#8220;nearly the worst&#8221; group, was well expressed by another historian who said, &#8220;It is a bit too early to judge whether Bush's presidency is the worst ever, though it certainly has a shot to take the title.  Without a doubt, it is among the worst.&#8221;
> 
> History News Network | Because the Past is the Present, and the Future too.



Don't worry right wing.  If the poll was taken using professionals and college professors, it obviously doesn't mean anything.

And PEW?  They are the ones who said only 6% of scientists were Republicans.  And yes, the Grand Canyon really did happen because of "Noah's Flood".


----------



## rightwinger

Let's see......Historians are a bunch of elitist liberals

Just like ...Scientists are a bunch of elitist liberals


Don't like the message...attack the messenger


----------



## Truthmatters

smart people have a left leaning bias.


----------



## MeBelle

No partisan polls here:
April 2011
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 53% of Likely U.S. Voters say the nations current economic problems are due to the recession which began under the Bush administration.  Thirty-nine percent (39%), however, believe Obama's policies are to blame.   
Consistent with past findings, 86% of Democrats blame the recession which began under the Bush administration, while 73% of Republicans blame Obamas policies.  Among voters not affiliated with either political party, 52% say the problems started under Bush, while 32% point their finger at Obama. 

Most Voters Still Blame Bush Recession for Bad Economy - Rasmussen Reports

June/July 2011
Update: 49% Blame Bad Economy on Bush's Recession, 44% on Obama's Policies
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 49% of Likely U.S. Voters now blame the bad economy on the recession which began under the Bush administration. Forty-four percent (44%) blame the economic problems on Obama's policies. That's the narrowest the blame gap has been since October of last year. 

49% Blame Bad Economy on Bush's Recession, 44% on Obama's Policies - Rasmussen Reports
Bush is down 4% and Obama is up 5%!
Give it a few more months and perhaps they will be tied!


----------



## Truthmatters

And Rass usually leans to the right of all other polls


----------



## CrusaderFrank

LOL  Who the fuck cares?

These are the same idiots who rate FDR who presided over an economy worse than the 7 Biblical Lean years as "the Greatest"

It's a Joke.

Bush sucked for sure, but Carter and Obama were worse


----------



## Leweman

Truthmatters said:


> And Rass usually leans to the right of all other polls



There are no unbiased polls.


----------



## Truthmatters

Rass leans right


----------



## Mad Scientist

This is like the All Star Game voting. Sometimes good players are left out, sometimes lousy players get in. That's just how it is in a popularity contest.

Besides, NO ONE will change my opinion that Woodrow Wilson was the worst President ever JUST for signing the Federal Reserve Act into Law. Even HE said that was a mistake and we've been slaves to the Bankers ever since.


----------



## Leweman

Truthmatters said:


> Rass leans right



He also is as accurate, if not more accurate, as any other pollster.


----------



## rightwinger

Truthseeker420 said:


> A Pew Research Center poll released last week found that the share of the American public that approves of President George W. Bush has dropped to a new low of 28 percent.
> 
> An unscientific poll of professional historians completed the same week produced results far worse for a president clinging to the hope that history will someday take a kinder view of his presidency than does contemporary public opinion.
> 
> In an informal survey of 109 professional historians conducted over a three-week period through the History News Network, 98.2 percent assessed the presidency of Mr. Bush to be a failure while 1.8 percent classified it as a success.
> 
> Asked to rank the presidency of George W. Bush in comparison to those of the other 41 American presidents, more than 61 percent of the historians concluded that the current presidency is the worst in the nations history. Another 35 percent of the historians surveyed rated the Bush presidency in the 31st to 41st category, while only four of the 109 respondents ranked the current presidency as even among the top two-thirds of American administrations.
> 
> At least two of those who ranked the current president in the 31-41 ranking made it clear that they placed him next-to-last, with only James Buchanan, in their view, being worse. He is easily one of the 10-worst of all time andif the magnitude of the challenges and opportunities matterthen probably in the bottom five, alongside Buchanan, Johnson, Fillmore, and Pierce, wrote another historian.
> 
> The reason for the hesitancy some historians had in categorizing the Bush presidency as the worst ever, which led them to place it instead in the nearly the worst group, was well expressed by another historian who said, It is a bit too early to judge whether Bush's presidency is the worst ever, though it certainly has a shot to take the title.  Without a doubt, it is among the worst.
> 
> History News Network | Because the Past is the Present, and the Future too.



What were the other 39% thinking?


----------



## Trajan

asking for an opinion in the present is just silly snapshot in time,  I have no doubt that bush would be high on the list.

however, Truman for instance had horrid ratings 22% a year before he left office and in the 30's when he did leave I believe. yet, he ranks very high on the list today. 

I would hope that historians, at least responsible ones would add this to their opinions as a proviso in that time can rehabilitate even the worst opinions from the snapshot of the present.


----------



## Patrick2

Truthseeker420 said:


> A Pew Research Center poll released last week found that the share of the American public that approves of President George W. Bush has dropped to a new low of 28 percent.



Meaningless - the lib media managed to convince them that Bush was responsible for the housing crash and everything that followed it (an absurd conclusion for anyone who knows the facts).  The poll is actually not much more than an index of the high effectiveness of lib media brainwashing. 



> An unscientific poll of professional historians completed the same week produced results far worse for a president clinging to the hope that history will someday take a kinder view of his presidency than does contemporary public opinion.
> 
> In an informal survey of 109 professional historians conducted over a three-week period through the History News Network, 98.2 percent assessed the presidency of Mr. Bush to be a failure while 1.8 percent classified it as a success.



Equally meaningless - the humanities have been a redoubt for leftwing academics for decades.


----------



## rdean

CrusaderFrank said:


> LOL  Who the fuck cares?
> 
> These are the same idiots who rate FDR who presided over an economy worse than the 7 Biblical Lean years as "the Greatest"
> 
> It's a Joke.
> 
> Bush sucked for sure, but Carter and Obama were worse



Don't go to New Orleans and say that.  On second thought, go to New Orleans, carrying a huge sign that says, "Miss me yet?"


----------



## Zona

MeBelle60 said:


> No partisan polls here:
> April 2011
> A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 53% of Likely U.S. Voters say the nations current economic problems are due to the recession which began under the Bush administration.  Thirty-nine percent (39%), however, believe Obama's policies are to blame.
> Consistent with past findings, 86% of Democrats blame the recession which began under the Bush administration, while 73% of Republicans blame Obamas policies.  Among voters not affiliated with either political party, 52% say the problems started under Bush, while 32% point their finger at Obama.
> 
> Most Voters Still Blame Bush Recession for Bad Economy - Rasmussen Reports
> 
> June/July 2011
> Update: 49% Blame Bad Economy on Bush's Recession, 44% on Obama's Policies
> A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 49% of Likely U.S. Voters now blame the bad economy on the recession which began under the Bush administration. Forty-four percent (44%) blame the economic problems on Obama's policies. That's the narrowest the blame gap has been since October of last year.
> 
> 49% Blame Bad Economy on Bush's Recession, 44% on Obama's Policies - Rasmussen Reports
> Bush is down 4% and Obama is up 5%!
> Give it a few more months and perhaps they will be tied!



You are saying rasmussen is not biased?  Seriously.  


Are you an idiot or something?


----------



## iamwhatiseem

UPDATE:::

 It is ridiculously early for any historian to rate a President a mere 32 months after leaving office when a great many actions put in place by a President does not take full effect until years later, sometimes as long as 10 years later.

 As any Presidential historian worth his/her weight in sand knows this to be true - it begs the question as to what motive they would have to make such a judgement so early.


----------



## Zona

Leweman said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rass leans right
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He also is as accurate, if not more accurate, as any other pollster.
Click to expand...


Rasmussen's Polling Stirs Bias Debate

Rasmussen Polls Were Biased and Inaccurate; Quinnipiac, SurveyUSA Performed Strongly - NYTimes.com

Why it&#39;s increasingly difficult to take Rasmussen polls seriously | Media Matters for America

Rasmussen Was Biased

Rasmussen's Daily Prez Approval Index: misleading and biased | Unreadable Nixters's Blog


and so on and so on..

Rasmussen not biased and truthful?  LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL


----------



## SFC Ollie

My bet is that 25 years from now you will find Bush 43 ranked somewhere near the middle. Depending upon how the war on terror plays out.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Zona said:


> Leweman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rass leans right
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He also is as accurate, if not more accurate, as any other pollster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rasmussen's Polling Stirs Bias Debate
> 
> Rasmussen Polls Were Biased and Inaccurate; Quinnipiac, SurveyUSA Performed Strongly - NYTimes.com
> 
> Why it's increasingly difficult*to take Rasmussen polls seriously | Media Matters for America
> 
> Rasmussen Was Biased
> 
> Rasmussen's Daily Prez Approval Index: misleading and biased | Unreadable Nixters's Blog
> 
> 
> and so on and so on..
> 
> Rasmussen not biased and truthful?  LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Click to expand...


And so on:

The following list ranks the 23 organizations by the accuracy of their final, national preelection
polls (as reported on pollster.com).
1. Rasmussen (11/1-3)**
1. Pew (10/29-11/1)**
2. YouGov/Polimetrix (10/18-11/1)
3. Harris Interactive (10/20-27)
4. GWU (Lake/Tarrance) (11/2-3)*
5. Diageo/Hotline (10/31-11/2)*
5. ARG (10/25-27)*
6. CNN (10/30-11/1)
6. Ipsos/McClatchy (10/30-11/1)
7. DailyKos.com (D)/Research 2000 (11/1-3)
8. AP/Yahoo/KN (10/17-27)
9. Democracy Corps (D) (10/30-11/2)
10. FOX (11/1-2)
11. Economist/YouGov (10/25-27)
12. IBD/TIPP (11/1-3)
13. NBC/WSJ (11/1-2)
14. ABC/Post (10/30-11/2)
15. Marist College (11/3)
16. CBS (10/31-11/2)
17. Gallup (10/31-11/2)
18. Reuters/ C-SPAN/ Zogby (10/31-11/3)
19. CBS/Times (10/25-29)
20. Newsweek (10/22-23)

http://www.fordham.edu/images/acade...ccuracy in the 2008 presidential election.pdf


----------



## rdean

SFC Ollie said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leweman said:
> 
> 
> 
> He also is as accurate, if not more accurate, as any other pollster.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rasmussen's Polling Stirs Bias Debate
> 
> Rasmussen Polls Were Biased and Inaccurate; Quinnipiac, SurveyUSA Performed Strongly - NYTimes.com
> 
> Why it's increasingly difficult*to take Rasmussen polls seriously | Media Matters for America
> 
> Rasmussen Was Biased
> 
> Rasmussen's Daily Prez Approval Index: misleading and biased | Unreadable Nixters's Blog
> 
> 
> and so on and so on..
> 
> Rasmussen not biased and truthful?  LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And so on:
> 
> The following list ranks the 23 organizations by the accuracy of their final, national preelection
> polls (as reported on pollster.com).
> 1. Rasmussen (11/1-3)**
> 1. Pew (10/29-11/1)**
> 2. YouGov/Polimetrix (10/18-11/1)
> 3. Harris Interactive (10/20-27)
> 4. GWU (Lake/Tarrance) (11/2-3)*
> 5. Diageo/Hotline (10/31-11/2)*
> 5. ARG (10/25-27)*
> 6. CNN (10/30-11/1)
> 6. Ipsos/McClatchy (10/30-11/1)
> 7. DailyKos.com (D)/Research 2000 (11/1-3)
> 8. AP/Yahoo/KN (10/17-27)
> 9. Democracy Corps (D) (10/30-11/2)
> 10. FOX (11/1-2)
> 11. Economist/YouGov (10/25-27)
> 12. IBD/TIPP (11/1-3)
> 13. NBC/WSJ (11/1-2)
> 14. ABC/Post (10/30-11/2)
> 15. Marist College (11/3)
> 16. CBS (10/31-11/2)
> 17. Gallup (10/31-11/2)
> 18. Reuters/ C-SPAN/ Zogby (10/31-11/3)
> 19. CBS/Times (10/25-29)
> 20. Newsweek (10/22-23)
> 
> http://www.fordham.edu/images/acade...ccuracy in the 2008 presidential election.pdf
Click to expand...


PEW is second?  It's PEW that says only 6% of scientists are Republican.


----------



## rdean

SFC Ollie said:


> My bet is that 25 years from now you will find Bush 43 ranked somewhere near the middle. Depending upon how the war on terror plays out.



Drive through New Orleans with this on the side of your car.  People will cheer.
Trust me.


----------



## Zona

SFC Ollie said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leweman said:
> 
> 
> 
> He also is as accurate, if not more accurate, as any other pollster.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rasmussen's Polling Stirs Bias Debate
> 
> Rasmussen Polls Were Biased and Inaccurate; Quinnipiac, SurveyUSA Performed Strongly - NYTimes.com
> 
> Why it's increasingly difficult*to take Rasmussen polls seriously | Media Matters for America
> 
> Rasmussen Was Biased
> 
> Rasmussen's Daily Prez Approval Index: misleading and biased | Unreadable Nixters's Blog
> 
> 
> and so on and so on..
> 
> Rasmussen not biased and truthful?  LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And so on:
> 
> The following list ranks the 23 organizations by the accuracy of their final, national preelection
> polls (as reported on pollster.com).
> 1. Rasmussen (11/1-3)**
> 1. Pew (10/29-11/1)**
> 2. YouGov/Polimetrix (10/18-11/1)
> 3. Harris Interactive (10/20-27)
> 4. GWU (Lake/Tarrance) (11/2-3)*
> 5. Diageo/Hotline (10/31-11/2)*
> 5. ARG (10/25-27)*
> 6. CNN (10/30-11/1)
> 6. Ipsos/McClatchy (10/30-11/1)
> 7. DailyKos.com (D)/Research 2000 (11/1-3)
> 8. AP/Yahoo/KN (10/17-27)
> 9. Democracy Corps (D) (10/30-11/2)
> 10. FOX (11/1-2)
> 11. Economist/YouGov (10/25-27)
> 12. IBD/TIPP (11/1-3)
> 13. NBC/WSJ (11/1-2)
> 14. ABC/Post (10/30-11/2)
> 15. Marist College (11/3)
> 16. CBS (10/31-11/2)
> 17. Gallup (10/31-11/2)
> 18. Reuters/ C-SPAN/ Zogby (10/31-11/3)
> 19. CBS/Times (10/25-29)
> 20. Newsweek (10/22-23)
> 
> http://www.fordham.edu/images/acade...ccuracy in the 2008 presidential election.pdf
Click to expand...


Who the hell is this ONE GUY...who came up with this pdf file?  Seriously, please try again.

Costas Panagopoulos, Ph.D.


----------



## Oddball

> *
> An unscientific poll ..... *


'Nuf said...Nothing to see here.


----------



## Patrick2

People who are careful readers will discern why Rasmussen polls differ from other polls on the same subject - Rasmussen almost always *polls likely voters*, whereas other polls, eg Gallup, usually poll adults in general.  Republicans are more likely to vote than democrats.  Further, Gallup polling shows more people self-identify as conservative than lib or independent.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

> LOL Who the fuck cares?



You, since you posted. 


> asking for an opinion in the present is just silly snapshot in time, I have no doubt that bush would be high on the list.
> 
> I would hope that historians, at least responsible ones would add this to their opinions as a proviso in that time can rehabilitate even the worst opinions from the snapshot of the present.


And this would apply to the WHs current occupant. I dont see GWB becoming a Truman, however. 

The Reagan presidency, OTOH, will be a very difficult administration to objectively evaluate, even after another 20 years.


----------



## rightwinger

iamwhatiseem said:


> UPDATE:::
> 
> It is ridiculously early for any historian to rate a President a mere 32 months after leaving office when a great many actions put in place by a President does not take full effect until years later, sometimes as long as 10 years later.
> 
> As any Presidential historian worth his/her weight in sand knows this to be true - it begs the question as to what motive they would have to make such a judgement so early.



Where have I heard this one before?

It is ridiculously early to rate Bush after 10 years but you can declare the Obama presidency a failure after 2


----------



## rightwinger

SFC Ollie said:


> My bet is that 25 years from now you will find Bush 43 ranked somewhere near the middle. Depending upon how the war on terror plays out.



What will not change about Bush

1. He blundered in his decision to invade Iraq on bogus intelligence
2. He sat like a deer in the headlights as the economy crashed
3. He openly engaged in torture
4. He ignored Katrina


----------



## code1211

Truthseeker420 said:


> A Pew Research Center poll released last week found that the share of the American public that approves of President George W. Bush has dropped to a new low of 28 percent.
> 
> An unscientific poll of professional historians completed the same week produced results far worse for a president clinging to the hope that history will someday take a kinder view of his presidency than does contemporary public opinion.
> 
> In an informal survey of 109 professional historians conducted over a three-week period through the History News Network, 98.2 percent assessed the presidency of Mr. Bush to be a failure while 1.8 percent classified it as a success.
> 
> Asked to rank the presidency of George W. Bush in comparison to those of the other 41 American presidents, more than 61 percent of the historians concluded that the current presidency is the worst in the nations history. Another 35 percent of the historians surveyed rated the Bush presidency in the 31st to 41st category, while only four of the 109 respondents ranked the current presidency as even among the top two-thirds of American administrations.
> 
> At least two of those who ranked the current president in the 31-41 ranking made it clear that they placed him next-to-last, with only James Buchanan, in their view, being worse. He is easily one of the 10-worst of all time andif the magnitude of the challenges and opportunities matterthen probably in the bottom five, alongside Buchanan, Johnson, Fillmore, and Pierce, wrote another historian.
> 
> The reason for the hesitancy some historians had in categorizing the Bush presidency as the worst ever, which led them to place it instead in the nearly the worst group, was well expressed by another historian who said, It is a bit too early to judge whether Bush's presidency is the worst ever, though it certainly has a shot to take the title.  Without a doubt, it is among the worst.
> 
> History News Network | Because the Past is the Present, and the Future too.





If running up the debt, losing international prestige, condemning future generations to the scrap heap and ending the period of American dominance in the world are the areas in which we need to judge presidents, these folks ain't seen nothing yet.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Zona said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zona said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rasmussen's Polling Stirs Bias Debate
> 
> Rasmussen Polls Were Biased and Inaccurate; Quinnipiac, SurveyUSA Performed Strongly - NYTimes.com
> 
> Why it's increasingly difficult*to take Rasmussen polls seriously | Media Matters for America
> 
> Rasmussen Was Biased
> 
> Rasmussen's Daily Prez Approval Index: misleading and biased | Unreadable Nixters's Blog
> 
> 
> and so on and so on..
> 
> Rasmussen not biased and truthful?  LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And so on:
> 
> The following list ranks the 23 organizations by the accuracy of their final, national preelection
> polls (as reported on pollster.com).
> 1. Rasmussen (11/1-3)**
> 1. Pew (10/29-11/1)**
> 2. YouGov/Polimetrix (10/18-11/1)
> 3. Harris Interactive (10/20-27)
> 4. GWU (Lake/Tarrance) (11/2-3)*
> 5. Diageo/Hotline (10/31-11/2)*
> 5. ARG (10/25-27)*
> 6. CNN (10/30-11/1)
> 6. Ipsos/McClatchy (10/30-11/1)
> 7. DailyKos.com (D)/Research 2000 (11/1-3)
> 8. AP/Yahoo/KN (10/17-27)
> 9. Democracy Corps (D) (10/30-11/2)
> 10. FOX (11/1-2)
> 11. Economist/YouGov (10/25-27)
> 12. IBD/TIPP (11/1-3)
> 13. NBC/WSJ (11/1-2)
> 14. ABC/Post (10/30-11/2)
> 15. Marist College (11/3)
> 16. CBS (10/31-11/2)
> 17. Gallup (10/31-11/2)
> 18. Reuters/ C-SPAN/ Zogby (10/31-11/3)
> 19. CBS/Times (10/25-29)
> 20. Newsweek (10/22-23)
> 
> http://www.fordham.edu/images/acade...ccuracy in the 2008 presidential election.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who the hell is this ONE GUY...who came up with this pdf file?  Seriously, please try again.
> 
> Costas Panagopoulos, Ph.D.
Click to expand...


Department of Political Science
Fordham University

Seriously, fuck you


----------



## iamwhatiseem

rightwinger said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> My bet is that 25 years from now you will find Bush 43 ranked somewhere near the middle. Depending upon how the war on terror plays out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What will not change about Bush
> 
> 1. He blundered in his decision to invade Iraq on bogus intelligence
> 2. He sat like a deer in the headlights as the economy crashed
> 3. He openly engaged in torture
> 4. He ignored Katrina
Click to expand...


In the minds of Kool-Aid drinkers and sheeple - yes your right.

On your "points".
1) Congress also voted to go to war, this "bogus" intelligence "fooled" also the Prime Minister of Great Britian, France and ultimately the U.N.
2) The economy crashed 3 months before his Presidency ended.
3) He did nothing no other President has not done, including Obama.
4) Your opinion on this shows your true ignorance and blind partisanship in who/what _really_ failed in this human disaster.


----------



## MikeK

iamwhatiseem said:


> UPDATE:::
> 
> It is ridiculously early for any historian to rate a President a mere 32 months after leaving office when a great many actions put in place by a President does not take full effect until years later, sometimes as long as 10 years later.
> 
> As any Presidential historian worth his/her weight in sand knows this to be true - it begs the question as to what motive they would have to make such a judgement so early.


George W. Bush is a brain-damaged fop who was appointed President by a rogue, neo-Conservative majority in the Supreme Court.  That crime against the Constitution and the American People was one of the worst things that ever happened to this Nation.  

George W. Bush was positioned by the shadow government for the purpose of finishing what Ronald Reagan started, which is the disassembly of the American Middle Class and the rise of a corporatocracy -- the bedrock of an American fascist state.  Because the power of the American Middle Class is defined by its wealth and its influence over industry, Ronald Reagan commenced its decline by laying siege against the union movement and by compromising the national economy with massive debt.  

Bill Clinton managed in spite of his self-serving patronage of the emerging corporatocracy to repair much of the damage done by Reaganomics.  While he didn't do as much as he could have he did leave the economy with a marginal deficit and a significant surplus.  But it didn't take Bush long to methodically sabotage Clinton's efforts by engaging in a profligate spending spree, by initiating two massively costly but un-budgeted military engagements, and by pushing through a massive tax reduction for his uber-rich "base" at the same time.  

The least sophisticated political observer knows that Bush's excessive and clearly illogical maneuvers would be destructive to the strongest, most stable economy, and it cannot be said he wasn't advised of that by numerous experts -- including his father.  

The most cursory review of his two terms in Office leaves no doubt in the reasoning mind that President George W. Bush was the willing tool of a shadow government which has since the 1980s been engaged in the incremental rise of a corporate oligarchy, the vanguard of which is the defense industry.  

George W. Bush is a criminal.  He, along with such conspirators as Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, Rice, Tenet, Powell, Yu, Gonzales and Addington deserve to stood against a wall and shot for what they did to this Nation.


----------



## iamwhatiseem

MikeK said:


> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> UPDATE:::
> 
> It is ridiculously early for any historian to rate a President a mere 32 months after leaving office when a great many actions put in place by a President does not take full effect until years later, sometimes as long as 10 years later.
> 
> As any Presidential historian worth his/her weight in sand knows this to be true - it begs the question as to what motive they would have to make such a judgement so early.
> 
> 
> 
> George W. Bush is a brain-damaged fop who was appointed President by a rogue, neo-Conservative majority in the Supreme Court.  That crime against the Constitution and the American People was one of the worst things that ever happened to this Nation.
> 
> George W. Bush was positioned by the shadow government for the purpose of finishing what Ronald Reagan started, which is the disassembly of the American Middle Class and the rise of a corporatocracy -- the bedrock of an American fascist state.  Because the power of the American Middle Class is defined by its wealth and its influence over industry, Ronald Reagan commenced its decline by laying siege against the union movement and by compromising the national economy with massive debt.
> 
> Bill Clinton managed in spite of his self-serving patronage of the emerging corporatocracy to repair much of the damage done by Reaganomics.  While he didn't do as much as he could have he did leave the economy with a marginal deficit and a significant surplus.  But it didn't take Bush long to methodically sabotage Clinton's efforts by engaging in a profligate spending spree, by initiating two massively costly but un-budgeted military engagements, and by pushing through a massive tax reduction for his uber-rich "base" at the same time.
> 
> The least sophisticated political observer knows that Bush's excessive and clearly illogical maneuvers would be destructive to the strongest, most stable economy, and it cannot be said he wasn't advised of that by numerous experts -- including his father.
> 
> The most cursory review of his two terms in Office leaves no doubt in the reasoning mind that President George W. Bush was the willing tool of a shadow government which has since the 1980s been engaged in the incremental rise of a corporate oligarchy, the vanguard of which is the defense industry.
> 
> George W. Bush is a criminal.  He, along with such conspirators as Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, Rice, Tenet, Powell, Yu, Gonzales and Addington deserve to stood against a wall and shot for what they did to this Nation.
Click to expand...


Your really should consider never drinking another Red Bull for the rest of your life.


----------



## Stephanie

iamwhatiseem said:


> UPDATE:::
> 
> It is ridiculously early for any historian to rate a President a mere 32 months after leaving office when a great many actions put in place by a President does not take full effect until years later, sometimes as long as 10 years later.
> 
> As any Presidential historian worth his/her weight in sand knows this to be true - it begs the question as to what motive they would have to make such a judgement so early.




You'll burst a lot of bubbles..


----------



## Truthseeker420

Stephanie said:


> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> UPDATE:::
> 
> It is ridiculously early for any historian to rate a President a mere 32 months after leaving office when a great many actions put in place by a President does not take full effect until years later, sometimes as long as 10 years later.
> 
> As any Presidential historian worth his/her weight in sand knows this to be true - it begs the question as to what motive they would have to make such a judgement so early.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'll burst a lot of bubbles..
Click to expand...


only in a neonuts mind.


----------



## Trajan

rdean said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zona said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rasmussen's Polling Stirs Bias Debate
> 
> Rasmussen Polls Were Biased and Inaccurate; Quinnipiac, SurveyUSA Performed Strongly - NYTimes.com
> 
> Why it's increasingly difficult*to take Rasmussen polls seriously | Media Matters for America
> 
> Rasmussen Was Biased
> 
> Rasmussen's Daily Prez Approval Index: misleading and biased | Unreadable Nixters's Blog
> 
> 
> and so on and so on..
> 
> Rasmussen not biased and truthful?  LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And so on:
> 
> The following list ranks the 23 organizations by the accuracy of their final, national preelection
> polls (as reported on pollster.com).
> 1. Rasmussen (11/1-3)**
> 1. Pew (10/29-11/1)**
> 2. YouGov/Polimetrix (10/18-11/1)
> 3. Harris Interactive (10/20-27)
> 4. GWU (Lake/Tarrance) (11/2-3)*
> 5. Diageo/Hotline (10/31-11/2)*
> 5. ARG (10/25-27)*
> 6. CNN (10/30-11/1)
> 6. Ipsos/McClatchy (10/30-11/1)
> 7. DailyKos.com (D)/Research 2000 (11/1-3)
> 8. AP/Yahoo/KN (10/17-27)
> 9. Democracy Corps (D) (10/30-11/2)
> 10. FOX (11/1-2)
> 11. Economist/YouGov (10/25-27)
> 12. IBD/TIPP (11/1-3)
> 13. NBC/WSJ (11/1-2)
> 14. ABC/Post (10/30-11/2)
> 15. Marist College (11/3)
> 16. CBS (10/31-11/2)
> 17. Gallup (10/31-11/2)
> 18. Reuters/ C-SPAN/ Zogby (10/31-11/3)
> 19. CBS/Times (10/25-29)
> 20. Newsweek (10/22-23)
> 
> http://www.fordham.edu/images/acade...ccuracy in the 2008 presidential election.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PEW is second?  It's PEW that says only 6% of scientists are Republican.
Click to expand...


and 10% of college faculty admit they are conservative...so your point was?


