What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Obama: Worst President Ever? (2 Viewers)

Is Obama the worst president ever?

  • Yes

    Votes: 185 33.6%

  • No

    Votes: 365 66.4%
  • Total voters
    550
Status
Not open for further replies.
Slain police officer in the line of duty in Phoenix this week.   Don't think Obama will be calling his family.  But he'll surely call the family of a criminal who was shot.  People hate you for a reason,  Obama.  But you scoff at them because you know there's nothing we can do about it. 

 
flapgreen said:
Slain police officer in the line of duty in Phoenix this week.   Don't think Obama will be calling his family.  But he'll surely call the family of a criminal who was shot.  People hate you for a reason,  Obama.  But you scoff at them because you know there's nothing we can do about it. 
Click to expand...
Police officers have been safer under Obama than any other president in history. That is fact.

 
flapgreen said:
This what you got the bombs for,  Japan.  But by all means,  express your regret over what happened,  Obama.  Good luck getting Japan to show up at Pearl Harbor to pay any respects.  Maybe try honoring American vets and mentioning to Japan leaders that they attacked us unprovoked and killed thousands of American soldiers.  Of course you wouldn't so that,  though.  Evil evil man.  No loyalty to America. 

japandialogueonpows.org/Santo Tomas liberation.htm

https://www.google.com/search?q=lee+rogers+john+c+todd&oq=Lee+Rogers+jo&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l3.7212j0j4&client=ms-android-verizon&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8#imgrc=oF_Gvp1WWN6iaM%3A
Click to expand...
Would you say this is as bad or worse as Reagan laying a wreath at the SS grave memorial at Bitburg Germany? I'm trying to understand your level of outrage here. 

 
Hard to o be the worst ever when the guy before you is worse...and there is an extremely high probability that the next one will be worse.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
He did not apologize for Hiroshima and we shouldn't.

But Nagasaki is a different issue. There is plenty of evidence that the Japanese were getting ready to surrender after Hiroshima. We didn't wait. We didn't give them enough time. 
Click to expand...
Sure like to see the "plenty of evidence".  Feel free to drop some big names in there for veracity.

 
The original plan was to continue nuking Japan after the first two were dropped, but it was Truman who stopped it.  Truman really didn't have much involvement in the decision to use both of the nukes since it was planned well before he became President.

http://www.warbirdforum.com/third.htm

 
irishidiot said:
Sure like to see the "plenty of evidence".  Feel free to drop some big names in there for veracity.
Click to expand...
Gen. Dwight Eisenhower a big enough name for you?

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/it-wasnt-necessary-to-hit-them-with-that-awful-thing-why-dropping-the-a-bombs-was-wrong/article/2534018#.V0ob83xy3X4.facebook

Gen. Dwight Eisenhower said in 1963, “the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.”

That wasn’t merely hindsight. Eisenhower made the same argument in 1945. In his memoirs, Ike recalled a visit from War Secretary Henry Stimson:

"I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face.' "

 
I find all the whinging over nuking Japan tiresome.  They attacked us unprovoked and over 100,000 Americans died fighting them.  We spent over $30 billion in today's dollars on the Manhattan Project and it wasn't going to go to waste without using them.  It also had the effect of keeping Russia out of Japan's surrender so all in all it was a good thing. 

 
cstu said:
I find all the whinging over nuking Japan tiresome.  They attacked us unprovoked and over 100,000 Americans died fighting them.  We spent over $30 billion in today's dollars on the Manhattan Project and it wasn't going to go to waste without using them.  It also had the effect of keeping Russia out of Japan's surrender so all in all it was a good thing. 
Click to expand...
We've got a bunch more nukes lying around, we probably should blow up some more cities so we won't have wasted that money.

 
Yeah, the wasting money angle is crazy talk. Never understood why the first bomb wasn't dropped in a rural area first, letting them see the scope, in hopes of avoiding the mass slaughter of innocent civilians.

 
Apple Jack said:
Yeah, the wasting money angle is crazy talk. Never understood why the first bomb wasn't dropped in a rural area first, letting them see the scope, in hopes of avoiding the mass slaughter of innocent civilians.
Click to expand...
The Japanese culture was a cult at that time - no amount of rural destruction was going to get them to surrender.  What had to be done was done, simple as that.

 
flapgreen said:
Obama in Japan for 2 days on Memorial Day weekend and is talking about Trump?   Get a clue you idiot.  Has to make everything political. Grow a pair and quit being so scared of Trump.  You've already ruined the country with your 8 years.  Still trying to cause problems and divide the country even further during g your last few months.  The Great Divider of America.  Worst President ever.  Worthless,  evil,  vile human  being. 




