Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on May 18, 2016 11:43:31 GMT -5
ibid.: Calvin Coolidge was the 30th President of the United States of America. He was very quick and reclusive as a politician. The only good thing he did, while in office, was able to restore public confidence in the White House after the scandals his predecessor was immersed in. Oh and wait, he represented the interests of the middle class and was able to interpret their longings and allow them to express their opinions.
Critics argued against Coolidge because of his laissez-faire government policies. Ronald Reagan revived many of Coolidge’s policies and always spoke about Coolidge being his inspiration. Reagan did a much better job at laissez-faire than Coolidge.
So why include Coolidge on this list? I wasn’t too pleased with how he handled the Boston Police Force strike. He really did not think it would be a good idea to intervene in this situation. And when he did act, he fired all the staff and took control of the police station. That only made matters worse. Shouldn’t police services be part of the emergency services? This is a joke, right? He mishandled the Boston Police Force strike!? This makes his administration more corrupt than the Obama administration? I'll get to the others later.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 18, 2016 11:45:05 GMT -5
ibid.: Calvin Coolidge was the 30th President of the United States of America. He was very quick and reclusive as a politician. The only good thing he did, while in office, was able to restore public confidence in the White House after the scandals his predecessor was immersed in. Oh and wait, he represented the interests of the middle class and was able to interpret their longings and allow them to express their opinions.
Critics argued against Coolidge because of his laissez-faire government policies. Ronald Reagan revived many of Coolidge’s policies and always spoke about Coolidge being his inspiration. Reagan did a much better job at laissez-faire than Coolidge.
So why include Coolidge on this list? I wasn’t too pleased with how he handled the Boston Police Force strike. He really did not think it would be a good idea to intervene in this situation. And when he did act, he fired all the staff and took control of the police station. That only made matters worse. Shouldn’t police services be part of the emergency services? This is a joke, right? He mishandled the Boston Police Force strike!? This makes his administration more corrupt than the Obama administration? I'll get to the others later. i didn't mention Cooledge, either (except in terms of wealth inequality). who are you debating, Virgil? PS- in case you are wondering, those were the first three links that came up on a Google Search. i am not vouching for anything in them other than the fact that the names that i think should be there ARE, and that Obama is NOT. i didn't read ANYTHING in them other than the names. given that there are two typos in the very first entry of the first link, that one is probably not so great. so, i can't answer your question about it being a joke or not. in fact, i don't even know if any of them are historians, but i am guessing that at least one of them is.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,779
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on May 18, 2016 11:47:19 GMT -5
Sigh. Men.
Obama is not the worst President in history. Regular people don't know enough about Presidents and cause & effect to judge properly. Again, give me an example and we can do point/counterpoint. Remember that we have to look at presidencies holistically. Pres. Obama doesn't have to be the worst president in every single respect to be the worst president overall. And while I agree that there have been some spectacularly bad US Presidents, in terms of total damage caused, total liberties lost, total laws subverted-- in toto--I think there's a very reasonable case that Pres. Obama takes the cake or comes very close to it. Even so, maybe you're right. That's one of the wonderful things about debate. That's what I want here. An actual debate. Not just dismissive comments. Unfortunately I've run out of time for now, but later this evening I'll be happy to address anything you deem worthy of submission. Virgil, I am extremely sick and tired. I am not up to discussing this. But here's food for thought. Obama wanted to stop the war, but instead continued W's policies. Why?
IDK. But I think with my years of watching Presidencies, that this is showing me something about the nature of the Presidency it self. To whit, what influences are on a President and how they might change their mind once the Pentagon briefs the snot out of them and guides their actions. The Pentagon is not elected, but it is very much pro-war, because that's how its gets a budget, the higher ups stay employed with salary & bennies, etc.