----------



## code1211

rightwinger said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> My bet is that 25 years from now you will find Bush 43 ranked somewhere near the middle. Depending upon how the war on terror plays out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What will not change about Bush
> 
> 1. He blundered in his decision to invade Iraq on bogus intelligence
> 2. He sat like a deer in the headlights as the economy crashed
> 3. He openly engaged in torture
> 4. He ignored Katrina
Click to expand...




1.  Sadam tried to assasinate 41 so W went after him.
2.  You're delusional.  He and his administration intitiated TARP.  It was unknown territory and his intention was to avoid 1929 which he did.
3.  It was a different world at the time.  His only interest was to avoid another homeland catastrophe.  Given the circumstances at the time, and the state of the intelligence, he could not know the nature of the threat or the possiblity of the repeat.  He erred on the side of protecting the population.
4.  You can't seriously be trotting out that worn out lie again, are you?


----------



## rdean

iamwhatiseem said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> My bet is that 25 years from now you will find Bush 43 ranked somewhere near the middle. Depending upon how the war on terror plays out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What will not change about Bush
> 
> 1. He blundered in his decision to invade Iraq on bogus intelligence
> 2. He sat like a deer in the headlights as the economy crashed
> 3. He openly engaged in torture
> 4. He ignored Katrina
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the minds of Kool-Aid drinkers and sheeple - yes your right.
> 
> On your "points".
> 1) Congress also voted to go to war, this "bogus" intelligence "fooled" also the Prime Minister of Great Britian, France and ultimately the U.N.
> 2) The economy crashed 3 months before his Presidency ended.
> 3) He did nothing no other President has not done, including Obama.
> 4) Your opinion on this shows your true ignorance and blind partisanship in who/what _really_ failed in this human disaster.
Click to expand...


There was no "bogus" intel.  That's an insult to our US Intelligence Agencies and the agents in the field.  After Desert Storm, is there any thinking person anywhere in the world that believe we just "turned our back on Iraq and walked away"?????????

*No one turns their back on an enemy you just knocked down.  It's stupid beyond words to even consider that.*  We knew exactly what was in Iraq.  The only one who didn't, apparently, was George Bush.

Bush thought he was making the "big decision".  Typical right wing ideology.  They "imagine" how something should happen based on "gut feeling" and "common sense".  Does anyone really believe Bush understood anything about the Middle East?  Bush really thought he would transform the Middle East, bring them democracy.  Instead of them throwing shoes, he expected flowers and bits of hard candy.

He just assumed they want what we want.  Well they didn't.  There is no "America Appreciation Day".  There is only, "Death to America" and worse, Iraq, by constitution is a right wing theocracy.  The women are now "enslave" under Islam trapped in Burkas and the American right is so fucking stupid, they think women lived like that under Saddam.  No one is saying Saddam was good, but he certainly was better than what we did and how we ruined that country for probably generations.

And Bush did things no other president has ever done.  He fought two wars and cut taxes.  Insane.

And he used to bully pulpit to get what he wanted.  YOU ARE WITH US OR WITH THE TERRORISTS.  The slime.  Typical Republican leader.


----------



## Zona

rightwinger said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> My bet is that 25 years from now you will find Bush 43 ranked somewhere near the middle. Depending upon how the war on terror plays out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What will not change about Bush
> 
> 1. He blundered in his decision to invade Iraq on bogus intelligence
> 2. He sat like a deer in the headlights as the economy crashed
> 3. He openly engaged in torture
> 4. He ignored Katrina
Click to expand...


I blame Obama and the 57 states.


----------



## rightwinger

iamwhatiseem said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> My bet is that 25 years from now you will find Bush 43 ranked somewhere near the middle. Depending upon how the war on terror plays out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What will not change about Bush
> 
> 1. He blundered in his decision to invade Iraq on bogus intelligence
> 2. He sat like a deer in the headlights as the economy crashed
> 3. He openly engaged in torture
> 4. He ignored Katrina
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the minds of Kool-Aid drinkers and sheeple - yes your right.
> 
> On your "points".
> 1) Congress also voted to go to war, this "bogus" intelligence "fooled" also the Prime Minister of Great Britian, France and ultimately the U.N.
> 2) The economy crashed 3 months before his Presidency en) He did nothing no other President has not done, including Obama.
> 4) Your opinion on this shows your true ignorance and blind partisanship in who/what _really_ failed in this human disaster.
Click to expand...


1. Congress authorized Bush to go to war, the decision to pull the trigger was Bush's and Bush's alone. He was advised by UN security inspectors to hold off the invasion. He pulled the trigger before inspectors proved there were no WMDs

2. The economy crashed in August 2007. Bush denied it was crashing until 3 months before his presidency ended

3. He openly engaged in torture and held prisoners indefinitely with no charges and no rights to face their accusers 

4. He did nothing as Americans struggled and begged for food and medical supplies. He had the helicopters to provide relief but allowed beaurocracy to hold them up while he declared "Brownie, your doing a heck of a job"


----------



## whitehall

How do you get to be a "historian"? Write an article? Teach a class? Accept federal grants?  Since there is no official title of "historian" in the rarified world of academia or liberal media how do they determine who is an official historian?


----------



## rdean

rightwinger said:


> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> What will not change about Bush
> 
> 1. He blundered in his decision to invade Iraq on bogus intelligence
> 2. He sat like a deer in the headlights as the economy crashed
> 3. He openly engaged in torture
> 4. He ignored Katrina
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the minds of Kool-Aid drinkers and sheeple - yes your right.
> 
> On your "points".
> 1) Congress also voted to go to war, this "bogus" intelligence "fooled" also the Prime Minister of Great Britian, France and ultimately the U.N.
> 2) The economy crashed 3 months before his Presidency en) He did nothing no other President has not done, including Obama.
> 4) Your opinion on this shows your true ignorance and blind partisanship in who/what _really_ failed in this human disaster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Congress authorized Bush to go to war, the decision to pull the trigger was Bush's and Bush's alone. He was advised by UN security inspectors to hold off the invasion. He pulled the trigger before inspectors proved there were no WMDs
> 
> 2. The economy crashed in August 2007. Bush denied it was crashing until 3 months before his presidency ended
> 
> 3. He openly engaged in torture and held prisoners indefinitely with no charges and no rights to face their accusers
> 
> 4. He did nothing as Americans struggled and begged for food and medical supplies. He had the helicopters to provide relief but allowed beaurocracy to hold them up while he declared "Brownie, your doing a heck of a job"
Click to expand...


And Republicans think Obama is just like Bush?  The hate is deep.  They swear it's not about race, but race is the only thing that could account for hatred this deep.


----------



## MikeK

rdean said:


> There was no "bogus" intel.  That's an insult to our US Intelligence Agencies and the agents in the field.  After Desert Storm, is there any thinking person anywhere in the world that believe we just "turned our back on Iraq and walked away"?????????
> 
> *No one turns their back on an enemy you just knocked down.  It's stupid beyond words to even consider that.*  We knew exactly what was in Iraq.  The only one who didn't, apparently, was George Bush.
> 
> Bush thought he was making the "big decision".  Typical right wing ideology.  They "imagine" how something should happen based on "gut feeling" and "common sense".  Does anyone really believe Bush understood anything about the Middle East?  Bush really thought he would transform the Middle East, bring them democracy.  Instead of them throwing shoes, he expected flowers and bits of hard candy.
> 
> He just assumed they want what we want.  Well they didn't.  There is no "America Appreciation Day".  There is only, "Death to America" and worse, Iraq, by constitution is a right wing theocracy.  The women are now "enslave" under Islam trapped in Burkas and the American right is so fucking stupid, they think women lived like that under Saddam.  No one is saying Saddam was good, but he certainly was better than what we did and how we ruined that country for probably generations.
> 
> And Bush did things no other president has ever done.  He fought two wars and cut taxes.  Insane.
> 
> And he used to bully pulpit to get what he wanted.  YOU ARE WITH US OR WITH THE TERRORISTS.  The slime.  Typical Republican leader.


I think you've given Bush too much credit in believing he was actually making those decisions.  

The man is a simple-minded egotist who has trouble forming and expressing comprehensible thoughts without scripting.  He has failed in every previous endeavor in his life and his presidency was in fact an empty suit that did exactly what it was told by the kingmakers who positioned him.  Bush didn't know or understand why he was doing any of the things he did, such as invading Iraq, nor did he care.  He was having fun being _". . . the decider guy."_ 

The main difference between George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan is Reagan was a bit smarter and he was a pretty good actor.  Bush is just a barbaric dunce who looks good in a blue suit.


----------



## MikeK

rdean said:


> And Republicans think Obama is just like Bush?  The hate is deep.  They swear it's not about race, but race is the only thing that could account for hatred this deep.


I agree.  I think racial hatred drives a significant percentage of right-wing political hostility.


----------



## Mr.Owl

Truthseeker420 said:


> A Pew Research Center poll released last week found that the share of the American public that approves of President George W. Bush has dropped to a new low of 28 percent.
> 
> An unscientific poll of professional historians completed the same week produced results far worse for a president clinging to the hope that history will someday take a kinder view of his presidency than does contemporary public opinion.
> 
> In an informal survey of 109 professional historians conducted over a three-week period through the History News Network, 98.2 percent assessed the presidency of Mr. Bush to be a failure while 1.8 percent classified it as a success.
> 
> Asked to rank the presidency of George W. Bush in comparison to those of the other 41 American presidents, more than 61 percent of the historians concluded that the current presidency is the worst in the nations history. Another 35 percent of the historians surveyed rated the Bush presidency in the 31st to 41st category, while only four of the 109 respondents ranked the current presidency as even among the top two-thirds of American administrations.
> 
> At least two of those who ranked the current president in the 31-41 ranking made it clear that they placed him next-to-last, with only James Buchanan, in their view, being worse. He is easily one of the 10-worst of all time andif the magnitude of the challenges and opportunities matterthen probably in the bottom five, alongside Buchanan, Johnson, Fillmore, and Pierce, wrote another historian.
> 
> The reason for the hesitancy some historians had in categorizing the Bush presidency as the worst ever, which led them to place it instead in the nearly the worst group, was well expressed by another historian who said, It is a bit too early to judge whether Bush's presidency is the worst ever, though it certainly has a shot to take the title.  Without a doubt, it is among the worst.
> 
> History News Network | Because the Past is the Present, and the Future too.


Here's why.....


----------



## iamwhatiseem

rightwinger said:


> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> What will not change about Bush
> 
> 1. He blundered in his decision to invade Iraq on bogus intelligence
> 2. He sat like a deer in the headlights as the economy crashed
> 3. He openly engaged in torture
> 4. He ignored Katrina
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the minds of Kool-Aid drinkers and sheeple - yes your right.
> 
> On your "points".
> 1) Congress also voted to go to war, this "bogus" intelligence "fooled" also the Prime Minister of Great Britian, France and ultimately the U.N.
> 2) The economy crashed 3 months before his Presidency en) He did nothing no other President has not done, including Obama.
> 4) Your opinion on this shows your true ignorance and blind partisanship in who/what _really_ failed in this human disaster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Congress authorized Bush to go to war, the decision to pull the trigger was Bush's and Bush's alone. He was advised by UN security inspectors to hold off the invasion. He pulled the trigger before inspectors proved there were no WMDs
> 
> 2. The economy crashed in August 2007. Bush denied it was crashing until 3 months before his presidency ended
> 
> 3. He openly engaged in torture and held prisoners indefinitely with no charges and no rights to face their accusers
> 
> 4. He did nothing as Americans struggled and begged for food and medical supplies. He had the helicopters to provide relief but allowed beaurocracy to hold them up while he declared "Brownie, your doing a heck of a job"
Click to expand...


1) Not wasting my time.
2) In 2007 things were stirring, but to say that the irresponsible and corrupt policies for the last 30 years is Bush's fault and/or he could do ANYTHING to stop it is..well...stupid.
3) Everyone of these things Obama is still doing, only difference is we now contract Egypt and others to do the torture for us...get a clue.
4) Not wasting my time, again as with RDean - your obvious lack of knowledge and/or preconceived desire to blame it all on Bush is...well...stupid.


----------



## Nate

rightwinger said:


> truthseeker420 said:
> 
> 
> 
> a pew research center poll released last week found that the share of the american public that approves of president george w. Bush has dropped to a new low of 28 percent.
> 
> An unscientific poll of professional historians completed the same week produced results far worse for a president clinging to the hope that history will someday take a kinder view of his presidency than does contemporary public opinion.
> 
> In an informal survey of 109 professional historians conducted over a three-week period through the history news network, 98.2 percent assessed the presidency of mr. Bush to be a failure while 1.8 percent classified it as a success.
> 
> *asked to rank the presidency of george w. Bush in comparison to those of the other 41 american presidents, more than 61 percent of the historians concluded that the current presidency is the worst in the nations history. Another 35 percent of the historians surveyed rated the bush presidency in the 31st to 41st category, while only four of the 109 respondents ranked the current presidency as even among the top two-thirds of american administrations.*
> 
> at least two of those who ranked the current president in the 31-41 ranking made it clear that they placed him next-to-last, with only james buchanan, in their view, being worse. he is easily one of the 10-worst of all time andif the magnitude of the challenges and opportunities matterthen probably in the bottom five, alongside buchanan, johnson, fillmore, and pierce, wrote another historian.
> 
> The reason for the hesitancy some historians had in categorizing the bush presidency as the worst ever, which led them to place it instead in the nearly the worst group, was well expressed by another historian who said, it is a bit too early to judge whether bush's presidency is the worst ever, though it certainly has a shot to take the title.  Without a doubt, it is among the worst.
> 
> history news network | because the past is the present, and the future too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what were the other 39% thinking?
Click to expand...


wtf!?!? Historians my ass! Are they completely ignoring what ole U.S. Grant "accomplished" in his two terms?


----------



## MeBelle

Truthmatters said:


> Rass leans right



And PEW leans toward???
I view Rass as the lesser of evils.


----------



## rightwinger

iamwhatiseem said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the minds of Kool-Aid drinkers and sheeple - yes your right.
> 
> On your "points".
> 1) Congress also voted to go to war, this "bogus" intelligence "fooled" also the Prime Minister of Great Britian, France and ultimately the U.N.
> 2) The economy crashed 3 months before his Presidency en) He did nothing no other President has not done, including Obama.
> 4) Your opinion on this shows your true ignorance and blind partisanship in who/what _really_ failed in this human disaster.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Congress authorized Bush to go to war, the decision to pull the trigger was Bush's and Bush's alone. He was advised by UN security inspectors to hold off the invasion. He pulled the trigger before inspectors proved there were no WMDs
> 
> 2. The economy crashed in August 2007. Bush denied it was crashing until 3 months before his presidency ended
> 
> 3. He openly engaged in torture and held prisoners indefinitely with no charges and no rights to face their accusers
> 
> 4. He did nothing as Americans struggled and begged for food and medical supplies. He had the helicopters to provide relief but allowed beaurocracy to hold them up while he declared "Brownie, your doing a heck of a job"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1) Not wasting my time.
> 2) In 2007 things were stirring, but to say that the irresponsible and corrupt policies for the last 30 years is Bush's fault and/or he could do ANYTHING to stop it is..well...stupid.
> 3) Everyone of these things Obama is still doing, only difference is we now contract Egypt and others to do the torture for us...get a clue.
> 4) Not wasting my time, again as with RDean - your obvious lack of knowledge and/or preconceived desire to blame it all on Bush is...well...stupid.
Click to expand...


I don't care if you waste your time or not. These are the key issues that will define Bush's legacy. Right now, how Bush responded to the challenges given to him will rank him as the worst President in modern history and possibly the worst of all time

History may soften the impact of some of his decisions but he will still be accountable for the key decisions in his presidency that lead the country to the brink of collapse as well as tied us up in unwinnable wars for ten plus years


----------



## MeBelle

Zona said:


> MeBelle60 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No partisan polls here:
> April 2011
> A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 53% of Likely U.S. Voters say the nations current economic problems are due to the recession which began under the Bush administration.  Thirty-nine percent (39%), however, believe Obama's policies are to blame.
> Consistent with past findings, 86% of Democrats blame the recession which began under the Bush administration, while 73% of Republicans blame Obamas policies.  Among voters not affiliated with either political party, 52% say the problems started under Bush, while 32% point their finger at Obama.
> 
> Most Voters Still Blame Bush Recession for Bad Economy - Rasmussen Reports
> 
> June/July 2011
> Update: 49% Blame Bad Economy on Bush's Recession, 44% on Obama's Policies
> A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 49% of Likely U.S. Voters now blame the bad economy on the recession which began under the Bush administration. Forty-four percent (44%) blame the economic problems on Obama's policies. That's the narrowest the blame gap has been since October of last year.
> 
> 49% Blame Bad Economy on Bush's Recession, 44% on Obama's Policies - Rasmussen Reports
> Bush is down 4% and Obama is up 5%!
> Give it a few more months and perhaps they will be tied!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are saying rasmussen is not biased?  Seriously.
> 
> Are you an idiot or something?
Click to expand...


I am not an idiot, nor do I resort to name calling.
I showed another side to "polling'. Polling which still shows Obama is ahead of Bush, btw.
Isn't debate what mature people have in common?


----------



## rightwinger

MikeK said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> And Republicans think Obama is just like Bush?  The hate is deep.  They swear it's not about race, but race is the only thing that could account for hatred this deep.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.  I think racial hatred drives a significant percentage of right-wing political hostility.
Click to expand...


I think racial hatred only plays a very small role in how Obama is treated by Republicans. This is what Republicans do. They do it to all Democrats and have been working the formula for 25 years.

If anything, they hold off a little on Obama because he is black. There is a line they cannot cross and it affects their propaganda. If Hillary had been elected President, they would have treated her much worse. They had the hate machine all geared up for Hillary and ended up with Obama


----------



## MeBelle

Zona said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zona said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rasmussen's Polling Stirs Bias Debate
> 
> Rasmussen Polls Were Biased and Inaccurate; Quinnipiac, SurveyUSA Performed Strongly - NYTimes.com
> 
> Why it's increasingly difficult*to take Rasmussen polls seriously | Media Matters for America
> 
> Rasmussen Was Biased
> 
> Rasmussen's Daily Prez Approval Index: misleading and biased | Unreadable Nixters's Blog
> 
> 
> and so on and so on..
> 
> Rasmussen not biased and truthful?  LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And so on:
> 
> The following list ranks the 23 organizations by the accuracy of their final, national preelection
> polls (as reported on pollster.com).
> 1. Rasmussen (11/1-3)**
> 1. Pew (10/29-11/1)**
> 2. YouGov/Polimetrix (10/18-11/1)
> 3. Harris Interactive (10/20-27)
> 4. GWU (Lake/Tarrance) (11/2-3)*
> 5. Diageo/Hotline (10/31-11/2)*
> 5. ARG (10/25-27)*
> 6. CNN (10/30-11/1)
> 6. Ipsos/McClatchy (10/30-11/1)
> 7. DailyKos.com (D)/Research 2000 (11/1-3)
> 8. AP/Yahoo/KN (10/17-27)
> 9. Democracy Corps (D) (10/30-11/2)
> 10. FOX (11/1-2)
> 11. Economist/YouGov (10/25-27)
> 12. IBD/TIPP (11/1-3)
> 13. NBC/WSJ (11/1-2)
> 14. ABC/Post (10/30-11/2)
> 15. Marist College (11/3)
> 16. CBS (10/31-11/2)
> 17. Gallup (10/31-11/2)
> 18. Reuters/ C-SPAN/ Zogby (10/31-11/3)
> 19. CBS/Times (10/25-29)
> 20. Newsweek (10/22-23)
> 
> http://www.fordham.edu/images/acade...ccuracy in the 2008 presidential election.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who the hell is this ONE GUY...who came up with this pdf file?  Seriously, please try again.
> 
> Costas Panagopoulos, Ph.D.
Click to expand...


Did you happen to read the brief text?

For all the derision directed toward pre-election polling, the final poll estimates were not
far off from the actual nationwide voteshares for the two candidates. On average, preelection
polls from 23 public polling organizations projected a Democratic advantage of
7.52 percentage points on Election Day, which is only about 1.37 percentage points away
from the current estimate of a 6.15-point Obama margin in the national popular vote.
Following the procedures proposed by Martin, Traugott and Kennedy (see Public Opinion
Quarterly, Fall 2006, pp. 342-369) to assess poll accuracy, I analyze poll estimates from
these 23 polling organizations. Four of these polls appear to have overestimated McCain
support (indicated with a * below), while most polls (17) overestimated Obama strength.
Pre-election projections for two organizations final pollsRasmussen and Pewwere
perfectly in agreement with the actual election result (**).
The following list ranks the 23 organizations by the accuracy of their final, national preelection polls (as reported on pollster.com).

Or bother to check on pollster.com?


----------



## MeBelle

rightwinger said:


> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Congress authorized Bush to go to war, the decision to pull the trigger was Bush's and Bush's alone. He was advised by UN security inspectors to hold off the invasion. He pulled the trigger before inspectors proved there were no WMDs
> 
> 2. The economy crashed in August 2007. Bush denied it was crashing until 3 months before his presidency ended
> 
> Gee, why is that when the Dems had a strong hold on both houses?
> From 2003
> "These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''
> _The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago. . . .
> The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates._
> Despite the attempt to curb the waste, fraud, and abuse, some Democrats were not on board. Barney Frank really looks like a genius on this one. And this guy was the ranking member on the Financial Services Committee
> 
> 3. He openly engaged in torture and held prisoners indefinitely with no charges and no rights to face their accusers
> 
> I suppose if we all nicely asked the alleged conspitors of 9/11 to please tell the truth, surely they will comply.
> 
> 4. He did nothing as Americans struggled and begged for food and medical supplies. He had the helicopters to provide relief but allowed beaurocracy to hold them up while he declared "Brownie, your doing a heck of a job"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, Bush summoned Katrina himself. No fault was put on the then Gov of LA, who refused to call in the National Guard.
> 
> 1) Not wasting my time.
> 2) In 2007 things were stirring, but to say that the irresponsible and corrupt policies for the last 30 years is Bush's fault and/or he could do ANYTHING to stop it is..well...stupid.
> 3) Everyone of these things Obama is still doing, only difference is we now contract Egypt and others to do the torture for us...get a clue.
> 4) Not wasting my time, again as with RDean - your obvious lack of knowledge and/or preconceived desire to blame it all on Bush is...well...stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't care if you waste your time or not. These are the key issues that will define Bush's legacy. Right now, how Bush responded to the challenges given to him will rank him as the worst President in modern history and possibly the worst of all time
> 
> History may soften the impact of some of his decisions but he will still be accountable for the key decisions in his presidency that lead the country to the brink of collapse as well as tied us up in unwinnable wars for ten plus years
Click to expand...




rightwinger said:


> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> What will not change about Bush
> 
> 1. He blundered in his decision to invade Iraq on bogus intelligence
> 2. He sat like a deer in the headlights as the economy crashed
> 3. He openly engaged in torture
> 4. He ignored Katrina
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the minds of Kool-Aid drinkers and sheeple - yes your right.
> 
> On your "points".
> 1) Congress also voted to go to war, this "bogus" intelligence "fooled" also the Prime Minister of Great Britian, France and ultimately the U.N.
> 2) The economy crashed 3 months before his Presidency en) He did nothing no other President has not done, including Obama.
> 4) Your opinion on this shows your true ignorance and blind partisanship in who/what _really_ failed in this human disaster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Congress authorized Bush to go to war, the decision to pull the trigger was Bush's and Bush's alone. He was advised by UN security inspectors to hold off the invasion. He pulled the trigger before inspectors proved there were no WMDs
> Wrong! Saddam ordered the UN inspectors OUT!
> 2. The economy crashed in August 2007. Bush denied it was crashing until 3 months before his presidency ended.
> Repeat:
> _From 2003
> "These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''_
> The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago. . . .
> The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates. _Despite the attempt to curb the waste, fraud, and abuse, some Democrats were not on board. Barney Frank really looks like a genius on this one. And this guy was the ranking member on the Financial Services Committee_
> 3. He openly engaged in torture and held prisoners indefinitely with no charges and no rights to face their accusers
> Right, after 9/11. Obama is still working on that one.
> 4. He did nothing as Americans struggled and begged for food and medical supplies. He had the helicopters to provide relief but allowed beaurocracy to hold them up while he declared "Brownie, your doing a heck of a job"
Click to expand...

See above.




MikeK said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> And Republicans think Obama is just like Bush?  The hate is deep.  They swear it's not about race, but race is the only thing that could account for hatred this deep.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.  I think racial hatred drives a significant percentage of right-wing political hostility.
Click to expand...


And the race card gets thrown again! Who threw it? The race card is a strawman.


----------



## SFC Ollie

MikeK said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> And Republicans think Obama is just like Bush?  The hate is deep.  They swear it's not about race, but race is the only thing that could account for hatred this deep.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.  I think racial hatred drives a significant percentage of right-wing political hostility.
Click to expand...


And I think that you are both fucking idiots.


----------



## MeBelle

Not sure if I have gotten the hang of multi quoting yet...I'm still a N00B!! 
LOL


----------



## iamwhatiseem

rightwinger said:


> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Congress authorized Bush to go to war, the decision to pull the trigger was Bush's and Bush's alone. He was advised by UN security inspectors to hold off the invasion. He pulled the trigger before inspectors proved there were no WMDs
> 
> 2. The economy crashed in August 2007. Bush denied it was crashing until 3 months before his presidency ended
> 
> 3. He openly engaged in torture and held prisoners indefinitely with no charges and no rights to face their accusers
> 
> 4. He did nothing as Americans struggled and begged for food and medical supplies. He had the helicopters to provide relief but allowed beaurocracy to hold them up while he declared "Brownie, your doing a heck of a job"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Not wasting my time.
> 2) In 2007 things were stirring, but to say that the irresponsible and corrupt policies for the last 30 years is Bush's fault and/or he could do ANYTHING to stop it is..well...stupid.
> 3) Everyone of these things Obama is still doing, only difference is we now contract Egypt and others to do the torture for us...get a clue.
> 4) Not wasting my time, again as with RDean - your obvious lack of knowledge and/or preconceived desire to blame it all on Bush is...well...stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't care if you waste your time or not. These are the key issues that will define Bush's legacy. Right now, how Bush responded to the challenges given to him will rank him as the worst President in modern history and possibly the worst of all time
> 
> History may soften the impact of some of his decisions but he will still be accountable for the key decisions in his presidency that lead the country to the brink of collapse as well as tied us up in unwinnable wars for ten plus years
Click to expand...


