Worst President Ever?

Schweddy · Nov 6, 2009

Dav said:
I'm curious. Is this the standard Texan view taught to schoolchildren over there, or do you just enjoy being a rebel by claiming that the president which historians almost unanimously pick as the best president ever is actually the worst president ever?

I'm equally curious, do you believe he actually did anything beyond making a short speech on the ass end of a railroad car?

Many historians are scared to say anything because of the sensitive nature of slavery. They also love to re-write history especially when it gives a version for an overall good. Finally, remember that the victor actually writes history. The truth is always somewhere in the middle.

Dav · Nov 6, 2009

Ethereal said:
My, what a thoughtful response...

I was being serious; I really was curious. Unfortunately he did not answer my question.

vauge said:
I'm equally curious, do you believe he actually did anything beyond making a short speech on the ass end of a railroad car?.

(Ignoring the whole freed-the-slaves thing, since he initially did not care about that) If the South handn't been brought back into the Union it would be a complete craphole today. Southerners should be glad for Lincoln, and I thought that they were, but now I wonder. So please answer my question: is your view common in Texas?

Many historians are scared to say anything because of the sensitive nature of slavery. They also love to re-write history especially when it gives a version for an overall good. Finally, remember that the victor actually writes history. The truth is always somewhere in the middle.

But if your view is correct, you'd think at least a few historians would see that, or at least hold a view close to it. Instead, historians almost unanimously rate Lincoln as the best president ever. I'm not sure there's a single historian who claims that he's the worst, and if there is, they're the fringe of the fringe.

Schweddy · Nov 6, 2009

Dav said:
(Ignoring the whole freed-the-slaves thing, since he initially did not care about that) If the South handn't been brought back into the Union it would be a complete craphole today. Southerners should be glad for Lincoln, and I thought that they were, but now I wonder. So please answer my question: is your view common in Texas?

Irrelevant. My opinion is my own. Don't know or care what other Texans think. I know the majority history has been re-written.

But if your view is correct, you'd think at least a few historians would see that, or at least hold a view close to it. Instead, historians almost unanimously rate Lincoln as the best president ever. I'm not sure there's a single historian who claims that he's the worst, and if there is, they're the fringe of the fringe.

What qualifies as "historian"?

Do a 30 second Google search. You will be surprised to know my position is not as unique as you think.

You do realize that Lincoln suppressed free speech, squashed habeas corpus, and use the government forces to kill American citizens - right? All big no-no's to the constitution.

Those small mundane "facts" are always glossed over. :roll:

disneydude · Nov 6, 2009

One of the funniest clips ever....about one of the worst presidents ever:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaCr3-cjfTQ"]YouTube- george bush doesn't give a ****[/ame]

earthworm · Nov 6, 2009

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Woodrow Wilson.

Passed the 16th, 17th, and 19th Amendments.

DRAGGED the US into WWI - thereby setting the stage for WWII.

Created the Federal Reserve, which caused the Great Depression.

Enacted unconstitutional anti-sediction laws criminalizing freedom of expression (see "Eugene Debbs")

League of Nations failure.

Others I'm too lazy to list.

Since everything here is either partially or completely false; I'd say the Mr Woodrow (he kept us out of war) Wilson was quite the President...

Schweddy · Nov 6, 2009

Um...no. You are right that most of what Scarecrow Akhbar said was false, but you are also false by thinking Wilson kept us out of war.

He single handedly put us in war in 1917 after claiming we were going to remain neutral for three years. Then he created the League of Nations (precursor to United Nations).

He also passed the "Sedition Act of 1918" which shat on our freedom of speech against the US government during a time of war.

Bush is considered one of the worse as well.

Anyone see a trend?

EpicDude86 · Nov 6, 2009

vauge said:
Um...no. You are right that most of what Scarecrow Akhbar said was false, but you are also false by thinking Wilson kept us out of war.

He single handedly put us in war in 1917 after claiming we were going to remain neutral for three years. Then he created the League of Nations (precursor to United Nations).