I prefer to ask why something is the way it is. To assume, is silly, because often you are wrong and you lose the opportunity to find out why, in this case, X happened. Off to lunch, the Chiro for my totally out of whack back and hopefully some acidophlus to blunt the edge of the antibiotics.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,779
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on May 18, 2016 11:49:24 GMT -5
Again, give me an example and we can do point/counterpoint. Remember that we have to look at presidencies holistically. Pres. Obama doesn't have to be the worst president in every single respect to be the worst president overall. And while I agree that there have been some spectacularly bad US Presidents, in terms of total damage caused, total liberties lost, total laws subverted-- in toto--I think there's a very reasonable case that Pres. Obama takes the cake or comes very close to it. Even so, maybe you're right. That's one of the wonderful things about debate. That's what I want here. An actual debate. Not just dismissive comments. Unfortunately I've run out of time for now, but later this evening I'll be happy to address anything you deem worthy of submission. i apologize the dismissive comments, but we have had this debate DOZENS of times on this board. not exaggerating. i kinda felt like this was one too many. forgive my lack of patience.e Run away. Virgil is not ready to see why the blogger is wrong IMO.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 18, 2016 11:51:27 GMT -5
i apologize the dismissive comments, but we have had this debate DOZENS of times on this board. not exaggerating. i kinda felt like this was one too many. forgive my lack of patience.e Run away. Virgil is not ready to see why the blogger is wrong IMO. he's not alone. lots of people think that Obama is the worst president ever- but it is a judgment that lacks all perspective. as much as i loathe Bush, he is no match for Grant and Harding, imo. he was slightly below Nixon, imo. but just slightly.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,779
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on May 18, 2016 12:07:38 GMT -5
Run away. Virgil is not ready to see why the blogger is wrong IMO. he's not alone. lots of people think that Obama is the worst president ever- but it is a judgment that lacks all perspective. as much as i loathe Bush, he is no match for Grant and Harding, imo. he was slightly below Nixon, imo. but just slightly. I know. Its a popular meme/belief on the right that Obama is the worst President ever. It whips them all into frenzy.
Just like the RW belief Hillary is the lyingiest liar ever. Because the right can't see Trump objectively at all. Sigh. At least I know I have to vote to cancel her out.
|
|
Kolt!
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 31, 2016 17:45:32 GMT -5
Posts: 1,311
|
Post by Kolt! on May 18, 2016 12:14:38 GMT -5
He is so FAR from being the worst President in the United States. I can't even And, he actually has done a lot, and maybe it doesn't all turn out how he'd like but his heart certainly is in the right place. I can't even say I agree with it all but lol He's even tried to pass things that haven't been passed because he actually doesn't have 100 percent power, which he shouldn't. It makes me laugh how someone can be so against President Obama. Yes, he's done negative things, but what about? ... Thomas Jefferson: Breaking a treaty with the Cherokee nation that guaranteed the tribe lands in Georgia, effectively establishing the policy of “Indian removal.” Andrew Jackson: Ignoring the Supreme Court’s Worcester v. Georgia ruling and beginning the process of Indian removal. John Tyler: Pursuing the annexation of Texas, setting up the Mexican-American War. Millard Fillmore: Signing the Compromise of 1850, which included the infamous Fugitive Slave Act. Abraham Lincoln: Suspending habeas corpus in order to imprison Civil War protesters. Andrew Johnson: Mishandling Reconstruction, allowing most Southern states to pass “Black Codes” and opposing efforts to assist freedmen. Ulysses S. Grant: Presiding over probably the most corrupt administration in American history. Rutherford B. Hayes: Using federal troops to put down the Great Railroad Strike of 1877. Chester A. Arthur: Signing the Chinese Exclusion Act, a ban on Chinese immigration that would last 10 years. Franklin Delano Roosevelt: Ordering the internment of over 100,000 Japanese-Americans during World War II. (sad because some people would love this to happen to muslims) Harry S. Truman: Dropping two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing as many as 200,000 Japanese civilians. John F. Kennedy: Authorizing, and then botching, the Bay of Pigs Invasion of Cuba. Richard Nixon: The secret bombings of Cambodia and Laos. Treason. Watergate. This certainly isn't a list of all the President's that have done awful things. This certainly isn't a list of everything a President has done either. Obama def doesn't lose in the equality part though, that's for sure.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on May 18, 2016 12:17:51 GMT -5
If you care about the rule enough that you're going to hold a proverbial gun to your head to inspire me to follow it, would you kindly stop pulling exceptions out of thin air? If we're replying to each other's posts, we do not quote inline, under any circumstances. That was our express agreement. That's the agreement I've been careful to uphold. This isn't worth you quitting, hence you win. I'll persist in the agreement. no, that is not it at all. the whole point of the rule is to avoid the tedious seventeen point replies. i was spending (not kidding here) HOURS per day responding to them, and i don't have that time. i don't want to go back there. this would be a personal decision for me. i can't afford the time, therefore i can't post here. the other option, i suppose, WOULD be to put you on ignore. but i don't think i can do that with you as an admin.i was not replying in line TO YOUR POST. i took that from the original article. if your post and the article are identical, then i am sorry about that (i didn't even check to see, honestly), but again, i didn't do what you thought i did. You most assuredly can put any Admin on Ignore. Any poster is free to use the Block feature on any Admin they choose to use it on.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 18, 2016 13:48:16 GMT -5