Not even close to the worst.
Anyone who thinks he is the worst of all time simply doesn't know or want to include historical perspective. 
Not to defend Bush (I also believe he was not a good President obviously) - but what few takes into account with the WMD thing - is that they _*HAVE*_ found plenty of evidence of WMD's and traces thereof during our occupation of Iraq. However, the MSM is not interested in reporting anything that disputes their personal opinion of Bush either.
As time goes by and partisan hatred for the man dies down -  and after all of the evidence is known - we may see that he was right all along.
Now - as to how he _managed _the war...well that is an entirely different thing, his handling of the war is at least as bad as Johson's administration of the Vietnam war.


----------



## rightwinger

iamwhatiseem said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Not wasting my time.
> 2) In 2007 things were stirring, but to say that the irresponsible and corrupt policies for the last 30 years is Bush's fault and/or he could do ANYTHING to stop it is..well...stupid.
> 3) Everyone of these things Obama is still doing, only difference is we now contract Egypt and others to do the torture for us...get a clue.
> 4) Not wasting my time, again as with RDean - your obvious lack of knowledge and/or preconceived desire to blame it all on Bush is...well...stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care if you waste your time or not. These are the key issues that will define Bush's legacy. Right now, how Bush responded to the challenges given to him will rank him as the worst President in modern history and possibly the worst of all time
> 
> History may soften the impact of some of his decisions but he will still be accountable for the key decisions in his presidency that lead the country to the brink of collapse as well as tied us up in unwinnable wars for ten plus years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not even close to the worst.
> Anyone who thinks he is the worst of all time simply doesn't know or want to include historical perspective.
> Not to defend Bush (I also believe he was not a good President obviously) - but what few takes into account with the WMD thing - is that they _*HAVE*_ found plenty of evidence of WMD's and traces thereof during our occupation of Iraq. However, the MSM is not interested in reporting anything that disputes their personal opinion of Bush either.
> As time goes by and partisan hatred for the man dies down -  and after all of the evidence is known - we may see that he was right all along.
> Now - as to how he _managed _the war...well that is an entirely different thing, his handling of the war is at least as bad as Johson's administration of the Vietnam war.
Click to expand...


Historians judge you on the challenges you faced as president and how you responded to those challenges. No doubt, with the 9-11 attacks, Bush faced severe challenges. However, his chosen course of action in response to those attacks will be judged poorly.

Afghanistan was an appropriate response to 9-11. Bush's initial execution was exceptional. However, diverting the war on terror to attack Iraq was a major strategic blunder. His diversion of troops allowed Bin laden, Al Qaida and the Taliban to escape. It also allowed the Taliban to reestablish control in much of the country

Iraq was never about WMDs. That was the scare tactic Bush cooked up to justify an invasion. He bet that if he invaded, he would find his WMDs...he lost
Iraq was about nation building. Bush had a vision that if he established solid democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan, countries like Iran and Syria would fall like Democratic dominos. 

History will view Bush badly because he completely misjudged the political and social realities in those countries. His simplistic "They will treat us a liberators" ended up costing 4000 soldiers their lives


----------



## whitehall

Actually the sentence "61% of historians rate Bush presidency worst" is dishonest. Of course every historian in the world wasn't polled. The lazy media should have worded it honestly and said "of the selected "historians" polled, 61% rate....". The fact that 39% of "historians" don't rate Bush the worst president after 8 years of non-stop propaganda is actually a tribute to the Bush administration.


----------



## MikeK

rightwinger said:


> [...]
> 
> Iraq was never about WMDs. That was the scare tactic Bush cooked up to justify an invasion. He bet that if he invaded, he would find his WMDs...he lost
> 
> Iraq was about nation building. Bush had a vision that if he established solid democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan, countries like Iran and Syria would fall like Democratic dominos.
> 
> [...]



Bush invaded Iraq for the same reason his father initiated Desert Storm.  Kuwait was Saddam Hussein's intended staging area for invading Saudi Arabia.  Operation Desert Storm was conducted on behalf of H.W. Bush's close friends, the Saudi Royal Family.  And George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq was conducted for the same reason.











Instead of purging Hussein from Kuwait, I personally believe Bush-1 should have supported Hussein in invading Saudi Arabia.  Had he done that we would be in the catbird seat today, paying .50 a gallon for premium gas.  But the political and economic situations we have today are what the Bush dynasty has given us.  

And those criminal bastards walked away smiling -- which is the main reason why I believe Obama is a Republican Trojan Horse.


----------



## MoistTrout

I think it's a waste of time to apply historical perspective to something that ended just two and a half years ago, but I will put in my two cents on a thing or two.

There is a lot of finger pointing pertaining to the economy. Bush gets blame, Obama gets blame, and the fact of the matter is neither of them is responsible for the fall of the economy. They are both at fault in their response to it.'

With Bush you had the tale of two polcies. After the 9/11 attacks, Bush got it right. While Democrats knee jerk reaction was to roll back tax cuts, Bush knew that was the wrong thing to do. Those attacks could have crippled the economy, but Bush handled it well and it turned into nothing more than a temporary set back and by 2004 the economy was booming.

At the end of his two terms, Bush got it wrong. The housing bubble burst, and much like the dotcom bubble at the end of the Clinton administration it hit the economy. A bigger bubble meant a bigger burst that affected more people, and the response was corporate bailouts and small stimulus packages that barely gave a burp to the economy.

Obama takes office and not only continues doing the same thing he does more of it. The bailouts became bigger and there were more of them. To top it off, there were pork filled stimulus packages that didn't stimulate anything and other outragous spending.

What's really funny is the biggest problems we have domestically and economically that stem from the Bush administration are his most liberal policies (immigration, education, spending) but there is still this insistance that Bush was a "right wing extremist".

Worst ever? Nah. I don't even know if it's feasible to compare every president to the other. But I will say Carter is still the worst in my lifetime. Ask me again in 2013 and I might have a new low bar, but we'll have to wait and see.


----------



## MikeK

SFC Ollie said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> And Republicans think Obama is just like Bush?  The hate is deep.  They swear it's not about race, but race is the only thing that could account for hatred this deep.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.  I think racial hatred drives a significant percentage of right-wing political hostility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I think that you are both fucking idiots.
Click to expand...

This is a discussion forum, not a haven for punks who like taking advantage of distance and anonymity to say things to people they wouldn't dare say face-to-face.  So if you have an opinion why not present its substance for review.  

Merely issuing insults serves no purpose other than revealing what you're really made of.


----------



## SFC Ollie

MikeK said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.  I think racial hatred drives a significant percentage of right-wing political hostility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I think that you are both fucking idiots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a discussion forum, not a haven for punks who like taking advantage of distance and anonymity to say things to people they wouldn't dare say face-to-face.  So if you have an opinion why not present its substance for review.
> 
> Merely issuing insults serves no purpose other than revealing what you're really made of.
Click to expand...


I am not anonymous, anyone with half a brain can find my true name and probably my address and phone number. Of course anyone with half a brain wouldn't do that. 

Now plain and simple, if you believe that the Republican party hates Obama because of his skin color then you are a fucking idiot. And if you want me to tell you that face to face I would be more than happy to. But then I don't have a clue who you are or where you are do I, Mr Anonymous.


----------



## code1211

rightwinger said:


> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> What will not change about Bush
> 
> 1. He blundered in his decision to invade Iraq on bogus intelligence
> 2. He sat like a deer in the headlights as the economy crashed
> 3. He openly engaged in torture
> 4. He ignored Katrina
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the minds of Kool-Aid drinkers and sheeple - yes your right.
> 
> On your "points".
> 1) Congress also voted to go to war, this "bogus" intelligence "fooled" also the Prime Minister of Great Britian, France and ultimately the U.N.
> 2) The economy crashed 3 months before his Presidency en) He did nothing no other President has not done, including Obama.
> 4) Your opinion on this shows your true ignorance and blind partisanship in who/what _really_ failed in this human disaster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Congress authorized Bush to go to war, the decision to pull the trigger was Bush's and Bush's alone. He was advised by UN security inspectors to hold off the invasion. He pulled the trigger before inspectors proved there were no WMDs
> 
> 2. The economy crashed in August 2007. Bush denied it was crashing until 3 months before his presidency ended
> 
> 3. He openly engaged in torture and held prisoners indefinitely with no charges and no rights to face their accusers
> 
> 4. He did nothing as Americans struggled and begged for food and medical supplies. He had the helicopters to provide relief but allowed beaurocracy to hold them up while he declared "Brownie, your doing a heck of a job"
Click to expand...




1.  As I said...

2.  Crashed in August 2007?  What did it do in August 2008?

3.  File charges on Prisoners of War?  Are the people you are talking about the enemy combatatants or have you changed the subject?  Again, he erred on the side of protecting the population.

4.  The Federal Government is forbidden by law to invade a state without an invite from the State.  That invitation was not forthcoming.  When the Governor of LA did issue the invite, the Feds responded.  The request for Federal Troops was made on August 31.  On September 1, 30,000 federal Troops were sent.

Bush had declared a state of Emergency for Louisiana the day before the hurricane made landfall in the state authorizing federal aid to be sent.

You are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts.

KATRINA: RESPONSE TIMELINE


----------



## code1211

rdean said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the minds of Kool-Aid drinkers and sheeple - yes your right.
> 
> On your "points".
> 1) Congress also voted to go to war, this "bogus" intelligence "fooled" also the Prime Minister of Great Britian, France and ultimately the U.N.
> 2) The economy crashed 3 months before his Presidency en) He did nothing no other President has not done, including Obama.
> 4) Your opinion on this shows your true ignorance and blind partisanship in who/what _really_ failed in this human disaster.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Congress authorized Bush to go to war, the decision to pull the trigger was Bush's and Bush's alone. He was advised by UN security inspectors to hold off the invasion. He pulled the trigger before inspectors proved there were no WMDs
> 
> 2. The economy crashed in August 2007. Bush denied it was crashing until 3 months before his presidency ended
> 
> 3. He openly engaged in torture and held prisoners indefinitely with no charges and no rights to face their accusers
> 
> 4. He did nothing as Americans struggled and begged for food and medical supplies. He had the helicopters to provide relief but allowed beaurocracy to hold them up while he declared "Brownie, your doing a heck of a job"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And Republicans think Obama is just like Bush?  The hate is deep.  They swear it's not about race, but race is the only thing that could account for hatred this deep.
Click to expand...



In what respects does he depart from Bush?


----------



## rightwinger

code1211 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the minds of Kool-Aid drinkers and sheeple - yes your right.
> 
> On your "points".
> 1) Congress also voted to go to war, this "bogus" intelligence "fooled" also the Prime Minister of Great Britian, France and ultimately the U.N.
> 2) The economy crashed 3 months before his Presidency en) He did nothing no other President has not done, including Obama.
> 4) Your opinion on this shows your true ignorance and blind partisanship in who/what _really_ failed in this human disaster.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Congress authorized Bush to go to war, the decision to pull the trigger was Bush's and Bush's alone. He was advised by UN security inspectors to hold off the invasion. He pulled the trigger before inspectors proved there were no WMDs
> 
> 2. The economy crashed in August 2007. Bush denied it was crashing until 3 months before his presidency ended
> 
> 3. He openly engaged in torture and held prisoners indefinitely with no charges and no rights to face their accusers
> 
> 4. He did nothing as Americans struggled and begged for food and medical supplies. He had the helicopters to provide relief but allowed beaurocracy to hold them up while he declared "Brownie, your doing a heck of a job"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  As I said...
> 
> 2.  Crashed in August 2007?  What did it do in August 2008?
> 
> 3.  File charges on Prisoners of War?  Are the people you are talking about the enemy combatatants or have you changed the subject?  Again, he erred on the side of protecting the population.
> 
> 4.  The Federal Government is forbidden by law to invade a state without an invite from the State.  That invitation was not forthcoming.  When the Governor of LA did issue the invite, the Feds responded.  The request for Federal Troops was made on August 31.  On September 1, 30,000 federal Troops were sent.
> 
> Bush had declared a state of Emergency for Louisiana the day before the hurricane made landfall in the state authorizing federal aid to be sent.
> 
> You are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts.
> 
> KATRINA: RESPONSE TIMELINE
Click to expand...


2. It kept crashing. We had negative GDP for five quarters, the stock market dropped 7000 points.  Bush denied there was a problem until Sept 2008

3. Bush denied them status as either criminals or prisoners of war. History does not look favorably on leaders who engage in torture

4. What kind of pussy withholds aid to Americans who are without food, water and critical medicines? A real leader would go in with desperately needed aid and let the state bitch about it. Do you really think Louisiana would have cried about their states rights if the federal government went in two days earlier?


----------



## code1211

MikeK said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> And Republicans think Obama is just like Bush?  The hate is deep.  They swear it's not about race, but race is the only thing that could account for hatred this deep.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.  I think racial hatred drives a significant percentage of right-wing political hostility.
Click to expand...



If unemployment was at 5%, if the deficit was not at a level 8 times the previous record, if the guy was not a partisan hack, if the rate of growth in the economy was 3 or 4 percent, if the toxic assets had been addressed, if he had not used lies, deciet and political tricks to pass the worst legislation in the history of the republic and if he actually was not a racist himself, I would support the guy.

By any measure, he is a divisive failure in the job.  There is no need to be a racist see that.  

The economy is in shambles, he is playing all parts of society against all other parts, he continuously makes decisions based on nothing but racist predispositions and he is putting the attainment of his personal priorities above all things including the Constitution.

I just hope we can hold on until the election in 2012.


----------



## MikeK

rdean said:


> And Republicans think Obama is just like Bush?  The hate is deep.  They swear it's not about race, but race is the only thing that could account for hatred this deep.


I agree.  

Racism can occur at the subliminal level, as in the rather common example of the White parent who truly believes he or she is not prejudiced but whose true feelings manifest when a teen-age son or daughter brings home a Black fiance(e).  I personally believe that for every White American who is plainly aware of of his/her racist disposition toward Blacks there are dozens more who simply will not admit it even to themselves because of the pressures of political correctness but rationalize those subliminal feelings with some unrelated political objection to Obama's performance.  

I further believe that racist objection to a Black President has driven a significant percentage of Whites to adhere to the right-wing political agenda.


----------



## HenryBHough

Actually that 61% of historians believe this way is a demonstration of the poor quality of the indoctrination they were given in their Liberal Arts courses.  Had those been effective a success rate of 98% + should have been achieved.

Obviously our nation's colleges need to be taken into hand by "No Idiot Left Behind".


----------



## SFC Ollie

MikeK said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> And Republicans think Obama is just like Bush?  The hate is deep.  They swear it's not about race, but race is the only thing that could account for hatred this deep.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.
> 
> Racism can occur at the subliminal level, as in the rather common example of the White parent who truly believes he or she is not prejudiced but whose true feelings manifest when a teen-age son or daughter brings home a Black fiance(e).  I personally believe that for every White American who is plainly aware of of his/her racist disposition toward Blacks there are dozens more who simply will not admit it even to themselves because of the pressures of political correctness but rationalize those subliminal feelings with some unrelated political objection to Obama's performance.
> 
> I further believe that racist objection to a Black President has driven a significant percentage of Whites to adhere to the right-wing political agenda.
Click to expand...


And I believe that you are so wrong it's pathetic.


----------



## code1211

rightwinger said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Congress authorized Bush to go to war, the decision to pull the trigger was Bush's and Bush's alone. He was advised by UN security inspectors to hold off the invasion. He pulled the trigger before inspectors proved there were no WMDs
> 
> 2. The economy crashed in August 2007. Bush denied it was crashing until 3 months before his presidency ended
> 
> 3. He openly engaged in torture and held prisoners indefinitely with no charges and no rights to face their accusers
> 
> 4. He did nothing as Americans struggled and begged for food and medical supplies. He had the helicopters to provide relief but allowed beaurocracy to hold them up while he declared "Brownie, your doing a heck of a job"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  As I said...
> 
> 2.  Crashed in August 2007?  What did it do in August 2008?
> 
> 3.  File charges on Prisoners of War?  Are the people you are talking about the enemy combatatants or have you changed the subject?  Again, he erred on the side of protecting the population.
> 
> 4.  The Federal Government is forbidden by law to invade a state without an invite from the State.  That invitation was not forthcoming.  When the Governor of LA did issue the invite, the Feds responded.  The request for Federal Troops was made on August 31.  On September 1, 30,000 federal Troops were sent.
> 
> Bush had declared a state of Emergency for Louisiana the day before the hurricane made landfall in the state authorizing federal aid to be sent.
> 
> You are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts.
> 
> KATRINA: RESPONSE TIMELINE
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 2. It kept crashing. We had negative GDP for five quarters, the stock market dropped 7000 points.  Bush denied there was a problem until Sept 2008
> 
> 3. Bush denied them status as either criminals or prisoners of war. History does not look favorably on leaders who engage in torture
> 
> 4. What kind of pussy withholds aid to Americans who are without food, water and critical medicines? A real leader would go in with desperately needed aid and let the state bitch about it. Do you really think Louisiana would have cried about their states rights if the federal government went in two days earlier?
Click to expand...



2.  Still, the numbers of August 2008 while a drop from the previous year were a set that, if the Big 0 could produce them today, would have him re-elected without opposition.  The problem with using superlatives is that if they are not required when you use them, they have no meaning when they are required.

Economic Snapshot for August 2008

Economic Snapshot for July 2011

3.  What is an enemy combatant?

4.  If you had read the article, you would have seen that Bush Declared a state of Emergancy BEFORE KATRINA MADE LANDFALL.  That automatically frees up the resources including food and aid of all types if the Governor allows it to be distributed.  How does approvig the dispersal of aid before the need exists amount to withholding it?

You're saying that the president should break laws if he thinks he's right even though his actions are illegal?  This would explain allot.


----------



## rightwinger

HenryBHough said:


> Actually that 61% of historians believe this way is a demonstration of the poor quality of the indoctrination they were given in their Liberal Arts courses.  Had those been effective a success rate of 98% + should have been achieved.
> 
> Obviously our nation's colleges need to be taken into hand by "No Idiot Left Behind".



Damn...look at that

Republicans say the same thing about scientists who don't agree with their dogma


----------



## rightwinger

> You're saying that the president should break laws if he thinks he's right even though his actions are illegal? This would explain allot.



If it involves saving the lives of Americans who have been affected by a natural disaster...Hell yea!

Do what needs to be done to save people clinging to their roofs and needing evacuation. Worry about the paperwork later


----------



## code1211

rightwinger said:


> You're saying that the president should break laws if he thinks he's right even though his actions are illegal? This would explain allot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it involves saving the lives of Americans who have been affected by a natural disaster...Hell yea!
> 
> Do what needs to be done to save people clinging to their roofs and needing evacuation. Worry about the paperwork later
Click to expand...



In this case, the paperwork is Federal Law.  Can you imagine the howling from the Dems if W had done this?

The simple truth of Katrina is that it was an evolving catastrophe that turned into thousands of personal tradgedies.  Many, many hurricanes had hit this coast before and many will do so again.  

Nobody knew the magnitude of the problem that was developing and those closest to the problem, the New Orleans law enforcement and government, were far less responsive than they should have been.  AWOL might be a good description here.

The LA State level response was equally wanting.  The help that we expect our governments to provide was absent.

The Feds made available everything that was needed, but the state refused it either by commission or ommission.  When the LA Governor finally asked for help, 30,000 troops were deployed within 24 hours.  By any measure, moving that number of people with their equipment and supplies and the materials and provisions to feed and cloth a million other people is a pretty impressive response and cannot possibly be turned on like a light switch.

As with most Liberal attacks, simply pointing at the result which was a catastrophe, does not automatically afix blame to the targeted suspect.  In this case, and in every case from the sinking of the Maine to Women's Soccer Team loss in the 2011 World Cup, Liberals blame W.  It's a reflex by now.  They cannot help themselves.

Oddly, they don't want to blame the Big 0 for anything.

One might suspect an agenda driven, prejudiced bias if one were a tad cynical.


----------



## rightwinger

code1211 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're saying that the president should break laws if he thinks he's right even though his actions are illegal? This would explain allot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it involves saving the lives of Americans who have been affected by a natural disaster...Hell yea!
> 
> Do what needs to be done to save people clinging to their roofs and needing evacuation. Worry about the paperwork later
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In this case, the paperwork is Federal Law.  Can you imagine the howling from the Dems if W had done this?
> 
> The simple truth of Katrina is that it was an evolving catastrophe that turned into thousands of personal tradgedies.  Many, many hurricanes had hit this coast before and many will do so again.
> 
> Nobody knew the magnitude of the problem that was developing and those closest to the problem, the New Orleans law enforcement and government, were far less responsive than they should have been.  AWOL might be a good description here.
> 
> The LA State level response was equally wanting.  The help that we expect our governments to provide was absent.
> 
> The Feds made available everything that was needed, but the state refused it either by commission or ommission.  When the LA Governor finally asked for help, 30,000 troops were deployed within 24 hours.  By any measure, moving that number of people with their equipment and supplies and the materials and provisions to feed and cloth a million other people is a pretty impressive response and cannot possibly be turned on like a light switch.
> 
> As with most Liberal attacks, simply pointing at the result which was a catastrophe, does not automatically afix blame to the targeted suspect.  In this case, and in every case from the sinking of the Maine to Women's Soccer Team loss in the 2011 World Cup, Liberals blame W.  It's a reflex by now.  They cannot help themselves.
> 
> Oddly, they don't want to blame the Big 0 for anything.
> 
> One might suspect an agenda driven, prejudiced bias if one were a tad cynical.
Click to expand...


If US Army Helicopters came in to rescue Katrina victims, Democrats would have cheered, just like all Americans

In a crisis, nobody cares if the proper paperwork has been filled out. Bush should have told them he was coming in to help and Louisiana could have tried to stop it. You and everyone else knows they wouldn't

If Bush truly let "They didn't ask me" to be the reason he didn't help Katrina victims....he truly is the worst president in US History


----------



## JakeStarkey

rightwinger said:


> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> UPDATE:::
> 
> It is ridiculously early for any historian to rate a President a mere 32 months after leaving office when a great many actions put in place by a President does not take full effect until years later, sometimes as long as 10 years later.
> 
> As any Presidential historian worth his/her weight in sand knows this to be true - it begs the question as to what motive they would have to make such a judgement so early.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where have I heard this one before?
> 
> It is ridiculously early to rate Bush after 10 years but you can declare the Obama presidency a failure after 2
Click to expand...


Bush is bad, really bad, and no amount of time is going to rectify the rankings.  As his administration documents are declassified in the future, Bush will be fixed only above Buchanan.


----------



## uscitizen

Umm doesn't that 28% number match the number that say they are in the Tea Party?


----------



## JakeStarkey

About 1/4 of America is far right insanity.


----------



## rightwinger

JakeStarkey said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> UPDATE:::
> 
> It is ridiculously early for any historian to rate a President a mere 32 months after leaving office when a great many actions put in place by a President does not take full effect until years later, sometimes as long as 10 years later.
> 
> As any Presidential historian worth his/her weight in sand knows this to be true - it begs the question as to what motive they would have to make such a judgement so early.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where have I heard this one before?
> 
> It is ridiculously early to rate Bush after 10 years but you can declare the Obama presidency a failure after 2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bush is bad, really bad, and no amount of time is going to rectify the rankings.  As his administration documents are declassified in the future, Bush will be fixed only above Buchanan.
Click to expand...


I don't think that Buchanans decisions had the worldwide impact that the Bush blunders had. His ineptness in execution Afghanistan/Iraq combined with throwing the world into an economic recession had global implications


----------



## JakeStarkey

Buchanan's presidency nearly lost the South for the U.S., which would have made Bush's inanities never happen. We can still recover from Bush and the Far Right Extremist Fascism that has nearly destroyed this country.


----------



## Nate

rightwinger said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where have I heard this one before?
> 
> It is ridiculously early to rate Bush after 10 years but you can declare the Obama presidency a failure after 2
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush is bad, really bad, and no amount of time is going to rectify the rankings.  As his administration documents are declassified in the future, Bush will be fixed only above Buchanan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think that Buchanans decisions had the worldwide impact that the Bush blunders had. His ineptness in execution Afghanistan/Iraq combined with throwing the world into an economic recession had global implications
Click to expand...


I can't believe this is still an argument! With all the corruption that has happened in that position since G. Washington you all still think Bush Jr.'s ignorance should rank that high!?! What about Grant's(who I've already mentioned) Whiskey ring scandal? Hardin's Teapot dome scandal? Nixon's watergate? Reagan's Iran-Contra? 
I understand that most of you are present day thinkers but damn, learn a little history! Bush was a moron to the nth degree but his ignorance shouldn't justify him being the worst. As a matter of fact those who voted for him and Cheney(the devil) the 2nd time around should be the ones we criticize...


----------



## SFC Ollie

rightwinger said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it involves saving the lives of Americans who have been affected by a natural disaster...Hell yea!
> 
> Do what needs to be done to save people clinging to their roofs and needing evacuation. Worry about the paperwork later
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In this case, the paperwork is Federal Law.  Can you imagine the howling from the Dems if W had done this?
> 
> The simple truth of Katrina is that it was an evolving catastrophe that turned into thousands of personal tradgedies.  Many, many hurricanes had hit this coast before and many will do so again.
> 
> Nobody knew the magnitude of the problem that was developing and those closest to the problem, the New Orleans law enforcement and government, were far less responsive than they should have been.  AWOL might be a good description here.
> 
> The LA State level response was equally wanting.  The help that we expect our governments to provide was absent.
> 
> The Feds made available everything that was needed, but the state refused it either by commission or ommission.  When the LA Governor finally asked for help, 30,000 troops were deployed within 24 hours.  By any measure, moving that number of people with their equipment and supplies and the materials and provisions to feed and cloth a million other people is a pretty impressive response and cannot possibly be turned on like a light switch.
> 
> As with most Liberal attacks, simply pointing at the result which was a catastrophe, does not automatically afix blame to the targeted suspect.  In this case, and in every case from the sinking of the Maine to Women's Soccer Team loss in the 2011 World Cup, Liberals blame W.  It's a reflex by now.  They cannot help themselves.
> 
> Oddly, they don't want to blame the Big 0 for anything.
> 
> One might suspect an agenda driven, prejudiced bias if one were a tad cynical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If US Army Helicopters came in to rescue Katrina victims, Democrats would have cheered, just like all Americans
> 
> In a crisis, nobody cares if the proper paperwork has been filled out. Bush should have told them he was coming in to help and Louisiana could have tried to stop it. You and everyone else knows they wouldn't
> 
> If Bush truly let "They didn't ask me" to be the reason he didn't help Katrina victims....he truly is the worst president in US History
Click to expand...


Actually they did. Some dumb ass civilians shot at them.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Bush, incontestably, is the worst Republican president of all time.  No comparison in character or ability with Truman makes Bush look even as high third tier with Truman.  Bush was one of the greatest disasters this country has ever had to survive.


----------



## HenryBHough

rightwinger said:


> You're saying that the president should break laws if he thinks he's right even though his actions are illegal? This would explain allot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it involves saving the lives of Americans who have been affected by a natural disaster...Hell yea!
> 
> Do what needs to be done to save people clinging to their roofs and needing evacuation. Worry about the paperwork later
Click to expand...


A good lawyer might convince a jury that your mental condition is due to the inhalation of certain gasses through your stated employment.  Major problem would be finding a jury of peers whose attention span might persist through the opening day.

But, hey, go for it!