He also passed the "Sedition Act of 1918" which shat on our freedom of speech against the US government during a time of war.

Bush is considered one of the worse as well.

Anyone see a trend?

Well since you said it: would you please, using facts, dates, links, etc. please tell us why Bush is one of the worst Presidents. And then, if someone wants to, post all the good things he's done and we'll compare. I don't know what kind of ****storm this will bring but it should prove fun either way.

EpicDude86 · Nov 6, 2009

Dav said:
Wow, three posts defending the Confederacy in a row. That must be a new DP record.

I suppose the 1979 Iranian takeover of the American embassy was justified because the embassy was "in their own territory"?

Just because it is within the country's borders doesn't mean it belongs to the country. Otherwise, the Vatican and Monaco would not be independent states.

Or...Djibouti is it? There's a country in Africa like that.

phattonez · Nov 6, 2009

EpicDude86 said:
Well since you said it: would you please, using facts, dates, links, etc. please tell us why Bush is one of the worst Presidents. And then, if someone wants to, post all the good things he's done and we'll compare. I don't know what kind of ****storm this will bring but it should prove fun either way.

Bush doesn't even compare to Lincoln, FDR, Wilson, Hoover, and LBJ, but the way he increased debt while calling himself a conservative was just shameful.

And I know I'm going to be asked about this, but the problem with each of these presidents is:

Lincoln - draft, martial law, destruction of states' rights.
FDR - New Deal
Wilson - Leading us unnecessarily to WWI
Hoover - Intervening in the economy and exacerbating the Depression
LBJ - Vietnam, Great Society

EpicDude86 · Nov 6, 2009

phattonez said:
Bush doesn't even compare to Lincoln, FDR, Wilson, Hoover, and LBJ, but the way he increased debt while calling himself a conservative was just shameful.

While I agree about the debt thing, lying isn't the worst thing a President can do, regardless of political affiliation or lack thereof.

phattonez · Nov 6, 2009

EpicDude86 said:
While I agree about the debt thing, lying isn't the worst thing a President can do, regardless of political affiliation or lack thereof.

No, but the terrible economic policies make him more bad than good (not talking about his intentions here).

Lightdemon · Nov 6, 2009

Dav said:
But if your view is correct, you'd think at least a few historians would see that, or at least hold a view close to it. Instead, historians almost unanimously rate Lincoln as the best president ever. I'm not sure there's a single historian who claims that he's the worst, and if there is, they're the fringe of the fringe.

Howard Zen, "A People's History of the United States," read it sometime. You'll find that Zen is no "Texan" either, he's actually very much to the left of things.

EpicDude86 · Nov 6, 2009

phattonez said:
No, but the terrible economic policies make him more bad than good (not talking about his intentions here).

I was thinking...

Can we really just blame the President though? while the President does have power, we should really look at entire administrations and the Congress as well. Bush lost 50% blame for the war 60 days after we went in. Why? Because Congress declared war. Not to mention Congress usually gets away with more, if I can find my post in another thread, there's a list of Senators and Representatives that commit crimes and break the laws and get away with it, yet no one really seems to care about that.

phattonez · Nov 6, 2009

EpicDude86 said:
I was thinking...

Can we really just blame the President though? while the President does have power, we should really look at entire administrations and the Congress as well. Bush lost 50% blame for the war 60 days after we went in. Why? Because Congress declared war. Not to mention Congress usually gets away with more, if I can find my post in another thread, there's a list of Senators and Representatives that commit crimes and break the laws and get away with it, yet no one really seems to care about that.

Bush was in control until 2006 as much as Obama is in control now. If you're the president and your party is in control of the legislative branch, then you effectively control 2 branches of government.

Scarecrow Akhbar · Nov 6, 2009

Kandahar said:
Bubbles happen all the time, but they don't typically cause depressions.

The Fed created the Great Bubble, the Fed burst the Great Bubble.

Spongebob and Squidward rolled into one.