no, that is not it at all. the whole point of the rule is to avoid the tedious seventeen point replies. i was spending (not kidding here) HOURS per day responding to them, and i don't have that time. i don't want to go back there. this would be a personal decision for me. i can't afford the time, therefore i can't post here. the other option, i suppose, WOULD be to put you on ignore. but i don't think i can do that with you as an admin.i was not replying in line TO YOUR POST. i took that from the original article. if your post and the article are identical, then i am sorry about that (i didn't even check to see, honestly), but again, i didn't do what you thought i did. You most assuredly can put any Admin on Ignore. Any poster is free to use the Block feature on any Admin they choose to use it on. ORLY? well, there goes any thought of me becoming an admin.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on May 18, 2016 13:50:19 GMT -5
You most assuredly can put any Admin on Ignore. Any poster is free to use the Block feature on any Admin they choose to use it on. ORLY? well, there goes any thought of me becoming an admin. LOL! There should be other, cognizant thoughts that would dispel even the inkling of such a thing! You can, however, block any of us, at any time, for any reason or no reason at all.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 18, 2016 13:51:29 GMT -5
ORLY? well, there goes any thought of me becoming an admin. LOL! There should be other, cognizant thoughts that would dispel even the inkling of such a thing! You can, however, block any of us, at any time, for any reason or no reason at all. never had cause to, before today.
|
|
kadee79
Senior Associate
S.W. Ga., zone 8b, out in the boonies!
Joined: Mar 30, 2011 15:12:55 GMT -5
Posts: 10,807
|
Post by kadee79 on May 18, 2016 17:49:09 GMT -5
One of the largest net changes in debt in American history i'll grant him this one, but FDR and Reagan were #1 and #2 on that list, and they are regarded as good presidents- so how would this qualify Obama for "worst"? I wouldn't grant him that one due to Obama putting ON the books the wars that Bush had kept OFF the books. That did raise the national debt a bit when that happened!
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on May 18, 2016 17:59:53 GMT -5
ibid.: Calvin Coolidge was the 30th President of the United States of America. He was very quick and reclusive as a politician. The only good thing he did, while in office, was able to restore public confidence in the White House after the scandals his predecessor was immersed in. Oh and wait, he represented the interests of the middle class and was able to interpret their longings and allow them to express their opinions.
Critics argued against Coolidge because of his laissez-faire government policies. Ronald Reagan revived many of Coolidge’s policies and always spoke about Coolidge being his inspiration. Reagan did a much better job at laissez-faire than Coolidge.
So why include Coolidge on this list? I wasn’t too pleased with how he handled the Boston Police Force strike. He really did not think it would be a good idea to intervene in this situation. And when he did act, he fired all the staff and took control of the police station. That only made matters worse. Shouldn’t police services be part of the emergency services? This is a joke, right? He mishandled the Boston Police Force strike!? This makes his administration more corrupt than the Obama administration? I'll get to the others later. i didn't mention Cooledge, either (except in terms of wealth inequality). who are you debating, Virgil? PS- in case you are wondering, those were the first three links that came up on a Google Search. i am not vouching for anything in them other than the fact that the names that i think should be there ARE, and that Obama is NOT. i didn't read ANYTHING in them other than the names. given that there are two typos in the very first entry of the first link, that one is probably not so great. so, i can't answer your question about it being a joke or not. in fact, i don't even know if any of them are historians, but i am guessing that at least one of them is. You really should read them. They look positively glowing in comparison to the list compiled by Mr. Washington. The only candidates that come close are Pres. Nixon and Pres. Bush, and these only on the basis of the corruption in which the president was directly implicated. Re the corruption of the underlying administration--the government as a whole--there's still no comparison here. Mr. Washington's point is that the US government is now more corrupt than it's ever been, and if these links are the best you can come up with to prove otherwise, I rest my case. I can match each point under any president with 10 scandals or abuses of greater magnitude that have occurred during the past 8 years, with the exception of Pres. Bush, in which case I can only do it 2:1.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 18, 2016 18:01:15 GMT -5
One of the largest net changes in debt in American history i'll grant him this one, but FDR and Reagan were #1 and #2 on that list, and they are regarded as good presidents- so how would this qualify Obama for "worst"? I wouldn't grant him that one due to Obama putting ON the books the wars that Bush had kept OFF the books. That did raise the national debt a bit when that happened! Bush made the disastrous decision to go through with BOTH the war AND the tax cut- with predictable results. EL.....PEOR. Obama got little cooperation to end either. could he have tried harder? sure. but we don't blame the janitor for hotboxing the john.