----------



## rightwinger

HenryBHough said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're saying that the president should break laws if he thinks he's right even though his actions are illegal? This would explain allot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it involves saving the lives of Americans who have been affected by a natural disaster...Hell yea!
> 
> Do what needs to be done to save people clinging to their roofs and needing evacuation. Worry about the paperwork later
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A good lawyer might convince a jury that your mental condition is due to the inhalation of certain gasses through your stated employment.  Major problem would be finding a jury of peers whose attention span might persist through the opening day.
> 
> But, hey, go for it!
Click to expand...


Go for it?

Hell yea......I will choose saving peoples lives over making sure the paperwork is correct every time


----------



## Ali777

MeBelle60 said:


> No partisan polls here:
> April 2011
> A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 53% of Likely U.S. Voters say the nations current economic problems are due to the recession which began under the Bush administration.  Thirty-nine percent (39%), however, believe Obama's policies are to blame.
> Consistent with past findings, 86% of Democrats blame the recession which began under the Bush administration, while 73% of Republicans blame Obamas policies.  Among voters not affiliated with either political party, 52% say the problems started under Bush, while 32% point their finger at Obama.
> 
> Most Voters Still Blame Bush Recession for Bad Economy - Rasmussen Reports
> 
> June/July 2011
> Update: 49% Blame Bad Economy on Bush's Recession, 44% on Obama's Policies
> A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 49% of Likely U.S. Voters now blame the bad economy on the recession which began under the Bush administration. Forty-four percent (44%) blame the economic problems on Obama's policies. That's the narrowest the blame gap has been since October of last year.
> 
> 49% Blame Bad Economy on Bush's Recession, 44% on Obama's Policies - Rasmussen Reports
> Bush is down 4% and Obama is up 5%!
> Give it a few more months and perhaps they will be tied!



When are the majority of Americans going to stop bashing Bush?


----------



## HenryBHough

rightwinger said:


> Go for it?
> 
> Hell yea......I will choose saving peoples lives over making sure the paperwork is correct every time



Say, how many Democrats, depressed over the impending rout of their messiah, do you dredge up each day?  Have you found mouth-to-mouth works well in "saving" them?


----------



## GHook93

Don't get me wrong Bush blew, but look at the date smokey. That was March 2009, right in the heart of the meltdown. That would of course played into it. They wouldn't blame the Bill Clinton for that one!

And I love when it prefaces with unscientific!

You do know at the time Lincoln was considered the worst President to date!


----------



## rightwinger

HenryBHough said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go for it?
> 
> Hell yea......I will choose saving peoples lives over making sure the paperwork is correct every time
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Say, how many Democrats, depressed over the impending rout of their messiah, do you dredge up each day?  Have you found mouth-to-mouth works well in "saving" them?
Click to expand...


Subject to multiple other threads....

However, I suspect it will be the TeaTards and wingnuts who will be crying themselves to sleep


----------



## Patrick2

JakeStarkey said:


> About 1/4 of America is far right insanity.



In a place with lots of idiots, you are without question the biggest.   You have exactly one post, and you post it over and over again.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Patrick, you have had all your posts blown up in your face.  Don't like that you and those who believe as you are failures?  No one cares.


----------



## Patrick2

JakeStarkey said:


> Patrick, you have had all your posts blown up in your face.  Don't like that you and those who believe as you are failures?  No one cares.



When leftwing losers like you get bitchslapped over and over, they compensate for it with posts like that above, a sort of hallucinatory invention of an imaginary reality that affirms their miserable existence.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Too bad, Patrick.  You calling this out is the same as if you are pitching, the batter whacks over the center field fence, and you stomp around the mound yelling, "I struck her out!"


----------



## HenryBHough

rightwinger said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go for it?
> 
> Hell yea......I will choose saving peoples lives over making sure the paperwork is correct every time
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Say, how many Democrats, depressed over the impending rout of their messiah, do you dredge up each day?  Have you found mouth-to-mouth works well in "saving" them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Subject to multiple other threads....
> 
> However, I suspect it will be the TeaTards and wingnuts who will be crying themselves to sleep
Click to expand...


I wasn't concerned about suspicions, rather about how you go about "saving" the lives of the _currently_ depressed crop of Democrats you find submerged during the course of your daily toil.  Curious, too, about how well mouth-to-mouth is working out for them and for you.


----------



## rightwinger

Nate said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bush is bad, really bad, and no amount of time is going to rectify the rankings.  As his administration documents are declassified in the future, Bush will be fixed only above Buchanan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that Buchanans decisions had the worldwide impact that the Bush blunders had. His ineptness in execution Afghanistan/Iraq combined with throwing the world into an economic recession had global implications
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't believe this is still an argument! With all the corruption that has happened in that position since G. Washington you all still think Bush Jr.'s ignorance should rank that high!?! What about Grant's(who I've already mentioned) Whiskey ring scandal? Hardin's Teapot dome scandal? Nixon's watergate? Reagan's Iran-Contra?
> I understand that most of you are present day thinkers but damn, learn a little ! Bush was a moron to the nth degree but his ignorance shouldn't justify him being the worst. As a matter of fact those who voted for him and Cheney(the devil) the 2nd time around should be the ones we criticize...
Click to expand...


There is a difference in scope and magnitude between corrupt administrations like Buchanan, Grant, Harding and Nixon and between a presidents whose blundering decisions bring his country into unnecessary wars, advocate torture and human rights violations and lead to a worldwide economic collapse

History will not judge Bush very well and he will be used as an example of poor leadership and extremely poor presidential skills


----------



## JakeStarkey

rightwinger said:


> Nate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that Buchanans decisions had the worldwide impact that the Bush blunders had. His ineptness in execution Afghanistan/Iraq combined with throwing the world into an economic recession had global implications
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't believe this is still an argument! With all the corruption that has happened in that position since G. Washington you all still think Bush Jr.'s ignorance should rank that high!?! What about Grant's(who I've already mentioned) Whiskey ring scandal? Hardin's Teapot dome scandal? Nixon's watergate? Reagan's Iran-Contra?
> I understand that most of you are present day thinkers but damn, learn a little ! Bush was a moron to the nth degree but his ignorance shouldn't justify him being the worst. As a matter of fact those who voted for him and Cheney(the devil) the 2nd time around should be the ones we criticize...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a difference in scope and magnitude between corrupt administrations like Buchanan, Grant, Harding and Nixon and between a presidents whose blundering decisions bring his country into unnecessary wars, advocate torture and human rights violations and lead to a worldwide economic collapse
> 
> History will not judge Bush very well and he will be used as an example of poor leadership and extremely poor presidential skills
Click to expand...


Just so.


----------



## editec

I think he was the worst POTUS in my lifetime.

And given the competition for worst since Truman, that's quite an accomplishment, too


----------



## Patrick2

editec said:


> I think he was the worst POTUS in my lifetime.
> 
> And given the competition for worst since Truman, that's quite an accomplishment, too



are you saying truman was a bad president?


----------



## SFC Ollie

editec said:


> I think he was the worst POTUS in my lifetime.
> 
> And given the competition for worst since Truman, that's quite an accomplishment, too



I didn't realize you were only 10........


----------



## MoistTrout

rightwinger said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it involves saving the lives of Americans who have been affected by a natural disaster...Hell yea!
> 
> Do what needs to be done to save people clinging to their roofs and needing evacuation. Worry about the paperwork later
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In this case, the paperwork is Federal Law.  Can you imagine the howling from the Dems if W had done this?
> 
> The simple truth of Katrina is that it was an evolving catastrophe that turned into thousands of personal tradgedies.  Many, many hurricanes had hit this coast before and many will do so again.
> 
> Nobody knew the magnitude of the problem that was developing and those closest to the problem, the New Orleans law enforcement and government, were far less responsive than they should have been.  AWOL might be a good description here.
> 
> The LA State level response was equally wanting.  The help that we expect our governments to provide was absent.
> 
> The Feds made available everything that was needed, but the state refused it either by commission or ommission.  When the LA Governor finally asked for help, 30,000 troops were deployed within 24 hours.  By any measure, moving that number of people with their equipment and supplies and the materials and provisions to feed and cloth a million other people is a pretty impressive response and cannot possibly be turned on like a light switch.
> 
> As with most Liberal attacks, simply pointing at the result which was a catastrophe, does not automatically afix blame to the targeted suspect.  In this case, and in every case from the sinking of the Maine to Women's Soccer Team loss in the 2011 World Cup, Liberals blame W.  It's a reflex by now.  They cannot help themselves.
> 
> Oddly, they don't want to blame the Big 0 for anything.
> 
> One might suspect an agenda driven, prejudiced bias if one were a tad cynical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If US Army Helicopters came in to rescue Katrina victims, Democrats would have cheered, just like all Americans
> 
> In a crisis, nobody cares if the proper paperwork has been filled out. Bush should have told them he was coming in to help and Louisiana could have tried to stop it. You and everyone else knows they wouldn't
> 
> If Bush truly let "They didn't ask me" to be the reason he didn't help Katrina victims....he truly is the worst president in US History
Click to expand...


You keep ignoring the fact that it didn't take a lot of red tape. All the governor had to do was sign her name, she had the pen in hand, President Bush and Mayor Nagin standing right there, and she chose to wait 24 hours. I believe her reasoning was somthing like wanting to see if it was the right thing to do, or something like that. 

You have no problem with that? No criticism?

And to say Dems would be cheering... Sorry, I call bullshit. Bush could have cured cancer, ended world hunger, and made a low fat brownie that tasted good and still not been cheered by Dems and Liberals. If he had broken federal law, the cries of Nazi would have been deafening and only drowned out by the cries for impeachment.


----------



## MoistTrout

GHook93 said:


> Don't get me wrong Bush blew, but look at the date smokey. That was March 2009, right in the heart of the meltdown. That would of course played into it. They wouldn't blame the Bill Clinton for that one!
> 
> And I love when it prefaces with unscientific!
> 
> You do know at the time Lincoln was considered the worst President to date!



That's true about Lincoln. And amazing what death will do for a guys popularity. Kennedy was considered mediocre at best and certainly not a shoe in for re-election. That was the whole reason he was in Texas to begin with, trying to build up support for a second term. Now he's on a coin and remembered as American royalty.


----------



## rightwinger

MoistTrout said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In this case, the paperwork is Federal Law.  Can you imagine the howling from the Dems if W had done this?
> 
> The simple truth of Katrina is that it was an evolving catastrophe that turned into thousands of personal tradgedies.  Many, many hurricanes had hit this coast before and many will do so again.
> 
> Nobody knew the magnitude of the problem that was developing and those closest to the problem, the New Orleans law enforcement and government, were far less responsive than they should have been.  AWOL might be a good description here.
> 
> The LA State level response was equally wanting.  The help that we expect our governments to provide was absent.
> 
> The Feds made available everything that was needed, but the state refused it either by commission or ommission.  When the LA Governor finally asked for help, 30,000 troops were deployed within 24 hours.  By any measure, moving that number of people with their equipment and supplies and the materials and provisions to feed and cloth a million other people is a pretty impressive response and cannot possibly be turned on like a light switch.
> 
> As with most Liberal attacks, simply pointing at the result which was a catastrophe, does not automatically afix blame to the targeted suspect.  In this case, and in every case from the sinking of the Maine to Women's Soccer Team loss in the 2011 World Cup, Liberals blame W.  It's a reflex by now.  They cannot help themselves.
> 
> Oddly, they don't want to blame the Big 0 for anything.
> 
> One might suspect an agenda driven, prejudiced bias if one were a tad cynical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If US Army Helicopters came in to rescue Katrina victims, Democrats would have cheered, just like all Americans
> 
> In a crisis, nobody cares if the proper paperwork has been filled out. Bush should have told them he was coming in to help and Louisiana could have tried to stop it. You and everyone else knows they wouldn't
> 
> If Bush truly let "They didn't ask me" to be the reason he didn't help Katrina victims....he truly is the worst president in US History
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep ignoring the fact that it didn't take a lot of red tape. All the governor had to do was sign her name, she had the pen in hand, President Bush and Mayor Nagin standing right there, and she chose to wait 24 hours. I believe her reasoning was somthing like wanting to see if it was the right thing to do, or something like that.
> 
> You have no problem with that? No criticism?
> 
> And to say Dems would be cheering... Sorry, I call bullshit. Bush could have cured cancer, ended world hunger, and made a low fat brownie that tasted good and still not been cheered by Dems and Liberals. If he had broken federal law, the cries of Nazi would have been deafening and only drowned out by the cries for impeachment.
Click to expand...


Well let's look at it this way then.....the Governor of Louisiana will be judged by history on her actions on Katrina as will George Bush. If you think Bush will receive high grades for his post Katrina performance, you are sadly mistaken. 

When an overwhelming majority of Historians rank Bush as one of our worst presidents, that says a lot for his poor performance in office. Katrina is just one of his many failings.....but a failing just the same


----------



## JakeStarkey

MoistTrout said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't get me wrong Bush blew, but look at the date smokey. That was March 2009, right in the heart of the meltdown. That would of course played into it. They wouldn't blame the Bill Clinton for that one!
> 
> And I love when it prefaces with unscientific!
> 
> You do know at the time Lincoln was considered the worst President to date!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's true about Lincoln. And amazing what death will do for a guys popularity. Kennedy was considered mediocre at best and certainly not a shoe in for re-election. That was the whole reason he was in Texas to begin with, trying to build up support for a second term. Now he's on a coin and remembered as American royalty.
Click to expand...


You folks are proving that a little of your knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Lincoln, in April 1865, was the darling of the North and the West.  His death opened the door to Johnson's inanity and inept handling of Reconstruction, and northern and western fury at the damnable South, which led to the awful portions of radical republican construction.

Kennedy was trying to shore up southern votes because he finally got going on his civil rights program.  The left, though, has always had problems that it was a commie who killed Kennedy, a pragmatic cold warrior centrist president.  The left will have to live with that as you guys have to live with your stupid comments.


----------



## rightwinger

JakeStarkey said:


> MoistTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't get me wrong Bush blew, but look at the date smokey. That was March 2009, right in the heart of the meltdown. That would of course played into it. They wouldn't blame the Bill Clinton for that one!
> 
> And I love when it prefaces with unscientific!
> 
> You do know at the time Lincoln was considered the worst President to date!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's true about Lincoln. And amazing what death will do for a guys popularity. Kennedy was considered mediocre at best and certainly not a shoe in for re-election. That was the whole reason he was in Texas to begin with, trying to build up support for a second term. Now he's on a coin and remembered as American royalty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You folks are proving that a little of your knowledge is a dangerous thing.
> 
> Lincoln, in April 1865, was the darling of the North and the West.  His death opened the door to Johnson's inanity and inept handling of Reconstruction, and northern and western fury at the damnable South, which led to the awful portions of radical republican construction.
> 
> Kennedy was trying to shore up southern votes because he finally got going on his civil rights program.  The left, though, has always had problems that it was a commie who killed Kennedy, a pragmatic cold warrior centrist president.  The left will have to live with that as you guys have to live with your stupid comments.
Click to expand...


There is no question that Lincoln was despised when he was president. He had no chance at reelection until Grant and Sherman won key victories in the summer of 1864. It is also true that he was made a martyr after he was assassinated. 
But historians are smarter than that. They look at the big picture. What were you faced with and how did you respond?  It is clear that Lincoln understood the big picture more than any of his contemporaries. Monday morning quarterbacking showed that Lincoln was right

No question he was our greatest president.


----------



## JakeStarkey

rightwinger said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MoistTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's true about Lincoln. And amazing what death will do for a guys popularity. Kennedy was considered mediocre at best and certainly not a shoe in for re-election. That was the whole reason he was in Texas to begin with, trying to build up support for a second term. Now he's on a coin and remembered as American royalty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You folks are proving that a little of your knowledge is a dangerous thing.
> 
> Lincoln, in April 1865, was the darling of the North and the West.  His death opened the door to Johnson's inanity and inept handling of Reconstruction, and northern and western fury at the damnable South, which led to the awful portions of radical republican construction.
> 
> Kennedy was trying to shore up southern votes because he finally got going on his civil rights program.  The left, though, has always had problems that it was a commie who killed Kennedy, a pragmatic cold warrior centrist president.  The left will have to live with that as you guys have to live with your stupid comments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no question that Lincoln was despised when he was president. He had no chance at reelection until Grant and Sherman won key victories in the summer of 1864. It is also true that he was made a martyr after he was assassinated.
> But historians are smarter than that. They look at the big picture. What were you faced with and how did you respond?  It is clear that Lincoln understood the big picture more than any of his contemporaries. Monday morning quarterbacking showed that Lincoln was right
> 
> No question he was our greatest president.
Click to expand...


No question exists that in April 1865 that Lincoln was wildly popular.  Lee's surrender.  Richmond conquered, burned, and occupied.  Johnston on the run in the Carolinas.  Atlanta, Savannah, Charleston, Columbia burned.  The American people were very happy overall with Lincoln, discounting the puppets in the South.


----------



## rightwinger

JakeStarkey said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You folks are proving that a little of your knowledge is a dangerous thing.
> 
> Lincoln, in April 1865, was the darling of the North and the West.  His death opened the door to Johnson's inanity and inept handling of Reconstruction, and northern and western fury at the damnable South, which led to the awful portions of radical republican construction.
> 
> Kennedy was trying to shore up southern votes because he finally got going on his civil rights program.  The left, though, has always had problems that it was a commie who killed Kennedy, a pragmatic cold warrior centrist president.  The left will have to live with that as you guys have to live with your stupid comments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no question that Lincoln was despised when he was president. He had no chance at reelection until Grant and Sherman won key victories in the summer of 1864. It is also true that he was made a martyr after he was assassinated.
> But historians are smarter than that. They look at the big picture. What were you faced with and how did you respond?  It is clear that Lincoln understood the big picture more than any of his contemporaries. Monday morning quarterbacking showed that Lincoln was right
> 
> No question he was our greatest president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No question exists that in April 1865 that Lincoln was wildly popular.  Lee's surrender.  Richmond conquered, burned, and occupied.  Johnston on the run in the Carolinas.  Atlanta, Savannah, Charleston, Columbia burned.  The American people were very happy overall with Lincoln, discounting the puppets in the South.
Click to expand...


Sadly, Lincoln was assassinated a week after Lee surrendered. It would have been great to see what the reconstruction was like under Lincoln instead of a vengeful Johnson. Lincoln seemed to understand that he needed to reestablish a nation. The south suffered because of Booth


----------



## JakeStarkey

The South sure did suffer.  Johnson's plan was not much different than Lincoln's, other than Johnson hated the planter class and the wealthy of the South, but he got off on giving them pardons when they begged his forgiveness.

The sticking point was race relations and the GOP creating a voting base of blacks in the South.  Lincoln would have supported that to the max, I think.

Booth shot the one man that could have let the South up easily.


----------



## rightwinger

JakeStarkey said:


> The South sure did suffer.  Johnson's plan was not much different than Lincoln's, other than Johnson hated the planter class and the wealthy of the South, but he got off on giving them pardons when they begged his forgiveness.
> 
> The sticking point was race relations and the GOP creating a voting base of blacks in the South.  Lincoln would have supported that to the max, I think.
> 
> Booth shot the one man that could have let the South up easily.



It's not only that, but there was a cry to punish the south after Lincoln was killed


----------



## JakeStarkey

Well, the South was damned in the eyes of God and man, for sure.


----------



## MoistTrout

rightwinger said:


> MoistTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> If US Army Helicopters came in to rescue Katrina victims, Democrats would have cheered, just like all Americans
> 
> In a crisis, nobody cares if the proper paperwork has been filled out. Bush should have told them he was coming in to help and Louisiana could have tried to stop it. You and everyone else knows they wouldn't
> 
> If Bush truly let "They didn't ask me" to be the reason he didn't help Katrina victims....he truly is the worst president in US History
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep ignoring the fact that it didn't take a lot of red tape. All the governor had to do was sign her name, she had the pen in hand, President Bush and Mayor Nagin standing right there, and she chose to wait 24 hours. I believe her reasoning was somthing like wanting to see if it was the right thing to do, or something like that.
> 
> You have no problem with that? No criticism?
> 
> And to say Dems would be cheering... Sorry, I call bullshit. Bush could have cured cancer, ended world hunger, and made a low fat brownie that tasted good and still not been cheered by Dems and Liberals. If he had broken federal law, the cries of Nazi would have been deafening and only drowned out by the cries for impeachment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well let's look at it this way then.....the Governor of Louisiana will be judged by history on her actions on Katrina as will George Bush. If you think Bush will receive high grades for his post Katrina performance, you are sadly mistaken.
> 
> When an overwhelming majority of Historians rank Bush as one of our worst presidents, that says a lot for his poor performance in office. Katrina is just one of his many failings.....but a failing just the same
Click to expand...


Well, that was almost a response to my questions. Probably the best I can hope for anyway. I've already given my opinion on these "historians". As for Bush's performance post-Katrina, it wasn't nearly as bad as his detractors and not nearly as good as his proponents, but that can pretty much be said for 99% of things with a political dressing.


----------



## MoistTrout

JakeStarkey said:


> MoistTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't get me wrong Bush blew, but look at the date smokey. That was March 2009, right in the heart of the meltdown. That would of course played into it. They wouldn't blame the Bill Clinton for that one!
> 
> And I love when it prefaces with unscientific!
> 
> You do know at the time Lincoln was considered the worst President to date!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's true about Lincoln. And amazing what death will do for a guys popularity. Kennedy was considered mediocre at best and certainly not a shoe in for re-election. That was the whole reason he was in Texas to begin with, trying to build up support for a second term. Now he's on a coin and remembered as American royalty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You folks are proving that a little of your knowledge is a dangerous thing.
> 
> Lincoln, in April 1865, was the darling of the North and the West.  His death opened the door to Johnson's inanity and inept handling of Reconstruction, and northern and western fury at the damnable South, which led to the awful portions of radical republican construction.
> 
> Kennedy was trying to shore up southern votes because he finally got going on his civil rights program.  The left, though, has always had problems that it was a commie who killed Kennedy, a pragmatic cold warrior centrist president.  The left will have to live with that as you guys have to live with your stupid comments.
Click to expand...


You can be wrong all you like, but don't be insulting when you do it.


----------



## JakeStarkey

MoistTrout said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MoistTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's true about Lincoln. And amazing what death will do for a guys popularity. Kennedy was considered mediocre at best and certainly not a shoe in for re-election. That was the whole reason he was in Texas to begin with, trying to build up support for a second term. Now he's on a coin and remembered as American royalty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You folks are proving that a little of your knowledge is a dangerous thing.
> 
> Lincoln, in April 1865, was the darling of the North and the West.  His death opened the door to Johnson's inanity and inept handling of Reconstruction, and northern and western fury at the damnable South, which led to the awful portions of radical republican construction.
> 
> Kennedy was trying to shore up southern votes because he finally got going on his civil rights program.  The left, though, has always had problems that it was a commie who killed Kennedy, a pragmatic cold warrior centrist president.  The left will have to live with that as you guys have to live with your stupid comments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can be wrong all you like, but don't be insulting when you do it.
Click to expand...


That is exactly what you are projecting, MoistTrout.  Follow your own advice.


----------



## Liability

Truthseeker420 said:


> * * * 61 percent of the historians concluded that the current presidency is the worst in the nations history * * * *



The current presidency is the Obama presidency.  

It *is* the worst.

On the other hand, who gives a fuck what 61% of a group of academics (self-perpetuating libs for the most part) "think" anyway?


----------



## Warrior102

President Bush is still being polled?

I bet he really gives a flying fuck.


----------



## Liability

Warrior102 said:


> President Bush is still being polled?
> 
> I bet he really gives a flying fuck.



The "ratings" offered by the liberal "historians" in 2009 concerning their assessment of the Bush Administration is 

soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo meaningful.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Liability said:


> Truthseeker420 said:
> 
> 
> 
> * * * 61 percent of the historians concluded that the current presidency is the worst in the nations history * * * *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The current presidency is the Obama presidency.
> 
> It *is* the worst.
> 
> On the other hand, who gives a fuck what 61% of a group of academics (self-perpetuating libs for the most part) "think" anyway?
Click to expand...


And I imagine the 61% don't give a crap what you think, Liability, as well.


----------



## rightwinger

Liability said:


> Warrior102 said:
> 
> 
> 
> President Bush is still being polled?
> 
> I bet he really gives a flying fuck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The "ratings" offered by the liberal "historians" in 2009 concerning their assessment of the Bush Administration is
> 
> soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo meaningful.
Click to expand...


Yes....every historian is a liberal
Just like every scientist is a liberal

Makes it easy when you don't like what they are saying ....doesn't it?


----------



## Liability

rightwinger said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Warrior102 said:
> 
> 
> 
> President Bush is still being polled?
> 
> I bet he really gives a flying fuck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The "ratings" offered by the liberal "historians" in 2009 concerning their assessment of the Bush Administration is
> 
> soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo meaningful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes....every historian is a liberal
> Just like every scientist is a liberal
> 
> Makes it easy when you don't like what they are saying ....doesn't it?
Click to expand...


Now that's amusing.

I don't RECALL having EVER said, suggested or implied that all historians are liberals.

In fact, I DIDN'T.


----------



## Liability

JakeStarkey said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthseeker420 said:
> 
> 
> 
> * * * 61 percent of the historians concluded that the current presidency is the worst in the nations history * * * *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The current presidency is the Obama presidency.
> 
> It *is* the worst.
> 
> On the other hand, who gives a fuck what 61% of a group of academics (self-perpetuating libs for the most part) "think" anyway?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I imagine the 61% don't give a crap what you think, Liability, as well.
Click to expand...


I imagine even fewer care what YOU think Fakey.

You are a stalwart of the extreme liberal branch of the Democrat Parody.

Have you figured out, yet, that your dishonest denials of that are utterly unpersuasive?  You fool NOBODY.


That little dose of reality was given to you, gratis.


----------



## JakeStarkey

I am a stalwart of the Republican Party.

You are an out of mainstream far right reactionary trying to pretend to be conservative.

That is what you are faking, L.


----------



## Liability

JakeStarkey said:


> I am a stalwart of the Republican Party.
> 
> You are an out of mainstream far right reactionary trying to pretend to be conservative.
> 
> That is what you are faking, L.



Nope.  You are a lib.   Plain and simple.

To your overly-simple lib mind, anybody who espouses a conservative political philosophy is deemed a "far right reactionary."  There's another term you employ all too frequently but couldn't properly define if your life depended on it.  

You remain utterly transparent.  As frauds like you go, you should.

You still fool nobody.


----------



## JakeStarkey

You are fooling  no one, L, no one.  You are far right out of the mainstream reactionary with little political sense at all.  You do not grasp in your little reactionary brain that you do not espouse any decent or worthwhile philosophy of classical liberalism.  You can't define what you are, but I can: crack-brained reactionary.

Your hoax remains crystal-clear, and the rest of the board is chuckling at you.


----------



## Liability

Truthseeker420 said:


> * * * *
> 
> History News Network | Because the Past is the Present, and the Future too.