Kandahar said:

Besides, the Fed was MORE constrained during the 1920s than it is now due to the Gold Standard. If this theory was correct, we should be seeing depressions MORE often now.

Click to expand...

You must have deliberately chose to ignore that I've already told you that the word "depression" is archaic for what we call "recession".

Kandahar said:

And how did you arrive at the conclusion that a pinched off monetary supply is an argument against the existence of the Fed, instead of an argument for the Fed to do even more? How would the economy have been better off if there WAS no Fed to loan money?

Click to expand...

Damn, you're wilfully ignorant.

Try reading my posts, I see no need to repost them.

Kandahar said:

So the Fed caused the Great Depression by not lending money.

Click to expand...

You're only stating half the story.

Get with the program, stop repeating your propaganda.

Kandahar said:

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2: He [the President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Click to expand...

Wow. I didn't realize you actually knew how to find the Constitution.

Now, find the line in Article I, Section 8 that authorizes the Congress to abandon one of it's Constitutionally assigned duties.

Kandahar said:

We've ALWAYS had a lot of ****in recessions throughout American history.

Click to expand...

No. Until the socialists took over in 1932, they were depressions.

Kandahar said:

The Fed CAN'T cause stagflation.

Click to expand...

It's part of the problem.

The Federal Reserve kept the interest rates low and drove the inflationary portion of it. That Idiot Carter did the rest of the damage by being an idiot and keeping business over-regulated.

Click to expand...

Scarecrow Akhbar · Nov 6, 2009

phattonez said:
Bush was in control until 2006 as much as Obama is in control now. If you're the president and your party is in control of the legislative branch, then you effectively control 2 branches of government.

The Messiah can pass ANY legislation he wants passed with only one single stupid snowe white rino vote.

The Republicans under Bush could do nothing without significant support from the Democrats in the Senate.

So, no, Bush was not "in control".

The Messiah has a nearly filibuster proof Senate and huge majority in the House. He has more control than any president in the last half century.

Scarecrow Akhbar · Nov 6, 2009

vauge said:
Um...no. You are right that most of what Scarecrow Akhbar said was false,

Yeah, I noticed that. But not one person has called on it and pointed out that the 16th and 17th Amendments pre-dated his assumption of office.

Makes ya kind of wonder how strong their confidence in their knowledge is.

Anyhooo...while Wilson is clearly and by far still the worst president ever, he's not to blame for the IRS or the destruction of the Senate.

EpicDude86 · Nov 6, 2009

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
The Messiah can pass ANY legislation he wants passed with only one single stupid snowe white rino vote.

The Republicans under Bush could do nothing without significant support from the Democrats in the Senate.

So, no, Bush was not "in control".

The Messiah has a nearly filibuster proof Senate and huge majority in the House. He has more control than any president in the last half century.

The Republicants had less votes (ie not filibuster proof, etc) and have, thus far, gotten more of their legislation passed. or at least I'm sure they did...

phattonez · Nov 6, 2009

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
The Messiah can pass ANY legislation he wants passed with only one single stupid snowe white rino vote.

The Republicans under Bush could do nothing without significant support from the Democrats in the Senate.

So, no, Bush was not "in control".

The Messiah has a nearly filibuster proof Senate and huge majority in the House. He has more control than any president in the last half century.

Yeah, I guess you're right, but he did have more power than a president with the opposing party in congress.

Fiddytree · Nov 6, 2009

vauge said:
Um...no. You are right that most of what Scarecrow Akhbar said was false, but you are also false by thinking Wilson kept us out of war.

He single handedly put us in war in 1917 after claiming we were going to remain neutral for three years. Then he created the League of Nations (precursor to United Nations).

He also passed the "Sedition Act of 1918" which shat on our freedom of speech against the US government during a time of war.

Bush is considered one of the worse as well.

Anyone see a trend?

That some conservatives go against the trend of thought that states becoming involved in World War I and World War II was good and necessary, and that sacrificing freedom for security was not a moral virtue during times of foreseen danger?

phattonez · Nov 6, 2009

Fiddytree said:
That some conservatives go against the trend of thought that states becoming involved in World War I and World War II was good and necessary, and that sacrificing freedom for security was not a moral virtue during times of foreseen danger?