|
|
Kolt!
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 31, 2016 17:45:32 GMT -5
Posts: 1,311
|
Post by Kolt! on May 18, 2016 18:03:51 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 0:13:58 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2016 18:07:28 GMT -5
Um, no. Ridiculous assertion.
Is way to early to sort it out now (he's not even finished- he could still feed the world or start WW3)
In the end though he will probably be about middle of the pack. What other president spent his entire term of office at war? You say you are against wars but you give Hillary Clinton a pass on her war mongering every time it it brought up. President Obama started office with us at war and will finish office with us at war. How many brain damaged soldiers does there need to be to say that Obama's war policy has had too high a price. The federal government is putting microphones in parks in San Francisco. That is either a terrible, God awful thing to do to freedom in America or it is not. I think it is. Are you going to argue it is not? It is federal agencies under the executive branch that is doing that. Obama is responsible for that happening. You think he is middle of the pack on freedom for Americans? Your phone calls on a cell phone are monitored, such that government could tell where you were when. Every piece of mail that gets delivered to your house is photographed. President Obama might not be the worst president, but he is the president went Americans lost the most freedom or one of the top few presidents when that happened.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on May 18, 2016 18:09:41 GMT -5
Again, give me an example and we can do point/counterpoint. Remember that we have to look at presidencies holistically. Pres. Obama doesn't have to be the worst president in every single respect to be the worst president overall. And while I agree that there have been some spectacularly bad US Presidents, in terms of total damage caused, total liberties lost, total laws subverted-- in toto--I think there's a very reasonable case that Pres. Obama takes the cake or comes very close to it. Even so, maybe you're right. That's one of the wonderful things about debate. That's what I want here. An actual debate. Not just dismissive comments. Unfortunately I've run out of time for now, but later this evening I'll be happy to address anything you deem worthy of submission. Virgil, I am extremely sick and tired. I am not up to discussing this. But here's food for thought. Obama wanted to stop the war, but instead continued W's policies. Why?
IDK. But I think with my years of watching Presidencies, that this is showing me something about the nature of the Presidency it self. To whit, what influences are on a President and how they might change their mind once the Pentagon briefs the snot out of them and guides their actions. The Pentagon is not elected, but it is very much pro-war, because that's how its gets a budget, the higher ups stay employed with salary & bennies, etc.