An interesting COUNTER-note:



> Thomas Fleming: Was George W. Bush the Worst President?
> 
> * * * *
> 
> There have been several polls of historians who have voted George W. Bush the worst president in American History.  This baffles me.  Ive been writing and reading about presidents for a long time. What I know, and what I presume these gentleman know, doesnt connect.
> 
> Is Bush worse than John Adams?  When a shooting war at sea finally started between the United States and Revolutionary France in 1798, after five or six years of reciprocal snarls, what did Honest John do?  He wrote a letter to George Washington, offering to resign, so George  could resume the job. How is that for  presidential leadership? * * * *
> 
> Is Bush worse than Adamss successor, Thomas Jefferson, in his second term?  Rather than build a decent navy to reply to the British habit of boarding American ships on the high seas and kidnapping sailors into semi-slavery in their men of war, Jefferson declared an embargo on all trade with them and their chief enemy, France. The American economy came to a horrific standstill. Smuggling became New Englands chief industry. Someone described the embargo as cutting a mans throat to cure a nosebleed.  Nonplused,  President Jefferson quit, without telling anyone but James Madison, his secretary of state, who was de facto acting president for the last year of Toms term.
> 
> James Madison made presidential passivity into an art form.  He did nothing while Congress refused to renew the charter for the Bank of the United States in 1811, even though we were on the brink of war with the British. The next year, when the War of  1812,  began, the country was soon so bankrupt, the government could not even pay  the salaries of the clerks in Washington DC.  Thanks to a rare ability to select the worst generals in sight, Little Jemmy, as they called him in New England, watched while 4,500 British troops landed from their ships, marched to Washington DC and burned the White House and almost everything else worth torching.  You cant do much  worse as a war leader than that performance.
> 
> Worse than Woodrow Wilson, who  unilaterally invaded Mexico in his first term, simply because he did not approve of the man who was president When World War I exploded, his pro-British sympathies made him a sitting duck for British propaganda, When the Irish-Americans objected violently to his London tilt, Wilson said that ethnics like these loudmouthed micks were pouring poison into the veins of our national life.  Meanwhile as a southern born pol to his shoelaces, he segregated almost all employees of  the federal government. Finally, he talked Congress into declaring war on Germany on the assumption that we would not have to send a single soldier to France. Before the war ended, we had 2,000,000 troops in Europe and in three months of fighting, lost a staggering 144,000 men.  Wilson then persuaded the Germans to negotiate a treaty based on his idealistic 14 points, which might have achieved a lasting peace , if he had insisted on  them. Instead, he signed on with the British and French revenge-seekers and forced the Germans to sign the most vindictive imaginable peace treaty, which virtually guaranteed World War II.
> 
> Then theres Warren G. Harding, whose dimwittedness was legendary in his own time. Elected by 7 million votes thanks to the electorates loathing for Wilson, Warren confessed to an amazing number of reporters that he was not up to the job.  * * * *
> 
> Worse than Franklin D. Roosevelt in his second term?  Elected by a massive majority, he decided he could get away with packing the Supreme Court with an indeterminate number of Democrats. Congress wasted a year wrangling  over the bill and ultimately rejected it. Few presidents have been so humiliatingly repudiated by a majority of their own party. * * * *
> 
> Worse than Jimmy Carter,  who presided over the most horrendous stagflation in our history, without a clue about what to do about it? He frequently denounced Congress, where his own party had a solid majority * * * *
> 
> * * * *
> 
> I write all this not to denigrate these men. All of them deserve measureable admiration for achievements in their presidencies or after them. * * * *
> 
> In this  light, however wavering, maybe it is time to suspend the rush to judgment on George Bush for ten or twenty years. * * * *



http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/64311.html [I snipped pretty very profound stuff, too.  I'd recommend reading the entire thing.]


----------



## Liability

JakeStarkey said:


> You are fooling  no one, L,  * * * *



I commend you on your ability to play parrot.

But the fact remains.

You are a fraud and everyone knows it.


----------



## Patrick2

rightwinger said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Warrior102 said:
> 
> 
> 
> President Bush is still being polled?
> 
> I bet he really gives a flying fuck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The "ratings" offered by the liberal "historians" in 2009 concerning their assessment of the Bush Administration is
> 
> soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo meaningful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes....every historian is a liberal
Click to expand...


Give me your list of conservative historians at major universities.

(This'll be good. )


----------



## rightwinger

Patrick2 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "ratings" offered by the liberal "historians" in 2009 concerning their assessment of the Bush Administration is
> 
> soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo meaningful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes....every historian is a liberal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give me your list of conservative historians at major universities.
> 
> (This'll be good. )
Click to expand...


Do they register by liberal or conservative?

I thought they were just registered as historians....isn't that all that matters?


----------



## JakeStarkey

The far right wacks like L and Pat want to rewrite history (Revere riding to warn the British, Lexington in New Hampshire, the black family was better off under slavery), and they know real historians from conservative to liberal will kick their TeaPot asses.


----------



## Patrick2

rightwinger said:


> Patrick2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes....every historian is a liberal
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Give me your list of conservative historians at major universities.
> 
> (This'll be good. )
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do they register by liberal or conservative?
> 
> I thought they were just registered as historians....isn't that all that matters?
Click to expand...


C'mon - no evasion or BS - Give me your list of conservative historians at major universities.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Patrick2 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Patrick2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Give me your list of conservative historians at major universities.
> 
> (This'll be good. )
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do they register by liberal or conservative?
> 
> I thought they were just registered as historians....isn't that all that matters?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> C'mon - no evasion or BS - Give me your list of conservative historians at major universities.
Click to expand...


Patrick, give us your list of conservative historians, please.


----------



## rightwinger

Patrick2 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Patrick2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Give me your list of conservative historians at major universities.
> 
> (This'll be good. )
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do they register by liberal or conservative?
> 
> I thought they were just registered as historians....isn't that all that matters?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> C'mon - no evasion or BS - Give me your list of conservative historians at major universities.
Click to expand...


There os no registry of Liberal or Conservative Historians. Just like there is no Register of liberal or conservative scientists

All we know is that they thought Bush did not know what he was thinking


----------



## chikenwing

Truthmatters said:


> smart people have a left leaning bias.



BWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA


wow!!!!! guess your not one of them,and it isn't the left leaning part.


----------



## Patrick2

rightwinger said:


> Patrick2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do they register by liberal or conservative?
> 
> I thought they were just registered as historians....isn't that all that matters?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C'mon - no evasion or BS - Give me your list of conservative historians at major universities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There os no registry of Liberal or Conservative Historians. Just like there is no Register of liberal or conservative scientists
Click to expand...


Of course there doesn't have to be a "registry" dumbass - one evaluates them by their papers, positions, books, public pronouncements - get it yet Sparky?  You can't name any associated with a major university because there are extremely few, due to the fact that the left has had control of universities and won't hire them.  The few there are that are academics as opposed to think tank writers work for the very few non-leftwing colleges such as Hillsdale and George Mason.  Taking a poll of historians from the academy on presidents is like taking a poll of the democratic national committee.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Answer the questions, sparky.  Pat, who are the conservative historians.


----------



## Liability

JakeStarkey said:


> The far right wacks like L and Pat want to rewrite history (Revere riding to warn the British, Lexington in New Hampshire, the black family was better off under slavery), and they know real historians from conservative to liberal will kick their TeaPot asses.



Utterly dishonest liberal scumbags like FakeyJokey make-up "positions" ascribed to those with whom they politically disagree.

For example, I have expressed no desire to re-write history.

I do however like to correct lies from obvious liars like FakeyJokey.

HE pretends to be a Republican.  



Oh wait.  He can't understand why nobody with a functioning brain cell has ever bought that fable.  

He would eagerly go down on President Obama, but, ok, sure.  Yeah.  Right.  He's a ""Republican."



Why must the left wing whack jobs like JokeyFakey / FakeyJokey engage in such consistently deceptive efforts?


----------



## rightwinger

Patrick2 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Patrick2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> C'mon - no evasion or BS - Give me your list of conservative historians at major universities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There os no registry of Liberal or Conservative Historians. Just like there is no Register of liberal or conservative scientists
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course there doesn't have to be a "registry" dumbass - one evaluates them by their papers, positions, books, public pronouncements - get it yet Sparky?  You can't name any associated with a major university because there are extremely few, due to the fact that the left has had control of universities and won't hire them.  The few there are that are academics as opposed to think tank writers work for the very few non-leftwing colleges such as Hillsdale and George Mason.  Taking a poll of historians from the academy on presidents is like taking a poll of the democratic national committee.
Click to expand...



Such a profound observation....


Can you name a Liberal historian and what about his views makes him liberal?


----------



## Wry Catcher

Patrick2 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Patrick2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Give me your list of conservative historians at major universities.
> 
> (This'll be good. )
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do they register by liberal or conservative?
> 
> I thought they were just registered as historians....isn't that all that matters?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> C'mon - no evasion or BS - Give me your list of conservative historians at major universities.
Click to expand...


Have you ever been on a college or University campus?  Clearly you've never taken a history class beyond HS (and I wonder if you've ever gone to HS).  You act about 14 and I'd not be surprised if you were in your room at your parents house.

The best history profs IMHO were the story tellers, those who were able to bring to life real people who lived and died decades, centruies or even a milleniium in the past.  Profs whose reading lists were not text books approved by school boards but original documents, letters, journals and memoirs; newspapers and period novels which put the student into the shoes of those who lived and died before us.  

Profs who asked why did our ancesters come to this county?  What was happening in Europe or Asia or South America or Africa that motivated them to leave?  Suggesting as you do Profs are simply propagandists defines you not them, for it's obvious from your posts - primary sources - that you're one ignorant troll.


----------



## Patrick2

​


JakeStarkey said:


> The far right wacks like L and Pat want to rewrite history (Revere riding to warn the British, Lexington in New Hampshire, the black family was better off under slavery), and they know real historians from conservative to liberal will kick their TeaPot asses.



This is ol' Jake's one post - take a look at his list of posts.  In essence, this his same post over and over again - his lame insult post.  He has no ideas, no facts, no arguments, no knowledge - he can't even insult well.  Beyond question, he is the lamest poster here.  There should be a site rule banning people like this, who never contribute a single thing.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Patrick2 said:


> ​
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The far right wacks like L and Pat want to rewrite history (Revere riding to warn the British, Lexington in New Hampshire, the black family was better off under slavery), and they know real historians from conservative to liberal will kick their TeaPot asses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is ol' Jake's one post - take a look at his list of posts.  In essence, this his same post over and over again - his lame insult post.  He has no ideas, no facts, no arguments, no knowledge - he can't even insult well.  Beyond question, he is the lamest poster here.  There should be a site rule banning people like this, who never contribute a single thing.
Click to expand...


The idea that the Tea Party leaders don't know their history.  True.

My facts and discussion that make you and your pards look like idiots.  True.

You want me banned because I make you look like a fool, Pat.


----------



## Patrick2

Wry Catcher said:


> Patrick2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do they register by liberal or conservative?
> 
> I thought they were just registered as historians....isn't that all that matters?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C'mon - no evasion or BS - Give me your list of conservative historians at major universities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you ever been on a college or University campus?
Click to expand...


Another clueless lib steps up to announce he doesn't have guts enough to address the issue I raised.   I hold three degrees and have probably FORGOTTEN more than you'll ever know if you live to be a hundred.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Yes, you do, Kindergarten, Elementary, and Primary.

Now give us a list of conservative historians.


----------



## Patrick2

JakeStarkey said:


> Yes, you do, Kindergarten, Elementary, and Primary.
> 
> Now give us a list of conservative historians.



You are,  without doubt, The Clown Prince Lamo here, but to reward you for managing to get out at least one relevent sentence (sort of like a three year old managing to say "Da-Da") I will respond, and am STILL waiting for your list of conservative historians currently-employed at major american universities.

Here's a few - not every one still alive.  Note that since conservatives are blacklisted from the academy, in order to make a living some also do literary criticism or commentary on contemporary events. 

Roger Kimball
John Lukacs
Stephen Hayward
Bruce Bartlett
Larry P. Arnn
Mark A Kalthoff
Gertrude Himmelfarb
Klaus Hildebrand


----------



## JakeStarkey

Patrick2 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you do, Kindergarten, Elementary, and Primary.
> 
> Now give us a list of conservative historians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are,  without doubt, The Clown Prince Lamo here, but to reward you for managing to get out at least one relevent sentence (sort of like a three year old managing to say "Da-Da") I will respond, and am STILL waiting for your list of conservative historians currently-employed at major american universities.
> 
> Here's a few - not every one still alive.  Note that since conservatives are blacklisted from the academy, in order to make a living some also do literary criticism or commentary on contemporary events.
> 
> Roger Kimball
> John Lukacs
> Stephen Hayward
> Bruce Bartlett
> Larry P. Arnn
> Mark A Kalthoff
> Gertrude Himmelfarb
> Klaus Hildebrand
Click to expand...


I knew you could do it.  Which conservative historians are blacklisted from the academy?  Surely, you have evidence that dozens, scores, nay hundreds are blacklisted.  Give us the names and the schools.


----------



## Patrick2

JakeStarkey said:


> Patrick2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you do, Kindergarten, Elementary, and Primary.
> 
> Now give us a list of conservative historians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are,  without doubt, The Clown Prince Lamo here, but to reward you for managing to get out at least one relevent sentence (sort of like a three year old managing to say "Da-Da") I will respond, and am STILL waiting for your list of conservative historians currently-employed at major american universities.
> 
> Here's a few - not every one still alive.  Note that since conservatives are blacklisted from the academy, in order to make a living some also do literary criticism or commentary on contemporary events.
> 
> Roger Kimball
> John Lukacs
> Stephen Hayward
> Bruce Bartlett
> Larry P. Arnn
> Mark A Kalthoff
> Gertrude Himmelfarb
> Klaus Hildebrand
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I knew you could do it.  Which conservative historians are blacklisted from the academy?  Surely, you have evidence that dozens, scores, nay hundreds are blacklisted.  Give us the names and the schools.
Click to expand...


Lessee - Captain Onepost demands a list of conservative historians, and I give it to him, and then he changes the question to what's the blacklist. 

Okaayyyyyyyyy - to tutor you on THAT, read this - Horowitz has written extensively on this subject, as I'm guessing just about everyone but you knows:

The Campus Blacklist (David Horowitz Alert!)

No more tutoring for you today, Sparky.  

(WATCH, next Sparky will change the topic AGAIN! )


----------



## JakeStarkey

David Horowitz, the flat-earth reactionary wack?  For the fun of it, I will post his web site, and allow folks to see what Patrick is playing with; FrontPage Magazine

OK, now post us a list, a real black list.


----------



## rightwinger

JakeStarkey said:


> David Horowitz, the flat-earth reactionary wack?  For the fun of it, I will post his web site, and allow folks to see what Patrick is playing with; FrontPage Magazine
> 
> OK, now post us a list, a real black list.



Poor Patrick has been banned

God have mercy on his soul


----------



## SFC Ollie

rightwinger said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> David Horowitz, the flat-earth reactionary wack?  For the fun of it, I will post his web site, and allow folks to see what Patrick is playing with; FrontPage Magazine
> 
> OK, now post us a list, a real black list.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Poor Patrick has been banned
> 
> God have mercy on his soul
Click to expand...


Hmm, I didn't expect that, and i was having fun beating him up on another thread......


----------



## MoistTrout

JakeStarkey said:


> MoistTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You folks are proving that a little of your knowledge is a dangerous thing.
> 
> Lincoln, in April 1865, was the darling of the North and the West.  His death opened the door to Johnson's inanity and inept handling of Reconstruction, and northern and western fury at the damnable South, which led to the awful portions of radical republican construction.
> 
> Kennedy was trying to shore up southern votes because he finally got going on his civil rights program.  The left, though, has always had problems that it was a commie who killed Kennedy, a pragmatic cold warrior centrist president.  The left will have to live with that as you guys have to live with your stupid comments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can be wrong all you like, but don't be insulting when you do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is exactly what you are projecting, MoistTrout.  Follow your own advice.
Click to expand...


There are some problems with that Jake, largely because that response didn't make much sense. But let's just go with it. 

First, I didn't insult you, however I can if you want to get into one of those low brow pissing matches.

Second, and most important, I'm not wrong. However I will admit that when it pertains to window dressing you aren't either.

President Kennedy barely dipped his toe into civil rights and he wasn't particularly happy about doing it. I think he genuinely cared about civil rights about as much as President Obama genuinely cares about providing health care, which is slightly less than the girl at the corner store genuinely cares if you have a nice day.

It was about votes. It was about trying to cancel out a very close and controversial election in 1960, the Bay of Pigs, the meeting with Khrushchev that led to the building of the Berlin Wall and various other negatives about the administration. If there were no significant advantages to gaining votes, Kennedy wouldn't have been there for civil rights, it would have been something else in the window.

Now, you can continue to think that because he had a D next to his name he was only concerned with doing what was good and right when he wasn't banging Marilyn Monroe on the side. I choose to see reality. Call me stupid if you like, I will simply call you naive.


----------



## JakeStarkey

MoistTrout, I don't care if you insult me, because I always give back harder when people are stupid that way.

I am wrong on occassion, but not on this one, as you are wrong.  Kennedy pushed the Civil Rights Act.  Kennedy cared far more about it after watching the assholes in the South perform their fascistic horrors.  What you think Kennedy thought is not supported by the evidence, any more than what you think about BHO.

Your understanding of Kennedy, international relations, and electoral politics of the early 1960s is very, very sophomoric.  Don't try it on your college professor.  I know that Kennedy was a moderate cold warrior Democrat who grew to support civil rights before he died.  Whether he was having MM or JK or you is immaterial.  No, your opinion does not reflect the reality of the day.  I don't know if you are naive, but you are wrong.


----------



## MoistTrout

JakeStarkey said:


> MoistTrout, I don't care if you insult me, because I always give back harder when people are stupid that way.
> 
> I am wrong on occassion, but not on this one, as you are wrong.  Kennedy pushed the Civil Rights Act.  Kennedy cared far more about it after watching the assholes in the South perform their fascistic horrors.  What you think Kennedy thought is not supported by the evidence, any more than what you think about BHO.
> 
> Your understanding of Kennedy, international relations, and electoral politics of the early 1960s is very, very sophomoric.  Don't try it on your college professor.  I know that Kennedy was a moderate cold warrior Democrat who grew to support civil rights before he died.  Whether he was having MM or JK or you is immaterial.  No, your opinion does not reflect the reality of the day.  I don't know if you are naive, but you are wrong.



Ok Jake, he was a loving caring Democrat that wanted to jump into the civil rights mix and it just happened to be centered on a state with a lot of electoral votes that he barely and controversially won in 1960. It couldn't possibly be that someone finally realized the black people vote.

Your opinion is based on nothing more than what you want to believe and the talking points that try to mold Kennedy's legacy and shape them into something other than a mediocre president at best. You can keep saying I'm wrong, it doesn't make it so.

As for BO, I'll let his record speak for itself.


----------



## JakeStarkey

JFK was in Texas because he was worried southern Democrats would go with the GOP because of the impending Civil Rights Bill.

Guess what, bub?  They did.

Your opinion is worthless.


----------



## MoistTrout

JakeStarkey said:


> JFK was in Texas because he was worried southern Democrats would go with the GOP because of the impending Civil Rights Bill.
> 
> Guess what, bub?  They did.
> 
> Your opinion is worthless.



Guess what bub? It doesn't matter, you couldn't find the point to something if it stuck you in the ass, and worthless describes pretty much anything that comes from your keyboard.

Anyway, thanks for the entertainment this week. I was having a tough time and I always get a kick out of people such as yourself. An "argument" that consists of nothing more than contradiction and lame attempts to discredit the other person. Everything is so just because you say it is. I was kind of tired when I was here yesterday, so I missed trying to draw the "The facts are out there if you want to find them" punt. But, oh well, I made it through the week and it's all starting to bore me now so...


----------



## Patrick2

JakeStarkey said:


> David Horowitz, the flat-earth reactionary wack?  For the fun of it, I will post his web site, and allow folks to see what Patrick is playing with; FrontPage Magazine
> 
> OK, now post us a list, a real black list.



Once again - no rebuttal no facts - nothing.  Just chief WUT Sparkey's puff ball insults.  It's getting tiresome crushing an intellectually disarmed man.


----------



## Patrick2

SFC Ollie said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> David Horowitz, the flat-earth reactionary wack?  For the fun of it, I will post his web site, and allow folks to see what Patrick is playing with; FrontPage Magazine
> 
> OK, now post us a list, a real black list.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Poor Patrick has been banned
> 
> God have mercy on his soul
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmm, I didn't expect that, and i was having fun beating him up on another thread......
Click to expand...


You think your furiously waving the white flag is "beating up" anything but the air?


----------



## editec

JakeStarkey said:


> Patrick2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do they register by liberal or conservative?
> 
> I thought they were just registered as historians....isn't that all that matters?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C'mon - no evasion or BS - Give me your list of conservative historians at major universities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Patrick, give us your list of conservative historians, please.
Click to expand...

 
Partisan historians aren't historians...they're propagandists.

History's fuction is to discover the past and to create a narrative that helps us understand it.

If one comes at that task with an agenda (liberal conservative, what-have-you) then one is no longer truly an historian.

Of course the study of history is likely to force one to have theories ABOUT history, but the real scholars aren't wed to those POVs.

If new evidence comes to light that now warrants a change in POV, true historians will change their opinions to jibe with their new understanding of the past.

When one asks oneself who is the "BEST: or "WORST" leaders in history, then one is no longer proforming the function of an historian.

*Making such qualitative judgements as best or worst, is beyond the paygrade of history.*

Asking such questions is somewhat like demanding that a chemist tell you which is the best or worst element on the periodic table.  A chemist would likely tell you that such a question makes no real sense. 

One can have opinions about those elements, of course, but that is not the task of chemist, any more than imposing one's values on history is the task of history. 

History is NOT a tool to to prove that one POV is right or wrong.

It  is a disipline designed to give us understanding WHAT happened and pushing the job a bit further, to help us understand WHY it happened..._if possible._


----------



## Patrick2

editec said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Patrick2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> C'mon - no evasion or BS - Give me your list of conservative historians at major universities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Patrick, give us your list of conservative historians, please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Partisan historians aren't historians...they're propagandists.
> 
> History's fuction is to discover the past and to create a narrative that helps us understand it.
Click to expand...


Hopelessly naive.  That's what they are SUPPOSED to do.  But starting a few decades ago, leftwingers undertook the task of revising history to show everything was the fault of white men and america.



> If one comes at that task with an agenda (liberal conservative, what-have-you) then one is no longer truly an historian.



Welcome to the leftwing-controlled academy.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Simple.  The far right wingers are not going to be able to rewrite and revise an American history that never happened that will be received by more than 5% of the population.  Far left wing historians do it as well, and the history teachers point out their flaws as well.


----------



## editec

Patrick2 said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Patrick, give us your list of conservative historians, please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partisan historians aren't historians...they're propagandists.
> 
> History's fuction is to discover the past and to create a narrative that helps us understand it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hopelessly naive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> More like _strictly diciplined_, but I understand your POV.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what they are SUPPOSED to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah exactly.
> 
> As with every other intellectual dicipline, coming at history with a presupposition of what the facts will be (or what you will acknowledge as being) is the hallmark of a propagadist or idealogue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But starting a few decades ago, leftwingers undertook the task of revising history to show everything was the fault of white men and america.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now who is being naive?
> 
> Starting a few decades ago? Starting from the very moment the first person decided to study history.
> 
> It is virtually impossible to study history and NOT be wrong by being incomplete.  Why?  Because the only compelete history is one which includes every fact of existence that every was.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If one comes at that task with an agenda (liberal conservative, what-have-you) then one is no longer truly an historian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Welcome to the leftwing-controlled academy.
Click to expand...

 

Now one wonders if your opinion is based on the fact that you don't like it when history doesn't support you POVs, or whether you know history well enough to debate truly the issue?

Well, to be honest, I don't really wonder in your case.

You've more than telegraphed your prejudices clearly enough.

I don't think you really understand the limitations of history.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Bush never got Downgraded by S&P. Obama, solidly the worst ever


----------



## bill5

It's pointless to try and rate a president so recently since his presidency.  Only many years in now in hindsight will we be able to possibly form a reasonably objective opinion - and even then it's no sure thing.  The view of many (most?) presidents has varied widely over time.  I'm surprised so many historians fail to see that and would engage in such a silly exercise.

PS sorry but I'll pass on the "your side sucks" cat fights.


----------



## Patrick2

editec said:


> Patrick2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> Partisan historians aren't historians...they're propagandists.
> 
> History's fuction is to discover the past and to create a narrative that helps us understand it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More like _strictly diciplined_, but I understand your POV.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah exactly.
> 
> As with every other intellectual dicipline, coming at history with a presupposition of what the facts will be (or what you will acknowledge as being) is the hallmark of a propagadist or idealogue.
> 
> 
> 
> Now who is being naive?
> 
> Starting a few decades ago? Starting from the very moment the first person decided to study history.
> 
> It is virtually impossible to study history and NOT be wrong by being incomplete.  Why?  Because the only compelete history is one which includes every fact of existence that every was.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If one comes at that task with an agenda (liberal conservative, what-have-you) then one is no longer truly an historian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Welcome to the leftwing-controlled academy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Now one wonders if your opinion is based on the fact that you don't like it when history doesn't support you POVs, or whether you know history well enough to debate truly the issue?
> 
> Well, to be honest, I don't really wonder in your case.
> 
> You've more than telegraphed your prejudices clearly enough.
> 
> I don't think you really understand the limitations of history.
Click to expand...


First of all, your equivalencing of "history" with the opinions of the ex-60s hippies who populate the current history faculty is laughable.  

And I can just as well say:

*Now one wonders if your opinion is based on the fact that you like it when leftwing historians do support your POVs, or whether you know history well enough to debate truly the issue?

Well, to be honest, I don't really wonder in your case.

You've more than telegraphed your prejudices clearly enough.*


----------



## rightwinger

Patrick2 said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Patrick, give us your list of conservative historians, please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partisan historians aren't historians...they're propagandists.
> 
> History's fuction is to discover the past and to create a narrative that helps us understand it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hopelessly naive.  That's what they are SUPPOSED to do.  But starting a few decades ago, leftwingers undertook the task of revising history to show everything was the fault of white men and america.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If one comes at that task with an agenda (liberal conservative, what-have-you) then one is no longer truly an historian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Welcome to the leftwing-controlled academy.
Click to expand...


As the right wing trumpets the value of Warren G Harding and Calvin Coolidge


----------



## Patrick2

rightwinger said:


> Patrick2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> Partisan historians aren't historians...they're propagandists.
> 
> History's fuction is to discover the past and to create a narrative that helps us understand it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hopelessly naive.  That's what they are SUPPOSED to do.  But starting a few decades ago, leftwingers undertook the task of revising history to show everything was the fault of white men and america.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If one comes at that task with an agenda (liberal conservative, what-have-you) then one is no longer truly an historian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Welcome to the leftwing-controlled academy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As the right wing trumpets the value of Warren G Harding and Calvin Coolidge
Click to expand...


Shaaaaaduppp.


----------



## Avorysuds

Truthmatters said:


> *smart people have a left leaning bias*.



Thank you TM, I knew I could count on you.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Still waiting for that list of conservative historians that have been blacklisted.


----------



## Animus

As much as I don't like what Obama is doing in office at the present time, I can't see how he is rated worst overall with just 3 years as a body of work. I think we need to reflect on his Presidency 10+ years from now to know for sure. Clinton was viewed by some as a good to very good President but CRA, NAFTA, and ending the Glass-Steagle Act has done plenty of harm to our economy.


----------



## Big Fitz

"There are lies, damn lies, statistics, opinion polls and computer models."  My former sig line from another forum.  An expansion of Mark Twain's original quote.


----------



## Truthmatters

hmmmm


----------



## JakeStarkey

Still waiting for the list of conservative historians that have been blacklisted.


