Will Obama go down in history as the best president ever?

[Uncensored2008]

We still need to slow down spending. If it is not making a real difference, then it is adding to the fire. Wasteful spending does not fix a thing.

Yes, but spending buys votes, and presidencies.

 

[regent]

Historians are already ranking him in the 13-15 range

"Historians" don't rate current events, you fucking cultist moron.

His second term will solidify many of his first term initiatives. He will move into the top ten after his second term is completed

Obama Akbar indeed, fucktard.

Yesterday is history.
Historians rated Obama in 2010 after two years in office. Obama and the other 43 presidents will be rated over the years and their positions may change as new evidence comes to light and new ex-presidents are added to the list, but the top three are still FDR, Lincoln and Washington.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Astute political observation

It will help establish what President Obama had to deal with as President

I agree. Certainly the history books will reflect the opposition this POTUS faced and I'm sure they will note the source(s), the tone, and the volume of that opposition. And I believe (although it's going to take a lot of time before we know for sure) that history will give bonus points to the Obama administration because of the nature of that opposition. It seems to have happened that way in the past and I think that very thing helped turn Lincoln into a legend.

I do not believe that history will be kind to our current crop of Republicans

I don't either. I've never read a glowing account of this kinda stuff when it happened in the past. I don't see what is going to make this time any exception. In fact, the intellectual foundation of this opposition appears to be at an all-time low.

 

[GoneBezerk]

Only insane liberals can claim making the economy worse, making the world more unsafe, weakening the USA and spending more money than any other POTUS in history....makes obamination the best POTUS ever.

Freakin insane....

 

[Uncensored2008]

A good example of my previous post.

I believe a whole lot of people are going to feel that if people of this ilk hate you, you must be doing something right.

Oh, your poor, persecuted Messiah®, look at what he has to endure.

And you leftists were so kind and gentle to Bush....

 

[JakeStarkey]

obama will go down as the presidebt that caused the US economy to collapse. He intends to collapse the economy. It is part of the plan to transform the nation into a socialist utopia and for that he needs to have the ashes of the former economy.

There is no evidence at all that Obama "intends to collapse the economy" or "to transform the nation into a socialist utopia".

That is simple unhappy talk until you have something to support it.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Of course it's going to take hindsight to be able to see how all this stuff shakes out. But I personally don't see how history can drop Obama (or raise GWB) into a position that is within 10 to 15 spots unless Obama screws the pooch royally in his second term ... And I guess that's certainly possible. But I don't consider it very likely.

In the long run though, people are going to look at the fact that the ACA, or Obamacare as some call it, has it's roots in GWB's Medicare Prescription Plan extension, that Obama caught Bin Ladin using intelligence developed under Bush, and that Bush instituted TARP which Obama extended with the Stimulus.

It's awfully hard to judge Obama as some great figure or even as a villain without coming to that same conclusion about Bush. You can argue that Obama inherited Bush's mess, but once he was in office he continued a lot of Bush's policies and when he did reverse, he did so very slowly.

The one major difference I see between the two right now when I look objectively is that Bush had a Senate and House Majority for a longer period of time than Obama, but Obama had a stronger filibuster proof majority during that period. Obama will have a hostile House for at least 4 years (maybe longer) to Bush's 2 years.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

He intends to collapse the economy.

If he intended to collapse the economy, it'd be in ruins right now. We came fairly close to economic collapse at the end of Bush's term before TARP was passed and once again fairly early in Obama's term before the Stimulus. It's not as strong as it was under Clinton, but it's hardly in ruins now.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Yesterday is history.
Historians rated Obama in 2010 after two years in office. Obama and the other 43 presidents will be rated over the years and their positions may change as new evidence comes to light and new ex-presidents are added to the list, but the top three are still FDR, Lincoln and Washington.

"Historians" deal with issues and situations of the past, not current events. Obamabot sycophants rated Obama in 2010.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

The three presidents that might have had a slim chance of becoming a dictator were Wasshington, Lincoln and FDR. Ironically the three top presidents according to historians.