I prefer to ask why something is the way it is. To assume, is silly, because often you are wrong and you lose the opportunity to find out why, in this case, X happened. Off to lunch, the Chiro for my totally out of whack back and hopefully some acidophlus to blunt the edge of the antibiotics. Why a presidency goes off the rails is an excellent topic of discussion, but the first step is to quantify where and how greatly a presidency has gone off the rails. Hence this thread. i apologize the dismissive comments, but we have had this debate DOZENS of times on this board. not exaggerating. i kinda felt like this was one too many. forgive my lack of patience.e Run away. Virgil is not ready to see why the blogger is wrong IMO. I'd love to hear why the blogger is wrong. But I expect criticisms of specific arguments by debaters willing to defend them. I have no interest in dismissive comments. DJ has gotten on board. Demin I think is... trying, at least. It would be great if you could too. We could use some fresh blood in one of these scrums. For example, if the material at the links most recently provided by DJ is the worst any presidential historian can come up with about Pres. Coolidge, Harding, and Grant, I guarantee you an objective comparison between those compilations and Mr. Washington's compendium of administrative abuses over the past 8 years will dispel any notion you have about the present-day administration being less corrupt than these references.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 18, 2016 18:13:06 GMT -5
i didn't mention Cooledge, either (except in terms of wealth inequality). who are you debating, Virgil? PS- in case you are wondering, those were the first three links that came up on a Google Search. i am not vouching for anything in them other than the fact that the names that i think should be there ARE, and that Obama is NOT. i didn't read ANYTHING in them other than the names. given that there are two typos in the very first entry of the first link, that one is probably not so great. so, i can't answer your question about it being a joke or not. in fact, i don't even know if any of them are historians, but i am guessing that at least one of them is. You really should read them. They look positively glowing in comparison to the list compiled by Mr. Washington. The only candidates that come close are Pres. Nixon and Pres. Bush, and these only on the basis of the corruption in which the president was directly implicated. Re the corruption of the underlying administration--the government as a whole--there's still no comparison here. Mr. Washington's point is that the US government is now more corrupt than it's ever been, and if these links are the best you can come up with to prove otherwise, I rest my case. I can match each point under any president with 10 scandals or abuses of greater magnitude that have occurred during the past 8 years, with the exception of Pres. Bush, in which case I can only do it 2:1. i read the first one. that is enough for me. the case against Grant and Harding is not that THEY were corrupt. it is that their administrations were. the case has been made against Nixon, Reagan, and Bush, as well. but i just don't see that level of corruption with Obama, and i am not alone in that respect. don't rest your case just yet. let's start with just one recent scandal, then move on to something even more serious: Iran-Contra. what can you find that compares to subverting an act of congress by selling arms to Iran (which was subject to an embargo at the time) in an attempt to fund terrorists in Central America (who were also subject to an embargo at the time under the Boland Amendment), resulting in the indictment over a dozen officials of the administration. if Obama had done anything of the kind, they would have staked him to the WH lawn and turned attack dogs on him until he was a mass of kibble. NOTE: i am not pretending for an instant that the other points against him stand. they don't. i am entertaining this one because it is far more subjective than the rest, as i mentioned earlier.
|
|
Kolt!
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 31, 2016 17:45:32 GMT -5
Posts: 1,311
|
Post by Kolt! on May 18, 2016 18:13:30 GMT -5
Um, no. Ridiculous assertion.
Is way to early to sort it out now (he's not even finished- he could still feed the world or start WW3)
In the end though he will probably be about middle of the pack. What other president spent his entire term of office at war? You say you are against wars but you give Hillary Clinton a pass on her war mongering every time it it brought up. President Obama started office with us at war and will finish office with us at war. How many brain damaged soldiers does there need to be to say that Obama's war policy has had too high a price. The federal government is putting microphones in parks in San Francisco. That is either a terrible, God awful thing to do to freedom in America or it is not. I think it is. Are you going to argue it is not? It is federal agencies under the executive branch that is doing that. Obama is responsible for that happening. You think he is middle of the pack on freedom for Americans? Your phone calls on a cell phone are monitored, such that government could tell where you were when. Every piece of mail that gets delivered to your house is photographed. President Obama might not be the worst president, but he is the president went Americans lost the most freedom or one of the top few presidents when that happened. Pretty sure Roosevelt actually has that down, considering he took over 100,000 Japanese-American's from their homes and put them into internment camps. How is that for freedom? This hasn't even been 100 years later. The 1940's. And what about all the President's that allowed African American's to be segregated? Or the President's that ordered Northern states to give back owner's slaves.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 18, 2016 18:19:34 GMT -5
What other president spent his entire term of office at war? You say you are against wars but you give Hillary Clinton a pass on her war mongering every time it it brought up. President Obama started office with us at war and will finish office with us at war. How many brain damaged soldiers does there need to be to say that Obama's war policy has had too high a price. The federal government is putting microphones in parks in San Francisco. That is either a terrible, God awful thing to do to freedom in America or it is not. I think it is. Are you going to argue it is not? It is federal agencies under the executive branch that is doing that. Obama is responsible for that happening. You think he is middle of the pack on freedom for Americans? Your phone calls on a cell phone are monitored, such that government could tell where you were when. Every piece of mail that gets delivered to your house is photographed. President Obama might not be the worst president, but he is the president went Americans lost the most freedom or one of the top few presidents when that happened. Pretty sure Roosevelt actually has that down, considering he took over 100,000 Japanese-American's from their homes and put them into internment camps. How is that for freedom? This hasn't even been 100 years later. The 1940's. And what about all the President's that allowed African American's to be segregated? Or the President's that ordered Northern states to give back owner's slaves. correct. under FDR, the debt reached something like 120% of GDP- a level not seen before or since. under FDR, we had suspension of Habeas Corpus for the first time since Lincoln. under FDR, we had packing of the courts, and over 3000 EO's. unemployment soared to something like 25%. the stock market crashed. we got entangled in a large and costly war....... and he is regarded as a top 5 president by most. so, i think our way of measuring greatness in a president is very different than by looking at these things.