----------



## rightwinger

Bush was rated a better President than William Henry Harrison who only lived for thirty days in the job. He has something to be proud of


----------



## rdean

Mr.Owl said:


> Truthseeker420 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Pew Research Center poll released last week found that the share of the American public that approves of President George W. Bush has dropped to a new low of 28 percent.
> 
> An unscientific poll of professional historians completed the same week produced results far worse for a president clinging to the hope that history will someday take a kinder view of his presidency than does contemporary public opinion.
> 
> In an informal survey of 109 professional historians conducted over a three-week period through the History News Network, 98.2 percent assessed the presidency of Mr. Bush to be a failure while 1.8 percent classified it as a success.
> 
> Asked to rank the presidency of George W. Bush in comparison to those of the other 41 American presidents, more than 61 percent of the historians concluded that the current presidency is the worst in the nations history. Another 35 percent of the historians surveyed rated the Bush presidency in the 31st to 41st category, while only four of the 109 respondents ranked the current presidency as even among the top two-thirds of American administrations.
> 
> At least two of those who ranked the current president in the 31-41 ranking made it clear that they placed him next-to-last, with only James Buchanan, in their view, being worse. He is easily one of the 10-worst of all time andif the magnitude of the challenges and opportunities matterthen probably in the bottom five, alongside Buchanan, Johnson, Fillmore, and Pierce, wrote another historian.
> 
> The reason for the hesitancy some historians had in categorizing the Bush presidency as the worst ever, which led them to place it instead in the nearly the worst group, was well expressed by another historian who said, It is a bit too early to judge whether Bush's presidency is the worst ever, though it certainly has a shot to take the title.  Without a doubt, it is among the worst.
> 
> History News Network | Because the Past is the Present, and the Future too.
> 
> 
> 
> Here's why.....
Click to expand...


It's got to be rough for Bush to look at a cartoon like that and know it's the truth. I wonder if he's started drinking again?


----------



## rightwinger

rdean said:


> Mr.Owl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthseeker420 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Pew Research Center poll released last week found that the share of the American public that approves of President George W. Bush has dropped to a new low of 28 percent.
> 
> An unscientific poll of professional historians completed the same week produced results far worse for a president clinging to the hope that history will someday take a kinder view of his presidency than does contemporary public opinion.
> 
> In an informal survey of 109 professional historians conducted over a three-week period through the History News Network, 98.2 percent assessed the presidency of Mr. Bush to be a failure while 1.8 percent classified it as a success.
> 
> Asked to rank the presidency of George W. Bush in comparison to those of the other 41 American presidents, more than 61 percent of the historians concluded that the current presidency is the worst in the nations history. Another 35 percent of the historians surveyed rated the Bush presidency in the 31st to 41st category, while only four of the 109 respondents ranked the current presidency as even among the top two-thirds of American administrations.
> 
> At least two of those who ranked the current president in the 31-41 ranking made it clear that they placed him next-to-last, with only James Buchanan, in their view, being worse. He is easily one of the 10-worst of all time andif the magnitude of the challenges and opportunities matterthen probably in the bottom five, alongside Buchanan, Johnson, Fillmore, and Pierce, wrote another historian.
> 
> The reason for the hesitancy some historians had in categorizing the Bush presidency as the worst ever, which led them to place it instead in the nearly the worst group, was well expressed by another historian who said, It is a bit too early to judge whether Bush's presidency is the worst ever, though it certainly has a shot to take the title.  Without a doubt, it is among the worst.
> 
> History News Network | Because the Past is the Present, and the Future too.
> 
> 
> 
> Here's why.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's got to be rough for Bush to look at a cartoon like that and know it's the truth. I wonder if he's started drinking again?
Click to expand...


By the end of his presidency Bush was in shock. He had plans for the Bush Doctrine to reshape the Middle East, he had plans for his tax cuts to kick the economy to new heights. Instead, everything collapsed around him. 
His advisors all gave him rosy predictions of how easy everything would be. Instead, Bush was betrayed by his closest advisors and was stuck being the worst president in modern history


----------



## SFC Ollie

They haven't seen the Obama Presidency yet...........


----------



## rightwinger

SFC Ollie said:


> They haven't seen the Obama Presidency yet...........



From what we have seen he has already done much to clean up the Bush mess and has more meaningful accomplishments than either Bush


----------



## SFC Ollie

rightwinger said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> They haven't seen the Obama Presidency yet...........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From what we have seen he has already done much to clean up the Bush mess and has more meaningful accomplishments than either Bush
Click to expand...


LOL That's why we like you, you're so funny.........


----------



## Big Fitz

Truthmatters said:


> hmmmm


Oh look!  Necrotardia.


----------



## rdean

rightwinger said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Owl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's why.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's got to be rough for Bush to look at a cartoon like that and know it's the truth. I wonder if he's started drinking again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By the end of his presidency Bush was in shock. He had plans for the Bush Doctrine to reshape the Middle East, he had plans for his tax cuts to kick the economy to new heights. Instead, everything collapsed around him.
> His advisors all gave him rosy predictions of how easy everything would be. Instead, Bush was betrayed by his closest advisors and was stuck being the worst president in modern history
Click to expand...


I'm not sure Bush was "betrayed".  I think if him as a "typical" rich kid who has been pampered and told he is so smart and good.  He has lived such a life of privilege.  He doesn't really know anything.  He has accomplishments which consist of getting people to vote for him.  
A clear thinker would realize that if the entire world wanted "freedom and democracy", then there wouldn't be any place for despots such as Saddam.  Instead, many people like a "strong leader". 
Look at the right wingers in this country.  As soon as Republicans get into power, they pass laws to limit women's rights.  They want to pass laws against gays (check out the Texas Republican State Party Platform).  They want to mandate religion and so on.  Not quite for the "freedom and democracy" they claim to be.
Bush had the fantasy that he would "march into Baghdad and the people would cheer and throw flowers and hard candies and establish an "America Appreciation Day".
Instead, he dodged shoes and helped created a hard right Islamic Theocracy where the women are now in Burkas.
Unfortunately, other Republicans are in such denial, they just don't believe it.  They feel Iraq is now a democracy and the people are just like us.  Only with the women in Burkas.  Republicans will even say Iraqi women ALWAYS wore Burkas.  Which, of course, is a lie.
Bush was simply a dumb man who was in way over his head.  But he seemed confident, so people followed him, especially Republicans.


----------



## Katzndogz

obama on the other hand has dozens of deaths in Iraq on the first day we got out to be proud of.

obama has a LOT to be proud of.  In Egypt women are being stipped and beaten in the streets.  In Libya black people are randomly slaughtered.  Afghanistan is going to return to the taliban.  The US is broke and selling the infrastructure to China.

It's all about the accomplishments.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Truthmatters said:


> smart people have a left leaning bias.



Hitler Stalin and Mao were leftists. Our liberals spied for Stalin. They had no idea who caring for the other guy could turn into 40 million slowly starved to death.


----------



## JakeStarkey

They were statists.  

You are not a conservative, instead a very dangerous reactionary wack from the far right.


----------



## Liability

rightwinger said:


> Let's see......Historians are a bunch of elitist liberals
> 
> Just like ...Scientists are a bunch of elitist liberals
> 
> 
> Don't like the message...attack the messenger



Nah.  It's just that small minded libs place a whole lot of stock in such obvious tripe when it suits their agendas and matches their preconceived views.


----------



## JakeStarkey

As do small minded cons.

That is a problem I hope this election will help begin solving: isolating the far lefties and far righties beyond the realm of what is reasonable and acceptable.


----------



## Liability

JakeStarkey said:


> They were statists.
> 
> You are not a conservative, instead a very dangerous reactionary wack from the far right.



Fakey, you are the statist.

And you use terms without regard to their meaning.  This does not lend itself to clear or rational conversation.


----------



## Peach

Katzndogz said:


> obama on the other hand has dozens of deaths in Iraq on the first day we got out to be proud of.
> 
> obama has a LOT to be proud of.  In Egypt women are being stipped and beaten in the streets.  In Libya black people are randomly slaughtered.  Afghanistan is going to return to the taliban.  The US is broke and selling the infrastructure to China.
> 
> It's all about the accomplishments.



Who was the imbecile that BEGAN these conflicts? Note the Kurfa community has been subjugated since before Gaddafi was removed. Pan Am Flight 103 appears forgotten to the anti Obama crowd; from Amnesty International:


During Mu&#8217;ammar al-Gaddafi&#8217;s rule, members of Libya's black Tabu community faced state-sanctioned discrimination.  

Tabu people have been subjected to forced evictions, arbitrary arrest and detentions. They have often been refused the renewal of their identification documents, driving licences and passports.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Liability, you claim to be a conservative when he fact you are a reactionary wack.  You will be one who is shoved to the side when the Republicans win with Romney this year.  We are moving the reactionary garbage to the gutter.


----------



## Peach

rightwinger said:


> Bush was rated a better President than William Henry Harrison who only lived for thirty days in the job. He has something to be proud of



Maybe better than Buchanan, MAYBE....................................


----------



## JakeStarkey

Bush was better than Buchanan.  Bush only tired to divide the country, Buchanan succeeded.


----------



## regent

SFC Ollie said:


> They haven't seen the Obama Presidency yet...........



In 2010 238 noted historians and presidential experts rated the presidents. They rated Obama, thus far in his presidency at the time. Obama was rated as America's 15th. best president. In that poll Bush was rated fifth worst and in economics 2nd. worst. Of course those rating can change somewhat.  FDR was rated, for the first time, as the greatest American president, rather than one of the three greatest.


----------



## SFC Ollie

JakeStarkey said:


> Bush was better than Buchanan.  Bush only tired to divide the country, Buchanan succeeded.



You think we aren't divided now? We now have the great divider in the White House. I cannot remember ever having so much division in this country.......


----------



## Liability

JakeStarkey said:


> Liability, you claim to be a conservative when he fact you are a reactionary wack.  You will be one who is shoved to the side when the Republicans win with Romney this year.  We are moving the reactionary garbage to the gutter.



Fakey:

I am a conservative and your dishonest attempt at labeling has no value.

YOU, after all, pretend to be a "Republican," but you'd suck out President Obama's asshole if he asked you too.

You are losing this year when your Obamessiah gets booted out of Office.

Thank God.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Liability falsely claims to be a conservative but is in fact a far right reactionary with no real value.

I have supported Romney from the get go, and believe America is better off if both parties work at governance.  Far lefties and far righties (such as yourself) have no good ideas for the country but serve a cause in paying your fair share for services.

When Romney wins this year, as he surely will, your kind will have no more room at the table than will the Barney Frank freaks.  Romney will not want any of you freaks in decision and making policy positions.

Romney is a moderate conservative, willing to reach out to the opposition, and will to break heads on the far right if necessary to make sure this country is governed well.


----------



## Big Fitz

Big Fitz said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> hmmmm
> 
> 
> 
> Oh look!  Necrotardia.
Click to expand...

Egads!  Even MORE necrotardia!  

I'm beginning to feel like I'm in a "Night of the Living Thread" sequel!


----------



## Gremlin-USA

Prior To Columbus sailing to America in 1492, I heard 61% of Historians thought the earth was flat also.... just saying...


.


----------



## namvet

100% Americans NOW vote Obastard the worst in history going back to the founding fathers. 

Obama has compiled a remarkable record of economic disasters in his 31 months as President. He has added $4.3 trillion to our national debt, quadrupled our budget deficit, championed an unpopular and unfunded socialized healthcare plan and rammed through an unworkable $800 billion stimulus plan. In the process, gasoline prices have skyrocketed, home sales have tanked, the dollar is being challenged as the global reserve currency and inflation is rearing its ugly head again. Our country is suffering from 9.1 percent unemployment with an underemployment rate of 16.1 percent. Under President Obama, the number of chronically unemployed people is at an all-time high, as is the number of Americans on food stamps ($45.3 million).

In the midst of this economic nightmare, Obama reached a new low last Friday. He now becomes the first President in U.S. history to preside over a downgrade in our credit rating from AAA to AA+.  Immediately, the U.S. drops from being the safest investment in the world to ranking below a dozen countries such as Liechtenstein. The new lower rating places the U.S. in an unimpressive group of nations including New Zealand and Belgium.

Whether the S&P made the right decision or not, there is no doubt that our debt is unsustainable and the recent deal to extend the debt ceiling was a joke on the American people. The compromise deal called for an increase of up to $9 trillion to our national debt and did not cut spending, but only slowed the growth in the size of the federal government. It offered no reform of entitlement programs and only a promise to vote on a Balanced Budget Amendment. The S&P was quite unimpressed with the &#8220;fiscal consolidation plan&#8221; agreed to by Congress and the President. In their view, it falls short of what &#8220;would be necessary to stabilize the government's medium-term debt dynamics.&#8221;

S&P is stating the obvious by downgrading our rating. In fact, the agency claimed the country&#8217;s economic outlook was negative and another rating downgrade could occur. According to the S&P, the total U.S. debt is set to surpass 88 percent of the gross domestic product by 2021, which would result in long term Treasury instruments becoming a much riskier investment.

The stock market reacted with a vengeance to this unprecedented news and there is real worry about how far it will fall. Yesterday, President Obama addressed the nation about the crisis. Instead of calming the market, he sent it much lower with his inane remarks. His words offer no substance, only practiced political rhetoric.

President Obama needs to stop talking and start acting. The problem is that he does not know what to do without a teleprompter. He uses them for cabinet meetings, speeches to elementary schools and addresses to groups both large and small. When he goes off the teleprompter, we see a confused and befuddled man who stumbles over the easiest questions.

As President, it is clear that Barack Obama is dangerously in over his head for he has no executive experience, no business experience, and no real world experience. As a Chicago community organizer, he has been thrust into the most important position in the world without the necessary skills to handle this crisis. The financial markets and to a growing extent, the American people have no confidence in his leadership, his vision, his policies or his team.

In the debt ceiling debate, the President did not offer his own plan and ignored the report of the respected debt commission. His own budget was &#8220;dead on arrival&#8221; and increased the national debt by $10 trillion. Initially, he wanted to increase the debt ceiling without any spending cuts, and vigorously opposed the GOP &#8220;Cut, Cap and Balance&#8221; proposal, which was only effective plan to deal with the ever increasing debt.

His point person on the economy is Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, who is dangerously incompetent. In an interview with the Fox Business Network in April of this year, Geithner said there was no possible way we would lose our top credit rating. Talk about being wrong! Instead of firing Geithner, Obama has just encouraged him to stay in his position for another year, Heaven forbid!  

Obama&#8217;s team is a collection of tax cheats; communist czars, left wing ideologues and social misfits. His vice president is a literal buffoon, who sticks his foot in his mouth practically every time he speaks.

Our country is in the midst of a serious crisis and we have no leadership, no vision, and no hope of redemption until the next election. Fortunately, a new PRonlineNews.com poll shows Obama losing to an unnamed Republican by a 54-45 percent margin, but the next election is not until November of 2012. 

The next sixteen months will be the toughest period for our nation since the midst of the Great Depression.

Hold on America, we are now paying the full price for the careless and dangerous mistake made in November of 2008 with the election of DICKtator Barack Obastard as President.


----------



## Ariux

Truthmatters said:


> smart people have a left leaning bias.



Then you must be the exception to the rule.


----------



## Ariux

In many ways, G W Bush is the most liberal president in US history.


----------



## whitehall

Bulletin: Bush isn't the president. Anything is better than trying to defend Obama.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Having Bush again as president would be worst.

Even worse than that would be having Cheney again as vice-president.

We will do well with Romney because he will keep the far righties out of power, as he moves a bit toward center to create a governance with the opposition party.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

regent said:


> FDR was rated, for the first time, as the greatest American president, rather than one of the three greatest.



maybe if BO can extend this depression for 10 years that leads to a world war the liberals will rank him up there with FDR?


----------



## JakeStarkey

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR was rated, for the first time, as the greatest American president, rather than one of the three greatest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> maybe if BO can extend this depression for 10 years that leads to a world war the liberals will rank him up there with FDR?
Click to expand...


Silly edward nonsense, we see.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

JakeStarkey said:


> [
> Silly edward nonsense, we see.



yes, the way to become a liberal icon is depression and world war!! FDR proved it. Imagine if the depression had gone on for 20 years and the war for 10?

See why we are positive liberals will be slow? What other explanation is possible?


----------



## regent

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Silly edward nonsense, we see.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes, the way to become a liberal icon is depression and world war!! FDR proved it. Imagine if the depression had gone on for 20 years and the war for 10?
> 
> See why we are positive liberals will be slow? What other explanation is possible?
Click to expand...



The depression began with Hoover and Hoover did his best with his rugged individualism speeches and loans to corporations, but America was worse off at the end of his term. As for FDR, it seem that most Americans were happy with FDR as they elected him four times in a row, that's four times in a row, count em four times. And those four times may stand up as an American record. Add to that, some historians have now named FDR as America's greatest president, that's greatest. So we end up four times in a row and America's greatest, that must really hurt. 
The sad thing, Republicans are still wondering what to do about FDR, his four times in a row and America's greatest. About the only thing they can do is dream, dream that the depression had gone on for another 20 years and the war lasted ten. That about says it all, FDR, four times and greatest, and Republican dreams of a disaster that never occurred.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

regent said:


> As for FDR, it seem that most Americans were happy with FDR as they elected him four times in a row, that's four times in a row, count em four times.



so maybe if BO can keep this depression going stupid liberals will elect him four times too!!! See why we are positive liberals are brainwashed stupid?? What other explanation is possible??





regent said:


> And those four times may stand up as an American record. Add to that, some historians have now named FDR as America's greatest president, that's greatest. So we end up four times in a row and America's greatest, that must really hurt.



actually FDR's Great Depression and World War hurt more; in fact killed 60 million. See why we say , stupid!!!!!




regent said:


> The sad thing, Republicans are still wondering what to do about FDR, his four times in a row and America's greatest. About the only thing they can do is dream, dream that the depression had gone on for another 20 years and the war lasted ten.



actually that would have been the liberal dream since depression and war was getting FDR elected.




regent said:


> That about says it all, FDR, four times and greatest, and Republican dreams of a disaster that never occurred.



sure Great depression and 60 million dead never occured


----------



## regent

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for FDR, it seem that most Americans were happy with FDR as they elected him four times in a row, that's four times in a row, count em four times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so maybe if BO can keep this depression going stupid liberals will elect him four times too!!! See why we are positive liberals are brainwashed stupid?? What other explanation is possible??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> And those four times may stand up as an American record. Add to that, some historians have now named FDR as America's greatest president, that's greatest. So we end up four times in a row and America's greatest, that must really hurt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> actually FDR's Great Depression and World War hurt more; in fact killed 60 million. See why we say , stupid!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The sad thing, Republicans are still wondering what to do about FDR, his four times in a row and America's greatest. About the only thing they can do is dream, dream that the depression had gone on for another 20 years and the war lasted ten.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> actually that would have been the liberal dream since depression and war was getting FDR elected.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> That about says it all, FDR, four times and greatest, and Republican dreams of a disaster that never occurred.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sure Great depression and 60 million dead never occured
Click to expand...


Is this a new part of the Republican dream that FDR was responsible for, not only the Great Depression but for 60 million dead? Won't be long until evidence emerges that FDR caused the Civil War. 
Four times and the Greatest!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

regent said:


> Is this a new part of the Republican dream that FDR was responsible for, not only the Great Depression but for 60 million dead?



you tell me. BO said if he didn't fix it in 4 years he didn't deserve to be reelected. Do you want to hold the Girl Scouts responsible for it not getting fixed??

If FDR had fixed the Depression there would have been no World War!!


----------



## JakeStarkey

The GD happened because of worldwide fiscal irresponsibility and wild ride capitalism.

Then when Germany, Italy, and Japan went on an armaments spree in the mid 30s on, the die was cast.

FDR and the USA led the world in saving civilization from fascism and militarism.

Responsible Americans are saving civilization from the far right wackery in America that collapse our Republic.


----------



## SFC Ollie

JakeStarkey said:


> The GD happened because of worldwide fiscal irresponsibility and wild ride capitalism.
> 
> Then when Germany, Italy, and Japan went on an armaments spree in the mid 30s on, the die was cast.
> 
> *FDR and the USA led the world in saving civilization from fascism and militarism.
> *
> Responsible Americans are saving civilization from the far right wackery in America that collapse our Republic.



A lot of people in this world disagree with that statement. Especially in GB and Russia.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

JakeStarkey said:


> Responsible Americans are saving civilization from the far right



are you a communist?? Our founders were far right. Why not stick to basketball where thinking is not required??


----------



## regent

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Responsible Americans are saving civilization from the far right
> 
> 
> 
> 
> are you a communist?? Our founders were far right. Why not stick to basketball where thinking is not required??
Click to expand...


Here is another one of your communists: 
For the framers of the Contitution were the most liberal thinkers of all the ages and the charter they produced out of that liberal revolution of their time has never been and is not now surpassed in liberal thought." 
General Douglas MacArthur


----------



## JakeStarkey

regent said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Responsible Americans are saving civilization from the far right
> 
> 
> 
> 
> are you a communist?? Our founders were far right. Why not stick to basketball where thinking is not required??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is another one of your communists:
> For the framers of the Contitution were the most liberal thinkers of all the ages and the charter they produced out of that liberal revolution of their time has never been and is not now surpassed in liberal thought."
> General Douglas MacArthur
Click to expand...


edward would not know a communist if one bit him on his little dick.

The founders were classical liberals, thinkers influenced mightily by the Enlightenment.  They would be horrified by what is passing for our far right conservatism and or libertarianism.  They would be even more horrifed to learn that some of the fools today are labeling them as proto-libertarians or far right wacks of today.


----------



## Katzndogz

Real historians rather than liberal hacks, do not judge history until after at a minimum 50 years has passed.   Sometimes a historical perspective requires much more than that.   Abraham Lincoln was not judged a good president when he served.  It took over 100 years for Lincoln to be one of our greatest presidents.


----------



## regent

Katzndogz said:


> Real historians rather than liberal hacks, do not judge history until after at a minimum 50 years has passed.   Sometimes a historical perspective requires much more than that.   Abraham Lincoln was not judged a good president when he served.  It took over 100 years for Lincoln to be one of our greatest presidents.



Who are we to decide, or where is it written, that historians cannot judge history until fifty years have passed? The 2010 Siena poll asked 238 noted historians (real?) and presidential experts to rate the presidents including Obama, to date. 
Historical perspectives do change as time passes and new information surfaces and we can expect the ratings to change over time. 
There are two basic polls, those that ask people and those that ask historians or others. The polls of citizens can be different than those of historians. Most people cannot even name all the presidents. Lincoln has always been rated in the top three presidents by historian-polls. 
Historians, as a polled group, did not begin rating presidents until 1948, the Schlesinger poll. Today there are about ten groups that rate the presidents, and some are better than others.


----------



## JakeStarkey

katzndogz is the *SUPREMEST JUDGEST OF ALL HISTORIANS WHO HAVE EVER LIVED BEFORE, EVER LIVE NOW, OR EVER LIVE IN THE FUTURE!*  katz is an idiot.


----------



## hortysir

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


----------



## Katzndogz

You can't judge the effects of various policies until years after those policies have had an effect for better or for worse.    We know now that affirmative action has been a failure, and it's been about 50 years.  How long did it take to eventually realize that the programs designed to end the depression actually prolonged it?

No one can get a historical perspective until the acts and omissions become part of history.   Right now, there is no historical perspective of Bush's presidency.  There is just a continuation of the hysteria present during his presidency.

It is generally accepted that there is an average of 50 years to develop a historical perspective.  Partly explained here.

Assessing Historic Integrity - Oregon Online Architectural Guide

The age of a historic resource is also an important consideration in the survey process. The National Register usually excludes resources that are less than 50 years old. The 50 year mark is a general estimate or the time needed to develop historical perspective and to evaluate significance. The 50 year mark guards against listing resources of passing contemporary interest 

There is no way the effect of the Bush administration can presently be calculated from a historical perspective and it is dishonest for historians to claim that it can be.  There is no historial basis to find today that Bush was a good president or a bad president.

From your own citation

http://hnn.us/articles/48941.html

All of these comments are perfectly legitimate political commentary, but they are not historical assessments. They are politics, pure and simple. (A poll which McElvaine hoped would be taken into account in the 2006 elections, and a new poll in the election year of 2008&#8212;can anyone seriously doubt this is, in large part, about politics?) Also, notice what sort of list McElvaine provided with his commentary on the 2004 poll. He listed 13 reasons why the Bush presidency should be rated as a failed presidency, and which he used to help him place this failure at the proper place in the list of failed presidencies. Where is the list of &#8220;pros&#8221; to go with this list of &#8220;cons?&#8221; Isn&#8217;t the presentation of both sides of the case the minimum that a real historical assessment requires? McElvaine was not providing an historical assessment (even a tentative one), he was making a case&#8212;which is a perfectly legitimate thing to do, but it is not historical scholarship, it is politics.

In his essay on the 2004 poll, McElvaine noted some of the objections I am making here&#8212;including the general notion that this kind of polling is premature, a notion which he simply dismisses. He also rebuffed the argument that the poll tells us more about the politics of the respondents than the subject of the poll, with this bit of reasoning: &#8220;. . . it seems clear that a similar survey taken during the presidency of Bush&#8217;s father would not have yielded results nearly as condemnatory. And, for all the distaste liberal historians had for Ronald Reagan, relatively few would have rated his administration as worse than that of Richard Nixon. Yet today 57 percent of all the historians who participated in the survey (and 70 percent of those who see the Bush presidency as a failure) . . . rate it as worse than the two presidencies in the past half century that liberals have most loved to hate, those of Nixon and Reagan.&#8221;

I am bound to say that this argument strikes me as little more than saying that it is okay to be biased against a current politician just so long as we have a relative measuring stick which we can use to show that we are relatively less biased against others. Might I also point out, that both Nixon and Reagan were no longer in office in 2004, and so our political passions have had time to cool regarding our disapproval of their politics, while our disapproval of Bush&#8217;s politics are still fresh and pressing concerns&#8212;which tends to impair our efforts at objective judgment.


Instant history.  Untrue, but satisfying an impatient public.  

Valid historical judgments are ensured by those very processes of historical research and scholarship that are being short-circuited here. These processes must be engaged before we have any valid justification to claim that the results are a professional assessment. We literally do not have any historical knowledge until we have engaged the procedures of archival research, publication, peer review, etc., that are the hallmarks of historical knowledge. We have lots of speculations, and guesses, and opinions, but no actual historical knowledge. At this point, what we have before us is basically the journalists&#8217; view of the Bush presidency. But there is a reason we do not award the Bancroft Prize to Keith Olbermann. The &#8220;informed opinion&#8221; of the community of historians, in advance of actual historical research, is just a report on the political views of this community, not the findings of history.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Architecture is equivalent to History?

Really?

katzndogz is full of crap, for sure.


----------



## Katzndogz

JakeStarkey said:


> Architecture is equivalent to History?
> 
> Really?
> 
> katzndogz is full of crap, for sure.



The principle stands whether it is architecture or anything else.  

Historians that purport to play politics today to judge a perspective that won't happen for decades are being dishonest.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The principle stands because . . . you say so?

(*Laughter breaks throughout the universe*)

You are being dishonest to say that you can judge historiography is the point here.

Go to, little fellow, go to.