That's not ironic or accidental. Part of why Washington is ranked so high is that he knowingly walked away from a shot at President for Life more than once. Washington's troops volunteered to elevate him to king at the end of the Revolution and he declined. Washington could have easily kept running for President until he died and he stepped aside after 2 terms. That is true devotion to democracy.

Similar things could be said about Lincoln and FDR. Both could have easily moved to take over the country by force and neither did. Though FDR did a lot of power grabbing, he still resisted the urge to simply abolish the Constitution, something a lot of people running for the Office during that time would have happily done.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Of course it's going to take hindsight to be able to see how all this stuff shakes out. But I personally don't see how history can drop Obama (or raise GWB) into a position that is within 10 to 15 spots unless Obama screws the pooch royally in his second term ... And I guess that's certainly possible. But I don't consider it very likely.

In the long run though, people are going to look at the fact that the ACA, or Obamacare as some call it, has it's roots in GWB's Medicare Prescription Plan extension, that Obama caught Bin Ladin using intelligence developed under Bush, and that Bush instituted TARP which Obama extended with the Stimulus.

It's awfully hard to judge Obama as some great figure or even as a villain without coming to that same conclusion about Bush. You can argue that Obama inherited Bush's mess, but once he was in office he continued a lot of Bush's policies and when he did reverse, he did so very slowly.

The one major difference I see between the two right now when I look objectively is that Bush had a Senate and House Majority for a longer period of time than Obama, but Obama had a stronger filibuster proof majority during that period. Obama will have a hostile House for at least 4 years (maybe longer) to Bush's 2 years.

You are right that the roots of Obamacare are in the Heritage Foundation's reccomendations and were embraced by Republicans before they decided it was communism.

But it was passed - it went from drawing board to reality - in Obama's term. History doesn't judge presidents based on what they favor - it judges them by what was done during their administrations. If Obamacare proves successful, no credit for it will rub off on Bush. If it fails, no blame will rub off on anyone else. Again, Obama's opposition tried to saddle him with an albatross with the term Obamacare, but what they virtually guaranteed is that if it is successful, Obama will be forever linked with that success.

History will also remember that Obama won a Nobel Prize (whether you think he deserved it or not) even while prosecuting two wars. And he will get a point or two forever for being in office when Osama Bin Laden was brought to justice.

 

[GoneBezerk]

obamination's trophy acceptance speech will be on the following subjects...

- Billions wasted and stolen in green energy scams on the taxpayer
- Running up the national debt to record levels
- Supporting the Arab Spring which enabled the rise of terrorists and their political supporters
- Getting a US Ambassador and 3 other Americans killed in Libya
- Arming the terrorists that killed 3 Americans in Algeria
- Allowing Iran to get nuclear weapons
- Failing with his surge in Afghanistan but taking credit for Bush's successful surge in Iraq
- Overall, being the biggest piece of shit to ever get into the White House

 

[nodoginnafight]

The three presidents that might have had a slim chance of becoming a dictator were Wasshington, Lincoln and FDR. Ironically the three top presidents according to historians.

That's not ironic or accidental. Part of why Washington is ranked so high is that he knowingly walked away from a shot at President for Life more than once. Washington's troops volunteered to elevate him to king at the end of the Revolution and he declined. Washington could have easily kept running for President until he died and he stepped aside after 2 terms. That is true devotion to democracy.

Similar things could be said about Lincoln and FDR. Both could have easily moved to take over the country by force and neither did. Though FDR did a lot of power grabbing, he still resisted the urge to simply abolish the Constitution, something a lot of people running for the Office during that time would have happily done.

I agree with most of this, but I do think you overestimate Lincoln's popularity during his lifetime. I believe he much more highly regarded by history than he was by his contemporaries.

 

[GoneBezerk]

....and what was that?