|
|
Kolt!
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 31, 2016 17:45:32 GMT -5
Posts: 1,311
|
Post by Kolt! on May 18, 2016 18:23:39 GMT -5
I can't even say I agree with everything he has done, because I don't. Heck, his first term, I wasn't even rooting for him.
But to say he is the worst President in the United States History is lunacy.
Just because one doesn't agree with everything he's done doesn't mean he is the worst president in the united states history.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 0:13:58 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2016 18:35:23 GMT -5
What president was worse at war? Johnson maybe? I don't know my history well enough to go to far back. Maybe Lincoln, with the civil war. I could see an argument that he was a worse president when it came to war.
What president spied on Americans more? Bush started Homeland security and deserves a ton of hate for doing that. Obama took it and ran with it though. He has only expanded the government's spying on American citizens. I will admit this in probably in large part because he has the tools to do what he does and other presidents didn't have those tools.
Obama wanted to kill an American citizen without trial. Just drone him to death. What other president has said we should just kill American citizens without right of trial? Just kill them.
Look at how the federal government makes colleges deal with accusations of sexual assault on campus. They have colleges prosecute and give the accused no right to challenge witnesses. And it is the federal government driving those changes, the federal government under the executive branch.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 18, 2016 18:36:38 GMT -5
I can't even say I agree with everything he has done, because I don't. Heck, his first term, I wasn't even rooting for him. But to say he is the worst President in the United States History is lunacy. Just because one doesn't agree with everything he's done doesn't mean he is the worst president in the united states history. agreed. what it means is one of two things: either you are a very poor student of history, or you have a particular axe to grind. but even IF you have that particular axe (the anarcho-capitalist axe that is so popular to grind at ZeroHedge) to grind, i don't see how you place Obama below FDR, who is by all of those measures, worse than Obama by a wide margin.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 18, 2016 18:48:39 GMT -5
let's use indictments handed down against federal officials as a measure of corruption.
Obama- (1) Patraeus and his handing off secrets to his mistress Bush 43 (5) Clinton (2) Bush 41 (1) Reagan (6) Carter (0) Ford (1) Nixon (10) Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Truman, Roosevelt, Hoover (0)
that is nearly 90 years of presidents. (26) indictments, and nearly 40% happened under Nixon, 20% under Reagan and Bush 43 (each), and the remaining 20% under the other (11) presidents combined.
yet Obama is the most corrupt?