----------



## regent

There is a place for contemprary history as Churchill, Thucydides and other proved, but history is history be it today or yesterday. I think one of the great losses of history is the historian's inability to create the feelings of the people's of the time. Try as an historian might, can he or she ever convey the feeling of people at the time of the event? I think one of the real losses say in the Great Depression is that most can no longer appreciate how people felt and how those feeling affected certain decisions.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

regent said:


> I think one of the real losses say in the Great Depression is that most can no longer appreciate how people felt and how those feeling affected certain decisions.



The real loss is that most history is written by liberals who distort it in order to promote liberalism. This means they aren't historians at all buy rather more like brainwashers. For example, they don't mention that America was founded by those who wanted freedom from big liberal government and that, accordingly, Democrats don't belong here. THey don't tell us that liberals spied for Stalin and took the 5th in front of Joe McCarthy as if to prove where they belonged.


----------



## Staidhup

So in addition to fairness, war on women, gay rights, racism, your adding Bushed sucked and this is all his fault to the campaign slogan and we need another 4 years to further screw up the country? Nothing has changed has it. Now as it regards academia and their interpretation as to Baby Bush's presidency, the key here is academia, and if you have ever attended college, or a union meeting, for that mater, you most likely understand the political leanings of these esteemed representatives. The book on Baby Bush has yet to be written, not enough time has passed, the documents remain sealed, same can be said the same about Billy Bob, but who cares, this country is like a boat floundering at sea without a rudder and competent captain at the helm of state.

A few final thoughts, how many times did FDR blame Hoover for the great depression, secondly, where did FDR get the blue print of his first recovery plan, and last but not least, did FDR blame his family and friends, the filthy rich?


----------



## Peach

Staidhup said:


> So in addition to fairness, war on women, gay rights, racism, your adding Bushed sucked and this is all his fault to the campaign slogan and we need another 4 years to further screw up the country? Nothing has changed has it. Now as it regards academia and their interpretation as to Baby Bush's presidency, the key here is academia, and if you have ever attended college, or a union meeting, for that mater, you most likely understand the political leanings of these esteemed representatives. The book on Baby Bush has yet to be written, not enough time has passed, the documents remain sealed, same can be said the same about Billy Bob, but who cares, this country is like a boat floundering at sea without a rudder and competent captain at the helm of state.
> 
> A few final thoughts, how many times did FDR blame Hoover for the great depression, secondly, where did FDR get the blue print of his first recovery plan, and last but not least, did FDR blame his family and friends, the filthy rich?



Wall Street speculators were not usually very wealthy, they *wanted *to be wealthy. The 1920's over expansion led to the 1929 crash. Conservative policies exacerbated the collapse.


----------



## Staidhup

Peach said:


> Staidhup said:
> 
> 
> 
> So in addition to fairness, war on women, gay rights, racism, your adding Bushed sucked and this is all his fault to the campaign slogan and we need another 4 years to further screw up the country? Nothing has changed has it. Now as it regards academia and their interpretation as to Baby Bush's presidency, the key here is academia, and if you have ever attended college, or a union meeting, for that mater, you most likely understand the political leanings of these esteemed representatives. The book on Baby Bush has yet to be written, not enough time has passed, the documents remain sealed, same can be said the same about Billy Bob, but who cares, this country is like a boat floundering at sea without a rudder and competent captain at the helm of state.
> 
> A few final thoughts, how many times did FDR blame Hoover for the great depression, secondly, where did FDR get the blue print of his first recovery plan, and last but not least, did FDR blame his family and friends, the filthy rich?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wall Street speculators were not usually very wealthy, they *wanted *to be wealthy. The 1920's over expansion led to the 1929 crash. Conservative policies exacerbated the collapse.
Click to expand...


Tell that to Mr. Kennedy, FDR's Trustees, host of others, and the Banks they ran. FYI over 90% of the speculators were from wealthy backgrounds, they were the one's able to secure margin funding from the banks (crony capitalism). The last in, middle class, were the little guys. A great book to reference in the future is The History of US Monetary Policy 1867-1960 by Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz. The fall of the US financial markets in 1929, was driven by an international recession, trade imbalance, protective tariffs, and the key stone was banking and worthless bank notes floating between banks. What conservative policies do you speak of?


----------



## Peach

Truthseeker420 said:


> A Pew Research Center poll released last week found that the share of the American public that approves of President George W. Bush has dropped to a new low of 28 percent.
> 
> An unscientific poll of professional historians completed the same week produced results far worse for a president clinging to the hope that history will someday take a kinder view of his presidency than does contemporary public opinion.
> 
> In an informal survey of 109 professional historians conducted over a three-week period through the History News Network, 98.2 percent assessed the presidency of Mr. Bush to be a failure while 1.8 percent classified it as a success.
> 
> Asked to rank the presidency of George W. Bush in comparison to those of the other 41 American presidents, more than 61 percent of the historians concluded that the current presidency is the worst in the nations history. Another 35 percent of the historians surveyed rated the Bush presidency in the 31st to 41st category, while only four of the 109 respondents ranked the current presidency as even among the top two-thirds of American administrations.
> 
> At least two of those who ranked the current president in the 31-41 ranking made it clear that they placed him next-to-last, with only James Buchanan, in their view, being worse. He is easily one of the 10-worst of all time andif the magnitude of the challenges and opportunities matterthen probably in the bottom five, alongside Buchanan, Johnson, Fillmore, and Pierce, wrote another historian.
> 
> The reason for the hesitancy some historians had in categorizing the Bush presidency as the worst ever, which led them to place it instead in the nearly the worst group, was well expressed by another historian who said, It is a bit too early to judge whether Bush's presidency is the worst ever, though it certainly has a shot to take the title.  Without a doubt, it is among the worst.
> 
> History News Network | Because the Past is the Present, and the Future too.



Though it is too early for a long term assessment, the death toll speaks for itself.


----------



## Peach

Staidhup said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Staidhup said:
> 
> 
> 
> So in addition to fairness, war on women, gay rights, racism, your adding Bushed sucked and this is all his fault to the campaign slogan and we need another 4 years to further screw up the country? Nothing has changed has it. Now as it regards academia and their interpretation as to Baby Bush's presidency, the key here is academia, and if you have ever attended college, or a union meeting, for that mater, you most likely understand the political leanings of these esteemed representatives. The book on Baby Bush has yet to be written, not enough time has passed, the documents remain sealed, same can be said the same about Billy Bob, but who cares, this country is like a boat floundering at sea without a rudder and competent captain at the helm of state.
> 
> A few final thoughts, how many times did FDR blame Hoover for the great depression, secondly, where did FDR get the blue print of his first recovery plan, and last but not least, did FDR blame his family and friends, the filthy rich?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wall Street speculators were not usually very wealthy, they *wanted *to be wealthy. The 1920's over expansion led to the 1929 crash. Conservative policies exacerbated the collapse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell that to Mr. Kennedy, FDR's Trustees, host of others, and the Banks they ran. FYI over 90% of the speculators were from wealthy backgrounds, they were the one's able to secure margin funding from the banks (crony capitalism). The last in, middle class, were the little guys. A great book to reference in the future is The History of US Monetary Policy 1867-1960 by Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz. The fall of the US financial markets in 1929, was driven by an international recession, trade imbalance, protective tariffs, and the key stone was banking and worthless bank notes floating between banks. What conservative policies do you speak of?
Click to expand...


Incorrect. They owned companies that profited, INITIALLY, from speculation, but the individuals making commissions off of stock runs created the huge bubble that burst.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Staidhup said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Staidhup said:
> 
> 
> 
> So in addition to fairness, war on women, gay rights, racism, your adding Bushed sucked and this is all his fault to the campaign slogan and we need another 4 years to further screw up the country? Nothing has changed has it. Now as it regards academia and their interpretation as to Baby Bush's presidency, the key here is academia, and if you have ever attended college, or a union meeting, for that mater, you most likely understand the political leanings of these esteemed representatives. The book on Baby Bush has yet to be written, not enough time has passed, the documents remain sealed, same can be said the same about Billy Bob, but who cares, this country is like a boat floundering at sea without a rudder and competent captain at the helm of state.
> 
> A few final thoughts, how many times did FDR blame Hoover for the great depression, secondly, where did FDR get the blue print of his first recovery plan, and last but not least, did FDR blame his family and friends, the filthy rich?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wall Street speculators were not usually very wealthy, they *wanted *to be wealthy. The 1920's over expansion led to the 1929 crash. Conservative policies exacerbated the collapse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell that to Mr. Kennedy, FDR's Trustees, host of others, and the Banks they ran. FYI over 90% of the speculators were from wealthy backgrounds, they were the one's able to secure margin funding from the banks (crony capitalism). The last in, middle class, were the little guys. A great book to reference in the future is The History of US Monetary Policy 1867-1960 by Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz. The fall of the US financial markets in 1929, was driven by an international recession, trade imbalance, protective tariffs, and the key stone was banking and worthless bank notes floating between banks. What conservative policies do you speak of?
Click to expand...


Mr. Kennedy sold out his stocks the summer of 29, so ride your horsie elsewhere on that note.

Commercial and investment banking were allowed to work together to the detriment of good banking and good exchange policies.  That was conservative policy.  Glass-Steagall was the answer until 1999 when Congress (neo-econ dems and pubs) threw it out, and guess what: mortgage meltdown as the commercial and investment banking created sweetheart deals to their interests but not that of the country or the economy or the middle class.

Another Great Recession will happen again unless banking is carefully regulated.


----------



## hjmick

Bush running for President again?


----------



## JakeStarkey

I don't think so.  Romney will try to push obamacare to state mandates with huge grant blocks, and I don't think he will mess with the banking regulations, on which the dems would filibuster until the next election anyway.


----------



## sealybobo

Truthseeker420 said:


> A Pew Research Center poll released last week found that the share of the American public that approves of President George W. Bush has dropped to a new low of 28 percent.
> 
> An unscientific poll of professional historians completed the same week produced results far worse for a president clinging to the hope that history will someday take a kinder view of his presidency than does contemporary public opinion.
> 
> In an informal survey of 109 professional historians conducted over a three-week period through the History News Network, 98.2 percent assessed the presidency of Mr. Bush to be a failure while 1.8 percent classified it as a success.
> 
> Asked to rank the presidency of George W. Bush in comparison to those of the other 41 American presidents, more than 61 percent of the historians concluded that the current presidency is the worst in the nations history. Another 35 percent of the historians surveyed rated the Bush presidency in the 31st to 41st category, while only four of the 109 respondents ranked the current presidency as even among the top two-thirds of American administrations.
> 
> At least two of those who ranked the current president in the 31-41 ranking made it clear that they placed him next-to-last, with only James Buchanan, in their view, being worse. He is easily one of the 10-worst of all time andif the magnitude of the challenges and opportunities matterthen probably in the bottom five, alongside Buchanan, Johnson, Fillmore, and Pierce, wrote another historian.
> 
> The reason for the hesitancy some historians had in categorizing the Bush presidency as the worst ever, which led them to place it instead in the nearly the worst group, was well expressed by another historian who said, It is a bit too early to judge whether Bush's presidency is the worst ever, though it certainly has a shot to take the title.  Without a doubt, it is among the worst.
> 
> History News Network | Because the Past is the Present, and the Future too.



I told Republicans this years ago but they scoffed it off.  They loved pointing to Carter and saying he was the worst president ever and they never imagined in 2000 that 12 years later Bush would rightfully take the crown.  Most collosal failure of a presidency, unless you are in the top 1% and then he was wonderful.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Buchanan was worse because he actually permitted the separation of the Union.

Bush is next to the traitor, though, as poorest president.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Don't understand why people are hung up on Bush. If not for Rumsfeld, most people would have loved him.

But the real deal is that he is one of the absolute best former presidents. He has gone home and doesn't stick his nose into the governments business....

Unlike others..........


----------



## JakeStarkey

One, he can't, because he is not permitted to, very wisely.

When Romney wins, he will isolate Bush as well.

Two, he can't travel overseas anymore, either.


----------



## SFC Ollie

JakeStarkey said:


> One, he can't, because he is not permitted to, very wisely.
> 
> When Romney wins, he will isolate Bush as well.
> 
> Two, he can't travel overseas anymore, either.



But Carter and Clinton can stick their noses into everything......????

Come on Jake it's not being forced it's being smart.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Ollie, I am saying Bush *can*'t travel at least not to Canada and certain parts of Europe.  Neither can Rummy or the rest of the major leadership then.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Because Amnesty International says so? I don't think so.......


----------



## Truthmatters

worst president ever


----------



## SFC Ollie

Truthmatters said:


> worst president ever



Yes Carter probably was........


----------



## bripat9643

Truthseeker420 said:


> A Pew Research Center poll released last week found that the share of the American public that approves of President George W. Bush has dropped to a new low of 28 percent.
> 
> An unscientific poll of professional historians completed the same week produced results far worse for a president clinging to the hope that history will someday take a kinder view of his presidency than does contemporary public opinion.
> 
> In an informal survey of 109 professional historians conducted over a three-week period through the History News Network, 98.2 percent assessed the presidency of Mr. Bush to be a failure while 1.8 percent classified it as a success.



98% is the same percentage of historians that voted for Obama.  Almost all historians are nothing more than professional paid propagandists working for the government.  Their opinions are totally worthless.


----------



## bripat9643

sealybobo said:


> I told Republicans this years ago but they scoffed it off.  They loved pointing to Carter and saying he was the worst president ever and they never imagined in 2000 that 12 years later Bush would rightfully take the crown.  Most collosal failure of a presidency, unless you are in the top 1% and then he was wonderful.



Obama will take the crown at the end of this year after he is booted from office.


----------



## bripat9643

JakeStarkey said:


> Buchanan was worse because he actually permitted the separation of the Union.
> 
> Bush is next to the traitor, though, as poorest president.



How do you imagine Buchanan was supposed to stop the separation of the union?  Lincoln was a despicable tyrant who wage an illegal war on his fellow Americans and wiped his ass on the Constitution.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Lincoln preserved the Union, and the majority of the North and the West would have willingly allowed Lincoln to use you to wipe his ass.

You faux-libertarians are outrageously stupid and immorally stubborn.


----------



## Unkotare

It should read: 'A survey of left-wing historians at left-wing universities'


----------



## Unkotare

sfc ollie said:


> truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> worst president ever
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes carter probably was........
Click to expand...




fdr


----------



## Big Fitz

Unkotare said:


> sfc ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> worst president ever
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes carter probably was........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fdr
Click to expand...

Woodrow Wilson.  
U.S. Grant.
Andrew Johnson.
James Buchanon.

All can be considered far worse than George W. Bush.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Truthmatters said:


> smart people have a left leaning bias.



of course thats idiotic. It true please say the smartest most substantive thing you can about the leftism.


----------



## Peach

Big Fitz said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sfc ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes carter probably was........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fdr
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Woodrow Wilson.
> U.S. Grant.
> Andrew Johnson.
> James Buchanon.
> 
> All can be considered far worse than George W. Bush.
Click to expand...


Too early but Bush may be headed for the bottom 5; currently Buchanan, Pierce, Harding, A. Johnson. Wilson is near great, Carter, middle of the pack.

Note: Harding is said to have been fine at poker.


----------



## Unkotare

I've yet to see anyone produce an example of another president who committed as great an outrage against American citizens as FDR.


----------



## Peach

Unkotare said:


> I've yet to see anyone produce an example of another president who committed as great an outrage against American citizens as FDR.



Leading the US when we helped defeat the Axis & managed to end the Great Depression is an outrage?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Peach said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> fdr
> 
> 
> 
> Woodrow Wilson.
> U.S. Grant.
> Andrew Johnson.
> James Buchanon.
> 
> All can be considered far worse than George W. Bush.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too early but Bush may be headed for the bottom 5; currently Buchanan, Pierce, Harding, A. Johnson. Wilson is near great, Carter, middle of the pack.
> 
> Note: Harding is said to have been fine at poker.
Click to expand...


LOL

Progressives have it totally wrong.

Wilson Near great because he was anti-American

Harding economic record is not just slightly better, but several orders of magnitude better than FDR's


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Peach said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've yet to see anyone produce an example of another president who committed as great an outrage against American citizens as FDR.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leading the US when we helped defeat the Axis & managed to end the Great Depression is an outrage?
Click to expand...


The FDR Depression last 8 years from his inauguration and only started to abate once Hitler conquered France.  

FDR conducted the Tuskegee Experiments that likely influenced Megele and FDR also was responsible for the internment of 100,000 Japanese Americans. 

FDR aided, abetted and befriended history's 2 biggest mass murdered Mao and Uncle Joe Stalin, neither of whom could have done it without FDR

Fuck FDR


----------



## LA RAM FAN

rightwinger said:


> Let's see......Historians are a bunch of elitist liberals
> 
> Just like ...Scientists are a bunch of elitist liberals
> 
> 
> Don't like the message...attack the messenger



which is what your an expert at.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Truthseeker420 said:


> A Pew Research Center poll released last week found that the share of the American public that approves of President George W. Bush has dropped to a new low of 28 percent.
> 
> An unscientific poll of professional historians completed the same week produced results far worse for a president clinging to the hope that history will someday take a kinder view of his presidency than does contemporary public opinion.
> 
> In an informal survey of 109 professional historians conducted over a three-week period through the History News Network, 98.2 percent assessed the presidency of Mr. Bush to be a failure while 1.8 percent classified it as a success.
> 
> Asked to rank the presidency of George W. Bush in comparison to those of the other 41 American presidents, more than 61 percent of the historians concluded that the current presidency is the worst in the nation&#8217;s history. Another 35 percent of the historians surveyed rated the Bush presidency in the 31st to 41st category, while only four of the 109 respondents ranked the current presidency as even among the top two-thirds of American administrations.
> 
> At least two of those who ranked the current president in the 31-41 ranking made it clear that they placed him next-to-last, with only James Buchanan, in their view, being worse. &#8220;He is easily one of the 10-worst of all time and&#8212;if the magnitude of the challenges and opportunities matter&#8212;then probably in the bottom five, alongside Buchanan, Johnson, Fillmore, and Pierce,&#8221; wrote another historian.
> 
> The reason for the hesitancy some historians had in categorizing the Bush presidency as the worst ever, which led them to place it instead in the &#8220;nearly the worst&#8221; group, was well expressed by another historian who said, &#8220;It is a bit too early to judge whether Bush's presidency is the worst ever, though it certainly has a shot to take the title.  Without a doubt, it is among the worst.&#8221;
> 
> History News Network | Because the Past is the Present, and the Future too.



He had the lowest approval rating of ANY president ever leaving office.

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500160_162-4728399.html

whats really hyserical though is the fact that Obamas is the same as his is and Romenys approval rating is the same as Obamas. The american people are fed uo with this corrupt two party system.thats why they want RINO Ron Paul in.


----------



## Unkotare

Peach said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've yet to see anyone produce an example of another president who committed as great an outrage against American citizens as FDR.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leading the US when we helped defeat the Axis & managed to end the Great Depression is an outrage?
Click to expand...



The US military and the American people would have performed as ably had another person been in office at the time. He was no field general. His policies did NOT end the Great Depression, they prolonged it. Your playing the apologist stains you.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Unkotare said:


> sfc ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> worst president ever
> 
> 
> 
> yes carter probably was........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> fdr
Click to expand...

  Nope.  Buchanan first, Bush second, Grant third, Harding fourth, Wilson fifth.


----------



## elvis

No attention for Andrew Johnson?  Or Lyndon Johnson?


----------



## Big Fitz

elvis said:


> No attention for Andrew Johnson?  Or Lyndon Johnson?


I'd put him 6th or 7th.  maybe


----------



## Unkotare

JakeStarkey said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sfc ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes carter probably was........
> 
> 
> 
> fdr
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  Buchanan first, Bush second, Grant third, Harding fourth, Wilson fifth.
Click to expand...



Which one of those threw over 100,000 Americans into concentration camps?


----------



## elvis

Unkotare said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> fdr
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  Buchanan first, Bush second, Grant third, Harding fourth, Wilson fifth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Which one of those threw over 100,000 Americans into concentration camps?
Click to expand...


None of them.  and FDR made the right decision.


----------



## Big Fitz

Unkotare said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> fdr
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. Buchanan first, Bush second, Grant third, Harding fourth, Wilson fifth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Which one of those threw over 100,000 Americans into concentration camps?
Click to expand...

It was for their own good.   They're such children


----------



## Unkotare

elvis said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  Buchanan first, Bush second, Grant third, Harding fourth, Wilson fifth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which one of those threw over 100,000 Americans into concentration camps?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of them.  and FDR made the right decision.
Click to expand...



How so?


----------



## elvis

Big Fitz said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  Buchanan first, Bush second, Grant third, Harding fourth, Wilson fifth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which one of those threw over 100,000 Americans into concentration camps?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was for their own good.
Click to expand...


No.  It was for the good of the nation.  Lincoln was right as well.


----------



## Big Fitz

elvis said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which one of those threw over 100,000 Americans into concentration camps?
> 
> 
> 
> It was for their own good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  It was for the good of the nation.  Lincoln was right as well.
Click to expand...

Yes.  Lincoln preserved the nation but at the cost of much state power.  It is still a really big question on whether he went too far, and that this nation was fundamentally changed for the negative because of it.  I really have mixed feelings on that era and president.


----------



## Unkotare

Big Fitz said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  Buchanan first, Bush second, Grant third, Harding fourth, Wilson fifth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which one of those threw over 100,000 Americans into concentration camps?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was for their own good.
Click to expand...



I wonder how many here would accept that explanation if the soldiers showed up with guns and threw every member of their family into horse stalls out in the desert. I wonder how many here would stand idly by and watch that happen to their neighbor.


----------



## elvis

Big Fitz said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was for their own good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  It was for the good of the nation.  Lincoln was right as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.  Lincoln preserved the nation but at the cost of much state power.  It is still a really big question on whether he went too far, and that this nation was fundamentally changed for the negative because of it.  I really have mixed feelings on that era and president.
Click to expand...

Many people do.


----------



## Unkotare

elvis said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which one of those threw over 100,000 Americans into concentration camps?
> 
> 
> 
> It was for their own good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  It was for the good of the nation.
Click to expand...




How was it for the good of the nation?


----------



## Big Fitz

Was being sarcastic.


----------



## elvis

Unkotare said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was for their own good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  It was for the good of the nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How was it for the good of the nation?
Click to expand...


Because the decision was made, fewer Americans died.


----------



## Unkotare

Big Fitz said:


> Was being sarcastic.



Yeah, caught that.


----------



## Unkotare

elvis said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  It was for the good of the nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How was it for the good of the nation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the decision was made, fewer Americans died.
Click to expand...



You didn't think that through. Try again.


----------



## elvis

Unkotare said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> How was it for the good of the nation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the decision was made, fewer Americans died.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't think that through. Try again.
Click to expand...


I have thought it through many times.


----------



## Unkotare

elvis said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because the decision was made, fewer Americans died.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't think that through. Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have thought it through many times.
Click to expand...



You really want to dig this hole for yourself? Ok, explain your comment above, if you can.


----------



## elvis

Unkotare said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't think that through. Try again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have thought it through many times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You really want to dig this hole for yourself? Ok, explain your comment above, if you can.
Click to expand...


No hole.  No explanation.  thanks.


----------



## Unkotare

elvis said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have thought it through many times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really want to dig this hole for yourself? Ok, explain your comment above, if you can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No hole.  No explanation.  thanks.
Click to expand...



So you admit you are full of shit (at a minimum)? Good. In the future, try not to spew such unamerican crap and you won't look so bad.


----------



## elvis

Unkotare said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really want to dig this hole for yourself? Ok, explain your comment above, if you can.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No hole.  No explanation.  thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you admit you are full of shit (at a minimum)? Good. In the future, try not to spew such unamerican crap and you won't look so bad.
Click to expand...


You're the one who wishes there  had been more Americans killed, you  cock smoking sperm drooling cum dumpster.

So why don't you go jerk off to one of those "thank god for dead American soldiers" signs, ok cum whore?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Elvis, please don't hide your feelings, that is not good for you.  

Yes, FDR did probably the only thing he could do without massive vigilante issues on the West Coast.

The internment camps were just those, internment, not concentration as Unkotare means them.  That Unk would use terms normally associated with the Nazis tells you much about his lack of character.


----------



## Unkotare

elvis said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> No hole.  No explanation.  thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you admit you are full of shit (at a minimum)? Good. In the future, try not to spew such unamerican crap and you won't look so bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the one who wishes there had been more Americans killed
Click to expand...




You can't even begin to play with that straw man until you muster the courage to explain your comment, "Because the decision was made, fewer Americans died." Until you do, keep your trap shut, you weak-minded, unamerican douchebag.


----------



## Unkotare

Fakey has been _taught_ what the term 'concentration camp' means, but he still hasn't gotten over his recent humiliation.


----------



## chikenwing

Truthmatters said:


> smart people have a left leaning bias.



 Truthmattersnot- proof positive that is pure BS.


So when the current guy is history what will they say about him?


----------



## elvis

Unkotare said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you admit you are full of shit (at a minimum)? Good. In the future, try not to spew such unamerican crap and you won't look so bad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one who wishes there had been more Americans killed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't even begin to play with that straw man until you muster the courage to explain your comment, "Because the decision was made, fewer Americans died." Until you do, keep your trap shut, you weak-minded, unamerican douchebag.
Click to expand...

Yawn.


----------



## elvis

chikenwing said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> smart people have a left leaning bias.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmattersnot- proof positive that is pure BS.
> 
> 
> So when the current guy is history what will they say about him?
Click to expand...


That he was the first African American president.  I am sure that will be the first thing they say.


----------



## Unkotare

You two should get along well. You are both unamerican douchebags.


----------



## Unkotare

elvis said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one who wishes there had been more Americans killed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't even begin to play with that straw man until you muster the courage to explain your comment, "Because the decision was made, fewer Americans died." Until you do, keep your trap shut, you weak-minded, unamerican douchebag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yawn.
Click to expand...




Just as I thought. You have no character and no backbone.


----------



## elvis

Unkotare said:


> You two should get along well. You are both unamerican douchebags.



Burp.


----------



## elvis

Unkotare said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't even begin to play with that straw man until you muster the courage to explain your comment, "Because the decision was made, fewer Americans died." Until you do, keep your trap shut, you weak-minded, unamerican douchebag.
> 
> 
> 
> Yawn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just as I thought. You have no character and no backbone.
Click to expand...


Ok.


----------



## Unkotare

elvis said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yawn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just as I thought. You have no character and no backbone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok.
Click to expand...



I guess having no backbone makes it easier for you to tuck your tail between your legs like that.


----------



## elvis

Where is Big Fitz?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Unkotare said:


> Fakey has been _taught_ what the term 'concentration camp' means, but he still hasn't gotten over his recent humiliation.



That you continue to use a term associated with Naziism merely demonstrates your ignorance or your malignancy of character.


----------



## Big Fitz

elvis said:


> Where is Big Fitz?


Not doing well.  Had to step away for a bit.  Got food poisoning yesterday.  So, I'm in and out.  Thankfully it's mild, but just irritating enough to make focusing more difficult and the bathroom my friend.

TMI?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Truthseeker420 said:


> its bit early to judge Bush '43



especially for liberal historians who could care less about freedom in Iraq and Afganistan and where that might lead.


----------



## Big Fitz

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Truthseeker420 said:
> 
> 
> 
> its bit early to judge Bush '43
> 
> 
> 
> 
> especially for liberal historians who could care less about freedom in Iraq and Afganistan and where that might lead.
Click to expand...