It's a pain to read through what you're saying and trying to understand your message.

Look, World War II was completely different from World War I. We had no reason to show bias during WWI ain who we supported and it should have come as no surprise that the Germans eventually got annoyed with us. With WWII, we were just flat out attacked. Entry into WWI could have been prevented, but we were eventually dragged into WWII.

Lightdemon · Nov 6, 2009

phattonez said:
It's a pain to read through what you're saying and trying to understand your message.

Look, World War II was completely different from World War I. We had no reason to show bias during WWI ain who we supported and it should have come as no surprise that the Germans eventually got annoyed with us. With WWII, we were just flat out attacked. Entry into WWI could have been prevented, but we were eventually dragged into WWII.

Flat out attacked? What do you think Lend Lease and Cash-Carry was about? You didn't think this annoyed the Germans?

phattonez · Nov 6, 2009

Lightdemon said:
Flat out attacked? What do you think Lend Lease and Cash-Carry was about? You didn't think this annoyed the Germans?

The other difference in WWII worth mentioning was that there was a clear aggressor.

EpicDude86 · Nov 6, 2009

Lightdemon said:
Flat out attacked? What do you think Lend Lease and Cash-Carry was about? You didn't think this annoyed the Germans?

Yeah, WWI we just had some financial stakes in (Did the Brits ever pay us back btw?) In WWII ze Germanz started blowin' our **** up.

Kandahar · Nov 6, 2009

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
quote=Kandahar;1058348203]Bubbles happen all the time, but they don't typically cause depressions. [quote

OMG learn how to ****ing quote. That's like 3 times in a row now.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
The Fed created the Great Bubble, the Fed burst the Great Bubble.

Spongebob and Squidward rolled into one.

But bubbles don't typically cause depressions.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
You must have deliberately chose to ignore that I've already told you that the word "depression" is archaic for what we call "recession".

Are you really going to claim that the economy is no more stable now than it was prior to the creation of the Fed? I'm using the commonly used definitions. As I'm using the terms, a recession is two or more consecutive quarters of negative growth. A depression is four or more consecutive quarters of negative growth, with an overall decline of >10% from peak to trough.

We've had one depression since the establishment of the Fed. We were having one every 10-15 years prior to that.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Damn, you're wilfully ignorant.

Try reading my posts, I see no need to repost them.

You're only stating half the story.

Get with the program, stop repeating your propaganda.

I see you've backed yourself into a corner, so you're flailing wildly with the ad hominem attacks, giving up even the PRETENSE that you have something logical to say.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Wow. I didn't realize you actually knew how to find the Constitution.

Now, find the line in Article I, Section 8 that authorizes the Congress to abandon one of it's Constitutionally assigned duties.

I just showed you where they have the ability to consent to the appointment of officials whose role is established under the law. This would include the Fed chairman.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
No. Until the socialists took over in 1932, they were depressions.

The fact that you view it as a BAD thing that we only have minor recessions now, instead of depressions, is quite telling.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
It's part of the problem.

The Federal Reserve kept the interest rates low and drove the inflationary portion of it. That Idiot Carter did the rest of the damage by being an idiot and keeping business over-regulated.

Then it doesn't make sense to blame the Fed. They were keeping interest rates low to stimulate the economy, which had a high unemployment at the time. They don't have any control over how much or how little business is regulated.

Worst President Ever?

Worst Presidents or Worstest?

Millard Fillmore

Franklin Pierce

Benjamin Harrison

Jimmy Carter

James Buchanan

Ronald Reagan

Other (Describe in your post why)

Benevolent Dictator

Benevolent Dictator

Benevolent Dictator

Catholic

Catholic

The Image b4 Transition

Catholic

Catholic

Neocon Elitist

Catholic

The Image b4 Transition

Catholic

Enemy Combatant