yeah.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on May 18, 2016 18:50:28 GMT -5
You really should read them. They look positively glowing in comparison to the list compiled by Mr. Washington. The only candidates that come close are Pres. Nixon and Pres. Bush, and these only on the basis of the corruption in which the president was directly implicated. Re the corruption of the underlying administration--the government as a whole--there's still no comparison here. Mr. Washington's point is that the US government is now more corrupt than it's ever been, and if these links are the best you can come up with to prove otherwise, I rest my case. I can match each point under any president with 10 scandals or abuses of greater magnitude that have occurred during the past 8 years, with the exception of Pres. Bush, in which case I can only do it 2:1. i read the first one. that is enough for me. the case against Grant and Harding is not that THEY were corrupt. it is that their administrations were. the case has been made against Nixon, Reagan, and Bush, as well. but i just don't see that level of corruption with Obama, and i am not alone in that respect. don't rest your case just yet. let's start with just one recent scandal, then move on to something even more serious: Iran-Contra. what can you find that compares to subverting an act of congress by selling arms to Iran (which was subject to an embargo at the time) in an attempt to fund terrorists in Central America (who were also subject to an embargo at the time under the Boland Amendment), resulting in the indictment over a dozen officials of the administration. if Obama had done anything of the kind, they would have staked him to the WH lawn and turned attack dogs on him until he was a mass of kibble. NOTE: i am not pretending for an instant that the other points against him stand. they don't. i am entertaining this one because it is far more subjective than the rest, as i mentioned earlier. Fair enough. What from the past 8 years compares to Iran-Contra? Let's look at some candidates. - The present administration has presided over the most extensive (and deliberate) arming of Al Qaeda militants in US history. - Lybia was attacked, destabilized, and thrown into chaos that persists to this day, based on a series of lies, entirely under the purview of the present administration. Humanitarian tolls are in the tens of thousands. Since Libya is now a staging ground and hotbed for ISIS straight across the sea from Europe, that number has the potential to rise exponentially. - The present administration has put all other administrations combined to shame in prosecuting, punishing, and demonizing whistleblowers. - It was under the present administration that the scope of extrajudicial killings was expanded to kill children as "enemy combatants", rather than simply any man aged 15-35. - The abomination that is the TPP was forged by and is presently being rammed through by the current administration. - All of what Mr. Fiore talks about here: Legitimization of the Presidential "kill list". Assassination of American citizens. Domestic drone strikes. I would put any of these up against Iran-Contra.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on May 18, 2016 18:51:59 GMT -5
let's use indictments handed down against federal officials as a measure of corruption. Obama- (1) Patraeus and his handing off secrets to his mistress Bush 43 (5) Clinton (2) Bush 41 (1) Reagan (6) Carter (0) Ford (1) Nixon (10) Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Truman, Roosevelt, Hoover (0) that is nearly 90 years of presidents. (26) indictments, and nearly 40% happened under Nixon, 20% under Reagan and Bush 43 (each), and the remaining 20% under the other (11) presidents combined. yet Obama is the most corrupt? yeah. Indictments for corruption? In 2016? Again, you must be joking.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on May 18, 2016 18:59:35 GMT -5
I can't even say I agree with everything he has done, because I don't. Heck, his first term, I wasn't even rooting for him. But to say he is the worst President in the United States History is lunacy. Just because one doesn't agree with everything he's done doesn't mean he is the worst president in the united states history. agreed. what it means is one of two things: either you are a very poor student of history, or you have a particular axe to grind. but even IF you have that particular axe (the anarcho-capitalist axe that is so popular to grind at ZeroHedge) to grind, i don't see how you place Obama below FDR, who is by all of those measures, worse than Obama by a wide margin. The entire start-to-finish cost of Pres. Roosevelt's "New Deal" was 375 billion dollars in inflation-adjusted terms. The "stimulus" program under Pres. Obama, which has produced virtually no growth and enriched Wall Street beyond imagining (again, going to the wealth inequality point) has cost the US taxpayer (depending on what you do and don't count) between 3 and 8 trillion dollars. Where Pres. Roosevelt picks up points in abusing EOs, Pres. Obama picks up points in blowing anywhere from 8-25 times as much money on the purpose of expanding wealth inequality. Again, he doesn't have to be worse than every single president in every single respect. Some former presidents beat him out in a category or two. But he's got points in every single category. Fomenting war. Overspending and incurring massive debts. Eroding civil liberties. Political excess. Shady deals. Hiding government workings from the public. Perpetuating the sins of his predecessor. Lying. Selling out America to corporate interests. Expanding domestic surveillance. You've got big points in every single column.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 18, 2016 19:05:40 GMT -5