Actually it's too close to judge even Clinton.  Give it 5-10 more years.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Big Fitz said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthseeker420 said:
> 
> 
> 
> its bit early to judge Bush '43
> 
> 
> 
> 
> especially for liberal historians who could care less about freedom in Iraq and Afganistan and where that might lead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually it's too close to judge even Clinton.  Give it 5-10 more years.
Click to expand...


why say that? Did Clinton do anything with long term implications? He was a Democrat.


----------



## Big Fitz

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> especially for liberal historians who could care less about freedom in Iraq and Afganistan and where that might lead.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it's too close to judge even Clinton.  Give it 5-10 more years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> why say that? Did Clinton do anything with long term implications? He was a Democrat.
Click to expand...

who was saved by a Fiscal conservative congress.  I at least give the man credit enough to know his far left plans were fooked at that point.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Big Fitz said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it's too close to judge even Clinton.  Give it 5-10 more years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why say that? Did Clinton do anything with long term implications? He was a Democrat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> who was saved by a Fiscal conservative congress.  I at least give the man credit enough to know his far left plans were fooked at that point.
Click to expand...


Far left is as stupid as Far right.


----------



## Unkotare

JakeStarkey said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fakey has been _taught_ what the term 'concentration camp' means, but he still hasn't gotten over his recent humiliation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That you continue to use a term associated with Naziism merely demonstrates your ignorance or your malignancy of character.
Click to expand...


That you continue to be ignorant of the English language demonstrates how fucking stupid you are.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Unkotare said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fakey has been _taught_ what the term 'concentration camp' means, but he still hasn't gotten over his recent humiliation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That you continue to use a term associated with Naziism merely demonstrates your ignorance or your malignancy of character.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That you continue to be ignorant of the English language demonstrates how fucking stupid you are.
Click to expand...


I schooled you on the narrative and its terminology and your flunked, willfully,  You are what you are: a helpless, hopeless cultural tard.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

JakeStarkey said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> why say that? Did Clinton do anything with long term implications? He was a Democrat.
> 
> 
> 
> who was saved by a Fiscal conservative congress.  I at least give the man credit enough to know his far left plans were fooked at that point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Far left is as stupid as Far right.
Click to expand...


if so why be so afraid to present your most substantive example of far right stupidity. What does your fear tell you.


----------



## Unkotare

Fakey wants to be an FDR nuthugger so badly he insists on changing the English language. Was it really so upsetting to you when I taught you what the term 'concentration camp' means? If you hadn't been so ignorant in the first place you wouldn't have ended up embarrassed. Your little ego still hasn't gotten over it.

Pay attention one more time, moron: FDR threw over 100,000 innocent, brave, loyal AMERICAN CITIZENS into concentration camps. That's what they were, that's what FDR himself called them. You don't like the term? Too fucking bad. The scumbag shouldn't have committed such an outrage, then generations later idiots like you wouldn't have to be so shocked by the reality of it. The Nazis also utilized concentration camps, though certainly in a significantly different manner and to a different end. However, the FACT remains that a concentration camp is a concentration camp. I am not equating the two other than to the extent that they WERE both concentration camps, so don't bother lying or building straw men again. 

If it helps a numbskull like you understand, consider that the US military used tanks and the Nazis used tanks. They used them for different ends in the larger ideological sense, but they were still both 'tanks.' The word doesn't change. See how that works, dope? Or consider that there were ovens in FDR's concentration camps and there were ovens in Hitler's concentration camps. In the US the ovens were used to prepare food for US citizens unjustly imprisoned. In the Nazi concentration camps ovens were used to kill Jews unjustly imprisoned. A very big difference, but both were 'ovens.' You are scared of words because you don't understand much. Once you learn some more English you can focus on ideas instead.


----------



## Unkotare

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> who was saved by a Fiscal conservative congress.  I at least give the man credit enough to know his far left plans were fooked at that point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Far left is as stupid as Far right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if so why be so afraid to present your most substantive example of far right stupidity. What does your fear tell you.
Click to expand...



He is afraid because his little ego is abnormally fragile.


----------



## regent

If historians cannot judge presidents while the president is in office, why do we expect non-historians to be able to judge presidents not only before they finish their terms but before they are even elected? I think historians have a pretty good grasp on what's going on, I wish the average voter was as well informed and had as meaninful a criteria to judge presidents as do historians.  One has only to look at some of these posts to appreciate what a background in history would mean to some posters, and maybe to America.


----------



## Big Fitz

regent said:


> If historians cannot judge presidents while the president is in office, why do we expect non-historians to be able to judge presidents not only before they finish their terms but before they are even elected? I think historians have a pretty good grasp on what's going on, I wish the average voter was as well informed and had as meaninful a criteria to judge presidents as do historians.  One has only to look at some of these posts to appreciate what a background in history would mean to some posters, and maybe to America.


If the left spent less time trying to rewrite the past to match what they desired and more time learning what did happen, you may have something there.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Unkotare said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Far left is as stupid as Far right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if so why be so afraid to present your most substantive example of far right stupidity. What does your fear tell you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He is afraid because his little ego is abnormally fragile.
Click to expand...


 says the most fragile drama queen on the board.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Big Fitz said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> If historians cannot judge presidents while the president is in office, why do we expect non-historians to be able to judge presidents not only before they finish their terms but before they are even elected? I think historians have a pretty good grasp on what's going on, I wish the average voter was as well informed and had as meaninful a criteria to judge presidents as do historians.  One has only to look at some of these posts to appreciate what a background in history would mean to some posters, and maybe to America.
> 
> 
> 
> If the left spent less time trying to rewrite the past to match what they desired and more time learning what did happen, you may have something there.
Click to expand...


The far right does exactly that, rewriting "the past to match what they desired" even though it failed to occur.


----------



## Peach

Trajan said:


> asking for an opinion in the present is just silly snapshot in time,  I have no doubt that bush would be high on the list.
> 
> however, Truman for instance had horrid ratings 22% a year before he left office and in the 30's when he did leave I believe. yet, he ranks very high on the list today.
> 
> I would hope that historians, at least responsible ones would add this to their opinions as a proviso in that time can rehabilitate even the worst opinions from the snapshot of the present.



You are correct, it is too soon; 20-30 years minimum to rate. I think he was THE worst of my lifetime, thus far, Obama obviously better, but, as I term it "better than Bush isn't good enough". Carter remains lower middle of the pack with historians; Buchanan, Pierce, Harding, and Fillmore always near the bottom. Good point about Truman, Eisenhower has fluctuated over the decades also; some loathe FDR, but historians rank him near the top. I thought Reagan was horrid, over time, much better. He was able to communicate, and inspire many Americans, the fact I wasn't one of them isn't relevant.


----------



## Unkotare

JakeStarkey said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> if so why be so afraid to present your most substantive example of far right stupidity. What does your fear tell you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He is afraid because his little ego is abnormally fragile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> says the most fragile drama queen on the board.
Click to expand...



Your little show is here for all to see, Fakey.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Unkotare said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> He is afraid because his little ego is abnormally fragile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> says the most fragile drama queen on the board.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your little show is here for all to see, Fakey.
Click to expand...


Yes, as I out you for the queen you are, UnkoQueen.


----------



## Peach

Why ruin a thread about Presidents? Its interesting; was Harding crooked or just too busy playing poker to notice?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Peach said:


> Why ruin a thread about Presidents? Its interesting; was Harding crooked or just too busy playing poker to notice?



Venial and surrounded by corrupt men, and was just too lazy to be a president at all.

He is the President who used the term "The Founders" as we understand it today.


----------



## regent

Some are confusing the polls, those of historians may be different than public opinion polls. Truman was pretty much disliked by the public at the end of his presidency, and he was rated low in the public opinion polls, but historians rated him much higher.


----------



## Unkotare

JakeStarkey said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> says the most fragile drama queen on the board.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your little show is here for all to see, Fakey.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, as I out you for the queen you are, UnkoQueen.
Click to expand...


Oh look, Fakey is going into his 'rubber-and-glue' routine again! You need some new material; that act is really getting old.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The new material requirement is yours now that we know American interment camps were nothing like Nazi concentration camps, and those who say differently, disgrace the Greatest Generation of Americans.


----------



## Polk

I haven't read through the whole thread, but the OP has a stupid premise. You can't objectively judge someone's time in office so soon as it's ended. It takes at least a generation for things to have simmered down enough to take an objective look.


----------



## Unkotare

JakeStarkey said:


> The new material requirement is yours now that we know American interment camps were nothing like Nazi concentration camps.




Except for the FACT that they were concentration camps. You fail again, Fakey.


----------



## Unkotare

Fakey wants to be an FDR nuthugger so badly he insists on changing the English language. Was it really so upsetting to you when I taught you what the term 'concentration camp' means? If you hadn't been so ignorant in the first place you wouldn't have ended up embarrassed. Your little ego still hasn't gotten over it.

Pay attention one more time, moron: FDR threw over 100,000 innocent, brave, loyal AMERICAN CITIZENS into concentration camps. That's what they were, that's what FDR himself called them. You don't like the term? Too fucking bad. The scumbag shouldn't have committed such an outrage, then generations later idiots like you wouldn't have to be so shocked by the reality of it. The Nazis also utilized concentration camps, though certainly in a significantly different manner and to a different end. However, the FACT remains that a concentration camp is a concentration camp. I am not equating the two other than to the extent that they WERE both concentration camps, so don't bother lying or building straw men again. 

If it helps a numbskull like you understand, consider that the US military used tanks and the Nazis used tanks. They used them for different ends in the larger ideological sense, but they were still both 'tanks.' The word doesn't change. See how that works, dope? Or consider that there were ovens in FDR's concentration camps and there were ovens in Hitler's concentration camps. In the US the ovens were used to prepare food for US citizens unjustly imprisoned. In the Nazi concentration camps ovens were used to kill Jews unjustly imprisoned. A very big difference, but both were 'ovens.' You are scared of words because you don't understand much. Once you learn some more English you can focus on ideas instead.


----------



## regent

Perhaps some corporations should put some money in the kitty for history scholarships. With the scholarships they could send some conservatives to school to get their doctorate in history. After some years and lots of history these conservative historians might become noted historians, and be invited to participate in one of the polls rating presidents. 
The problem is that in their history studies they might become liberals. Is that what happens to people as they study our past, they become liberal, or do only liberals become historians?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Unkotare said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The new material requirement is yours now that we know American interment camps were nothing like Nazi concentration camps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except for the FACT that they were concentration camps. You fail again, Fakey.
Click to expand...


Certainly not in the sense that you imply.


----------



## elvis

JakeStarkey said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The new material requirement is yours now that we know American interment camps were nothing like Nazi concentration camps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except for the FACT that they were concentration camps. You fail again, Fakey.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Certainly not in the sense that you imply.
Click to expand...


Is that cumstain still trying to compare FDR to Hitler?


----------



## Unkotare

JakeStarkey said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The new material requirement is yours now that we know American interment camps were nothing like Nazi concentration camps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except for the FACT that they were concentration camps. You fail again, Fakey.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Certainly not in the sense that you imply.
Click to expand...



I didn't "imply" anything, you idiot. I was very clear, as the post you are trying to ignore demonstrates. You fail again, Fakey.


----------



## rightwinger

Unkotare said:


> Fakey wants to be an FDR nuthugger so badly he insists on changing the English language. Was it really so upsetting to you when I taught you what the term 'concentration camp' means? If you hadn't been so ignorant in the first place you wouldn't have ended up embarrassed. Your little ego still hasn't gotten over it.
> 
> Pay attention one more time, moron: FDR threw over 100,000 innocent, brave, loyal AMERICAN CITIZENS into concentration camps. That's what they were, that's what FDR himself called them. You don't like the term? Too fucking bad. The scumbag shouldn't have committed such an outrage, then generations later idiots like you wouldn't have to be so shocked by the reality of it. The Nazis also utilized concentration camps, though certainly in a significantly different manner and to a different end. However, the FACT remains that a concentration camp is a concentration camp. I am not equating the two other than to the extent that they WERE both concentration camps, so don't bother lying or building straw men again.
> 
> If it helps a numbskull like you understand, consider that the US military used tanks and the Nazis used tanks. They used them for different ends in the larger ideological sense, but they were still both 'tanks.' The word doesn't change. See how that works, dope? Or consider that there were ovens in FDR's concentration camps and there were ovens in Hitler's concentration camps. In the US the ovens were used to prepare food for US citizens unjustly imprisoned. In the Nazi concentration camps ovens were used to kill Jews unjustly imprisoned. A very big difference, but both were 'ovens.' You are scared of words because you don't understand much. Once you learn some more English you can focus on ideas instead.



It's easy to use the hindsight of history to condemn the internment of loyal American citizens. I mean, what could they have been thinking?  It was so obviously wrong.

But what was 1942 America like?  What was the world like in 1942? We had just been attacked and had our mighty Navy decimated. The Japs were the most vile, evil race on the face of the earth. 1942 America was a racist America. You were defined by your race. In 1942, no Jap could be trusted. Some Germans and Italians were also interred, but only on evidence of disloyalty. Japs were interred because they didn't look like real Americans

Was FDR wrong?  Of course he was. But no Republicans protested the unfair treatment of Japanese. Our Supreme Court, who is supposed to stand up for he rights of the individual, looked the other way. It was 1942 America


----------



## GdWithIsrael




----------



## JakeStarkey

Unkotare said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except for the FACT that they were concentration camps. You fail again, Fakey.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Certainly not in the sense that you imply.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't "imply" anything, you idiot. I was very clear, as the post you are trying to ignore demonstrates. You fail again, Fakey.
Click to expand...


Now you are lying.  When you use words like 'dictator', FDR, internment camp, concentration camp, and Nazi all together, you cross the line, and you get your butt rhetorically kicked.

Every time.


----------



## Polk

Yes, technically "concentration camp" isn't the same thing as "death camp", but it:
1. Has certain acquired that connotation in modern English.
2. You're trying to evoke that connotation when you use it surrounded by words like "dictator" and "Nazi".


----------



## Unkotare

Let me know what part of this isn't clear enough for you, Fakey:

Fakey wants to be an FDR nuthugger so badly he insists on changing the English language. Was it really so upsetting to you when I taught you what the term 'concentration camp' means? If you hadn't been so ignorant in the first place you wouldn't have ended up embarrassed. Your little ego still hasn't gotten over it.

Pay attention one more time, moron: FDR threw over 100,000 innocent, brave, loyal AMERICAN CITIZENS into concentration camps. That's what they were, that's what FDR himself called them. You don't like the term? Too fucking bad. The scumbag shouldn't have committed such an outrage, then generations later idiots like you wouldn't have to be so shocked by the reality of it. The Nazis also utilized concentration camps, though certainly in a significantly different manner and to a different end. However, the FACT remains that a concentration camp is a concentration camp. I am not equating the two other than to the extent that they WERE both concentration camps, so don't bother lying or building straw men again. 

If it helps a numbskull like you understand, consider that the US military used tanks and the Nazis used tanks. They used them for different ends in the larger ideological sense, but they were still both 'tanks.' The word doesn't change. See how that works, dope? Or consider that there were ovens in FDR's concentration camps and there were ovens in Hitler's concentration camps. In the US the ovens were used to prepare food for US citizens unjustly imprisoned. In the Nazi concentration camps ovens were used to kill Jews unjustly imprisoned. A very big difference, but both were 'ovens.' You are scared of words because you don't understand much. Once you learn some more English you can focus on ideas instead.

If your little ego is still hurt because your deficiency in both history and the English language was revealed, that's too fucking bad for you.


----------



## Unkotare

Polk said:


> Yes, technically "concentration camp" isn't the same thing as "death camp".





FDR used the term "concentration camps" because it was and is an accurate description of the camps in question.


----------



## Polk

Unkotare said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, technically "concentration camp" isn't the same thing as "death camp".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FDR used the term "concentration camps" because it was and is an accurate description of the camps in question.
Click to expand...


Right, but we don't live in 1942 and the term didn't have the same connotation then that it has today.


----------



## Unkotare

The truth doesn't change.


----------



## Polk

Unkotare said:


> The truth doesn't change.



Yes, but what you're saying isn't the truth.


----------



## regent

I was here in 42 and it was not a big deal at the time, at least for those not of Japanese heritage. After the war our graduate history class was assigned the task of investigation. The class to a man, agreed that it was the conservative groups the Daughters of the Golden West and the California fruit and vegetable growers and others that convinced DeWitt to put em away, for their safety and America's. FDR had given the military district commanders to the power to decide for their own area. FDR was in the end responsible, but at the time probably most Americans agreed to put em away, even the Supreme Court. Would we do the same thing again today, you bet.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Unkotare said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, technically "concentration camp" isn't the same thing as "death camp".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FDR used the term "concentration camps" because it was and is an accurate description of the camps in question.
Click to expand...


As he used it, yes.  As you use it in context with naziism,  no.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

regent said:


> . Would we do the same thing again today, you bet.



of course!. Let's not forget that Italians and Germans were picked up two. Was there divided loyalty? Of course. Many Italians were kept at Ft. Drum in upstate NY. Local residents would bring them huge spaghetti meals on Sunday. Is that how you treat the enemy?


----------



## rightwinger

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> . Would we do the same thing again today, you bet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> of course!. Let's not forget that Italians and Germans were picked up two. Was there divided loyalty? Of course. Many Italians were kept at Ft. Drum in upstate NY. Local residents would bring them huge spaghetti meals on Sunday. Is that how you treat the enemy?
Click to expand...


Germans and Italians were selectively interred. Nobody was advocating locking up Joe DiMaggio


----------



## Unkotare

Polk said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> The truth doesn't change.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but what you're saying isn't the truth.
Click to expand...



Of course it is. What do you _think_ I'm saying that isn't the truth?


----------



## Unkotare

regent said:


> I was here in 42 and it was not a big deal at the time, at least for those not of Japanese heritage. After the war our graduate history class was assigned the task of investigation. The class to a man, agreed that it was the conservative groups the Daughters of the Golden West and the California fruit and vegetable growers and others that convinced DeWitt to put em away, for their safety and America's. FDR had given the military district commanders to the power to decide for their own area. FDR was in the end responsible, but at the time probably most Americans agreed to put em away, even the Supreme Court. Would we do the same thing again today, you bet.




Of course we would not.


----------



## Unkotare

JakeStarkey said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, technically "concentration camp" isn't the same thing as "death camp".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FDR used the term "concentration camps" because it was and is an accurate description of the camps in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As he used it, yes.  As you use it in context with naziism,  no.
Click to expand...



I have been very clear in how I use the term (i.e. correctly). Anything beyond what I have specified several times now is nothing but another example of *your craven dishonesty*.

Pay attention one more time, moron: FDR threw over 100,000 innocent, brave, loyal AMERICAN CITIZENS into concentration camps. That's what they were, that's what FDR himself called them. You don't like the term? Too fucking bad. The scumbag shouldn't have committed such an outrage, then generations later idiots like you wouldn't have to be so shocked by the reality of it. The Nazis also utilized concentration camps, though certainly in a significantly different manner and to a different end. However, the FACT remains that a concentration camp is a concentration camp. I am not equating the two other than to the extent that they WERE both concentration camps, so don't bother lying or building straw men again.


----------



## JakeStarkey

You, Unkotare, are using terms in context with those used in terms of the Nazis.  Your argument, thus, is out of context to reality.

You have no credit on this one, kiddo.


----------



## Unkotare

JakeStarkey said:


> You, Unkotare, are using terms in context with those used in terms of the Nazis.




Your ignorance of both history and the English language are your problems, and your lies have nothing to do with me or reality. None of this is making you any less stupid, douchebag.


I have been very clear in how I use the term (i.e. correctly). Anything beyond what I have specified several times now is nothing but another example of your craven dishonesty.

Pay attention one more time, moron: FDR threw over 100,000 innocent, brave, loyal AMERICAN CITIZENS into concentration camps. That's what they were, that's what FDR himself called them. You don't like the term? Too fucking bad. The scumbag shouldn't have committed such an outrage, then generations later idiots like you wouldn't have to be so shocked by the reality of it. The Nazis also utilized concentration camps, though certainly in a significantly different manner and to a different end. However, the FACT remains that a concentration camp is a concentration camp. I am not equating the two other than to the extent that they WERE both concentration camps, so don't bother lying or building straw men again.


----------



## JakeStarkey

No, your terms are contradicted by the history that creates those terms in context.

Your arguments are shams.


----------



## Unkotare

JakeStarkey said:


> No, your terms are contradicted by the history that creates those terms in context.






Wrong, idiot. The term is accurate in and of itself as well as in historical context. You are really limited by your glaring ignorance.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Unkotare said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, your terms are contradicted by the history that creates those terms in context.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, idiot. The term is accurate in and of itself as well as in historical context. You are really limited by your glaring ignorance.
Click to expand...


No term stands absolute in itself, but only in the historical and cultural context in which it is use.

The moment you used Nazi, dictator, concentration camp, and internment camp in relationship to WWII, you defeated your own argument.


----------



## ginscpy

Truthmatters said:


> smart people have a left leaning bias.



That's why your rep power was zero when you made the above post.


----------



## Unkotare

FACT: FD-fucking-R threw over 100,000 loyal, brave, innocent Americans into *concentration camps*.

FACT: This happened in 1942


You can ignore, deny, or excuse these FACTS, but you cannot change them.


----------



## Unkotare

JakeStarkey said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, your terms are contradicted by the history that creates those terms in context.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, idiot. The term is accurate in and of itself as well as in historical context. You are really limited by your glaring ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No term stands absolute in itself, but only in the historical and cultural context in which it is use.
> 
> The moment you used Nazi, dictator, concentration camp, and internment camp in relationship to WWII, you defeated your own argument.
Click to expand...



All of those terms are factually and historically accurate, no matter how stupid you are.

I never said FDR was a Nazi. You may be trying to suggest that I did - because you are a dishonest low-life - but in FACT I never did.

I never said that FDR was a dictator, though I did point out the FACT that he was the closest we've ever come to having one. 

I said that FDR threw Americans into concentration camps because that is an indisputable FACT.

You then tried to employ your inherent dishonesty to cover your humiliation at being ignorant as to the actual definition of "concentration camp." Your wounded little ego will never recover this way, douchebag.

I have been very clear in how I use the term (i.e. correctly). Anything beyond what I have specified several times now is nothing but another example of your craven dishonesty.

Pay attention one more time, moron: FDR threw over 100,000 innocent, brave, loyal AMERICAN CITIZENS into concentration camps. That's what they were, that's what FDR himself called them. You don't like the term? Too fucking bad. The scumbag shouldn't have committed such an outrage, then generations later idiots like you wouldn't have to be so shocked by the reality of it. The Nazis also utilized concentration camps, though certainly in a significantly different manner and to a different end. However, the FACT remains that a concentration camp is a concentration camp. I am not equating the two other than to the extent that they WERE both concentration camps, so don't bother lying or building straw men again.


----------



## JakeStarkey

You implicitly linked FDR and his policies with those of Nazi Germany.   _I never said FDR was a Nazi. You may be trying to suggest that I did - because you are a dishonest low-life - but in FACT I never did._

You used the word dictator as an implicit condemnation of FDR. _I never said that FDR was a dictator, though I did point out the FACT that he was the closest we've ever come to having one._

An implicit connection to Germany when you used that term, in the context of what you were arguing._  I said that FDR threw Americans into concentration camps because that is an indisputable FACT._

Here you engage in false analysis.  Anybody can go back to the first two pages of the thread and see you are deliberately lying. _You then tried to employ your inherent dishonesty to cover your humiliation at being ignorant as to the actual definition of "concentration camp." Your wounded little ego will never recover this way, douchebag.
_

Here you engage in false analysis.  Anybody can go back to the first two pages of the thread and see you are deliberately lying. _ I have been very clear in how I use the term (i.e. correctly). Anything beyond what I have specified several times now is nothing but another example of your craven dishonesty._

You never, ever should have used the connections and terms to naziism, dictator, and concentration camp in the WWII connection because you completely invalidate your argument that follows.  _The Nazis also utilized concentration camps, though certainly in a significantly different manner and to a different end. However, the FACT remains that a concentration camp is a concentration camp. I am not equating the two other than to the extent that they WERE both concentration camps, so don't bother lying or building straw men again._

Yes, you linked them, you did it deliberately, and it is a fabrication of narrative accuracy.  

You would flunk an assignment in college if you tried this, and then if you tried to defend it, you would be dropped from the class.


----------



## Unkotare

Your pathetic attempts to use dishonesty to cover your humiliation will continue to fail, you idiot. 


All of those terms are factually and historically accurate, no matter how stupid you are.

I never said FDR was a Nazi. You may be trying to suggest that I did - because you are a dishonest low-life - but in FACT I never did.

I never said that FDR was a dictator, though I did point out the FACT that he was the closest we've ever come to having one. 

I said that FDR threw Americans into concentration camps because that is an indisputable FACT.

You then tried to employ your inherent dishonesty to cover your humiliation at being ignorant as to the actual definition of "concentration camp." Your wounded little ego will never recover this way, douchebag.

I have been very clear in how I use the term (i.e. correctly). Anything beyond what I have specified several times now is nothing but another example of your craven dishonesty.

Pay attention one more time, moron: FDR threw over 100,000 innocent, brave, loyal AMERICAN CITIZENS into concentration camps. That's what they were, that's what FDR himself called them. You don't like the term? Too fucking bad. The scumbag shouldn't have committed such an outrage, then generations later idiots like you wouldn't have to be so shocked by the reality of it. The Nazis also utilized concentration camps, though certainly in a significantly different manner and to a different end. However, the FACT remains that a concentration camp is a concentration camp. I am not equating the two other than to the extent that they WERE both concentration camps, so don't bother lying or building straw men again. 

You need to find another way to try and soothe your wounded ego, fool.


----------



## Unkotare

JakeStarkey said:


> You would flunk an assignment in college if you tried this, and then if you tried to defend it, you would be dropped from the class.




I've taught the college level, have you?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Unkotare said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You would flunk an assignment in college if you tried this, and then if you tried to defend it, you would be dropped from the class.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've taught the college level, have you?
Click to expand...


No, you haven't, if this is the level of critical reasoning that you employ.  Whether I have taught is a deflection on your part.  The point is this: you are a failure at this.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Unkotare said:


> SNIP



When you are willing to discuss the J-A camps disassociated from snide, inaccurate, tool comments that include references to Naziism, dictatorships, and so forth, I will be glad to discuss the topic.


----------



## Unkotare

JakeStarkey said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You would flunk an assignment in college if you tried this, and then if you tried to defend it, you would be dropped from the class.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've taught the college level, have you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you haven't.
Click to expand...




Is lying the only response you have, idiot?


----------



## Unkotare

Your little ego still hurting, Fakey?


----------



## JakeStarkey

No, you haven't, if this is the level of critical reasoning that you employ. Whether I have taught is a deflection on your part. The point is this: you are a failure at this.

Now we are back in context.


----------



## Unkotare

JakeStarkey said:


> No, you haven't





Sorry if it adds to your inferiority complex, Fakey.


----------



## JakeStarkey

You are entertaining, are as all humans with immature and uncontrollable emotions.

Accept you were wrong, and let us start over.


----------



## Unkotare

JakeStarkey said:


> You are entertaining, are as all humans with immature and uncontrollable emotions.
> 
> Accept you were wrong, and let us start over.




If you hadn't been so ignorant of history and the English language to start with, you wouldn't have put yourself in this position where you feel the need to lie over and over. Get some education and you can avoid this humiliation in the future.


----------