What socialist proposals did the Heritage Foundation support, liar?

The death panel? Curbing doctor salaries? Raising taxes on everyone to pay for free healthcare for some people? The rising costs of healthcare to price out the middle class and insurance companies from a free market system?

Oh, maybe you claim they support FREE abortions for you scum.

Of course it's going to take hindsight to be able to see how all this stuff shakes out. But I personally don't see how history can drop Obama (or raise GWB) into a position that is within 10 to 15 spots unless Obama screws the pooch royally in his second term ... And I guess that's certainly possible. But I don't consider it very likely.

In the long run though, people are going to look at the fact that the ACA, or Obamacare as some call it, has it's roots in GWB's Medicare Prescription Plan extension, that Obama caught Bin Ladin using intelligence developed under Bush, and that Bush instituted TARP which Obama extended with the Stimulus.

It's awfully hard to judge Obama as some great figure or even as a villain without coming to that same conclusion about Bush. You can argue that Obama inherited Bush's mess, but once he was in office he continued a lot of Bush's policies and when he did reverse, he did so very slowly.

The one major difference I see between the two right now when I look objectively is that Bush had a Senate and House Majority for a longer period of time than Obama, but Obama had a stronger filibuster proof majority during that period. Obama will have a hostile House for at least 4 years (maybe longer) to Bush's 2 years.

You are right that the roots of Obamacare are in the Heritage Foundation's reccomendations and were embraced by Republicans before they decided it was communism.

But it was passed - it went from drawing board to reality - in Obama's term. History doesn't judge presidents based on what they favor - it judges them by what was done during their administrations. If Obamacare proves successful, no credit for it will rub off on Bush. If it fails, no blame will rub off on anyone else. Again, Obama's opposition tried to saddle him with an albatross with the term Obamacare, but what they virtually guaranteed is that if it is successful, Obama will be forever linked with that success.

History will also remember that Obama won a Nobel Prize (whether you think he deserved it or not) even while prosecuting two wars. And he will get a point or two forever for being in office when Osama Bin Laden was brought to justice.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Will this thread go down in history as the dumbest ever?

It was started by Rati, so it was destined to be full retard.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Part of the dumbness is the reactionaries denying that ACA is rooted in GOP and Heritage design.

 

[Jarhead]

Part of the dumbness is the reactionaries denying that ACA is rooted in GOP and Heritage design.

I am not denying it at all.

But if someone built a car that was designed to kill people intentionally, I would not say it was Henry Fords idea.

The ACA has items that are GOP initiated....but it also has major items the GOP would never dream up.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Ultimately I think you have remember that history paints with a broader brush. A lot of the nuiances that we quibble over today will be long forgotten.
Right or wrong, I think Obama will get points for:
1) Being the first black president
2) Winning a Nobel Prize
3) Probably ending two wars and getting Bin Laden
4) Obamacare - if it sticks
5) Stopping the economic bleeding - When historians look back, I think they will see a nation in economic free fall and that fall at least somewhat arrested during Obama's administration.

The second term could bring more achievement or it could bring failures. So this is just a snapshot of today and how I think history is likely to look back upon it. Many things could change.

 

[Liability]

Part of the dumbness is the reactionaries denying that ACA is rooted in GOP and Heritage design.

ObamaCare is a terrible idea.

What solace is there for you in recognizing that components of the miserable plan were originally created by (or with help from) Republicans?

 

[GoneBezerk]

Liberal....conservatives being ok with mandating everyone has some form of healthcare insurance isn't supporting the death panel determining who gets what care and when.

It doesn't support obamacare driving up the costs of healthcare on individuals and insurance companies so that some Democraps at the bottom can get FREE healthcare.

It doesn't support putting us on a path where our current system implodes so that you scum can finally turn it into a 1 payer system like your USSR dream.

You are too stupid to follow along with our beliefs, so shut up.

Part of the dumbness is the reactionaries denying that ACA is rooted in GOP and Heritage design.