i read the first one. that is enough for me. the case against Grant and Harding is not that THEY were corrupt. it is that their administrations were. the case has been made against Nixon, Reagan, and Bush, as well. but i just don't see that level of corruption with Obama, and i am not alone in that respect. don't rest your case just yet. let's start with just one recent scandal, then move on to something even more serious: Iran-Contra. what can you find that compares to subverting an act of congress by selling arms to Iran (which was subject to an embargo at the time) in an attempt to fund terrorists in Central America (who were also subject to an embargo at the time under the Boland Amendment), resulting in the indictment over a dozen officials of the administration. if Obama had done anything of the kind, they would have staked him to the WH lawn and turned attack dogs on him until he was a mass of kibble. NOTE: i am not pretending for an instant that the other points against him stand. they don't. i am entertaining this one because it is far more subjective than the rest, as i mentioned earlier. Fair enough. What from the past 8 years compares to Iran-Contra? Let's look at some candidates. - The present administration has presided over the most extensive (and deliberate) arming of Al Qaeda militants in US history. - Lybia was attacked, destabilized, and thrown into chaos that persists to this day, based on a series of lies, entirely under the purview of the present administration. Humanitarian tolls are in the tens of thousands. Since Libya is now a staging ground and hotbed for ISIS straight across the sea from Europe, that number has the potential to rise exponentially. - The present administration has put all other administrations combined to shame in prosecuting, punishing, and demonizing whistleblowers. - It was under the present administration that the scope of extrajudicial killings was expanded to kill children as "enemy combatants", rather than simply any man aged 15-35. - The abomination that is the TPP was forged by and is presently being rammed through by the current administration. - All of what Mr. Fiore talks about here: Legitimization of the Presidential "kill list". Assassination of American citizens. Domestic drone strikes. I would put any of these up against Iran-Contra. from your original link: And yet the U.S. has been supporting the Saudis militarily, with NSA intelligence and in every other way possible for 70 years. so again, what distinguishes Obama as being the worst? is he the worst? Bush and Clinton funded AQ. in fact, Reagan's funding of AQ is legendary, at this point. why is he not the worst president, by this standard? Libya was also bombed under Reagan, in 1986. i'll grant you the whistleblower one. shameful. the other stuff has been far worse under other administrations. far worse. however, i would include indiscriminate bombing of civilian targets in this. killing over 50k kids is on W's head. even more under Kennedy and Nixon.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 18, 2016 19:14:39 GMT -5
agreed. what it means is one of two things: either you are a very poor student of history, or you have a particular axe to grind. but even IF you have that particular axe (the anarcho-capitalist axe that is so popular to grind at ZeroHedge) to grind, i don't see how you place Obama below FDR, who is by all of those measures, worse than Obama by a wide margin. The entire start-to-finish cost of Pres. Roosevelt's "New Deal" was 375 billion dollars in inflation-adjusted terms. The "stimulus" program under Pres. Obama, which has produced virtually no growth and enriched Wall Street beyond imagining (again, going to the wealth inequality point) has cost the US taxpayer (depending on what you do and don't count) between 3 and 8 trillion dollars. Where Pres. Roosevelt picks up points in abusing EOs, Pres. Obama picks up points in blowing anywhere from 8-25 times as much money on the purpose of expanding wealth inequality. Again, he doesn't have to be worse than every single president in every single respect. Some former presidents beat him out in a category or two. But he's got points in every single category. Fomenting war. Overspending and incurring massive debts. Eroding civil liberties. Political excess. Shady deals. Hiding government workings from the public. Perpetuating the sins of his predecessor. Lying. Selling out America to corporate interests. Expanding domestic surveillance. You've got big points in every single column. expanding wealth inequality? what does that mean? the GINI index was 41.8 in 2007. it is 41.1 now. is that better? not much. is it worse? no. edit: the GINI index was 37.7 in 1986. it expanded steadily under Reagan, Bush41, Clinton and Bush 43. it has been relatively flat under Obama. edit: for the record, i wasn't talking about "The New Deal"- but keep in mind that the cost of that programme didn't end in 1949.
|
|
mroped
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 17, 2014 17:36:56 GMT -5
Posts: 3,453
|
Post by mroped on May 18, 2016 19:15:30 GMT -5
Virgil are you sure you didn't read the Onion and took it as real news?
Here is a question for the claim that US is now feared by everyone: why is it that about half of the population(assuming that republicans represent about half) claim that he didn't do enough for the image of the country, that he weakened our position in the world stage? Are we feared in the world acording to some but not feared nearly enough acording to an almost majority? That can't be! A glass is either almost full or almost empty! Can't be both at the same time!
I think this George Washinghton character eats puff cheeses in his tighty whitey in his mom's basement and reads polls conducted in the Middle East. The world is full of wannabe's!
|
|