 
Click to expand...
:lmao:  Wow, just wow. There's out to lunch, and there's out to ####### lunch. Enjoy your Chicken Trump sandwich. 

 
cstu said:
The Japanese culture was a cult at that time - no amount of rural destruction was going to get them to surrender.  What had to be done was done, simple as that.
Click to expand...
That isn't true and not the consensus of most historians. From the NYTimes 1988:

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/10/29/opinion/l-a-bombing-of-japan-was-unnecessary-393488.html

A-Bombing of Japan Was Unnecessary

R.H. Hodges's letter (''An Inner Circle of 100 or So Carried Out A-Bombing of Japan,'' Oct. 1), which defends the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, ignores longstanding evidence and documents unearthed by historians in recent years.

Even the official strategic bombing survey concluded shortly after World War II that the atomic bombs were unnecessary: ''Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.''

United States intelligence had long predicted that when the Soviet Union entered the war (planned for early August 1945), Japan would collapse. President Truman's ''misplaced'' diaries (discovered in 1978) record his agreement with this judgment. Stalin, he wrote on July 17, 1945, confirmed that ''he'll be in the *** War on August 15th.'' The President added, ''Fini Japs when that comes about.''

United States intelligence broke the Japanese code early in the war. Truman's diary also confirms that he knew Japan was trying desperately to get out of the war by opening a negotiating channel through Moscow.

Truman's advisers told him that surrender was likely if the United States let it be known Japan could keep its Emperor, a clarification the President told several top officials he had no fundamental objections to (and which he subsequently offered).

Truman was advised not to use the atomic bombs by such figures as Adm. William D. Leahy, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower. We know from Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson's diaries and other documents that the rush to use atomic bombs quickly, rather than follow other available courses, was intimately connected with the desire to end the conflict before the Soviet Union entered it on Aug. 15, 1945, and with the hope that the bomb would help in disputed European negotiations.

But the central point was probably best put in General Eisenhower's blunt formulation: ''It wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing.'' GAR ALPEROVITZ Washington, Oct. 4, 1988 The writer is author of ''Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam.''

 
squistion said:
That isn't true and not the consensus of most historians. From the NYTimes 1988:

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/10/29/opinion/l-a-bombing-of-japan-was-unnecessary-393488.html

A-Bombing of Japan Was Unnecessary

R.H. Hodges's letter (''An Inner Circle of 100 or So Carried Out A-Bombing of Japan,'' Oct. 1), which defends the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, ignores longstanding evidence and documents unearthed by historians in recent years.

Even the official strategic bombing survey concluded shortly after World War II that the atomic bombs were unnecessary: ''Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.''

United States intelligence had long predicted that when the Soviet Union entered the war (planned for early August 1945), Japan would collapse. President Truman's ''misplaced'' diaries (discovered in 1978) record his agreement with this judgment. Stalin, he wrote on July 17, 1945, confirmed that ''he'll be in the *** War on August 15th.'' The President added, ''Fini Japs when that comes about.''

United States intelligence broke the Japanese code early in the war. Truman's diary also confirms that he knew Japan was trying desperately to get out of the war by opening a negotiating channel through Moscow.

Truman's advisers told him that surrender was likely if the United States let it be known Japan could keep its Emperor, a clarification the President told several top officials he had no fundamental objections to (and which he subsequently offered).

Truman was advised not to use the atomic bombs by such figures as Adm. William D. Leahy, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower. We know from Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson's diaries and other documents that the rush to use atomic bombs quickly, rather than follow other available courses, was intimately connected with the desire to end the conflict before the Soviet Union entered it on Aug. 15, 1945, and with the hope that the bomb would help in disputed European negotiations.

But the central point was probably best put in General Eisenhower's blunt formulation: ''It wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing.'' GAR ALPEROVITZ Washington, Oct. 4, 1988 The writer is author of ''Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam.''
Click to expand...
:mellow:

doesnt surprise me to see you dig all the way back to 1988 article to support your beliefs

 
Apple Jack said:
Maybe so, maybe not. Was still worth a shot.
Click to expand...
Easy to say now but at the time we only had two nukes and didn't know if either of them would work.  The third was was weeks away from being ready and the USSR was getting into the war so it could get a piece of the Asia pie just as it did in Europe.  As I've read more about it my mind has completely changed on the issue.  Sucks that so many people had to die in those bombings but it was nasty, brutal war and there was no perfect outcome.

 
flapgreen said:
Slain police officer in the line of duty in Phoenix this week.   Don't think Obama will be calling his family.  But he'll surely call the family of a criminal who was shot.  People hate you for a reason,  Obama.  But you scoff at them because you know there's nothing we can do about it. 
Click to expand...
Plus he's black, right? Isn't that what this is about for you? Go ahead and say it, you'll feel better. That no-good monkey-faced ####### should be shining shoes at the airport amiright?  :hifive:

 
Probably a good time to post that Obama's approval rating is 53%, or 5% higher than Ronald Reagan's at this point in his presidency.  Barry! Barry! Barry!

 
tone1oc said:
Probably a good time to post that Obama's approval rating is 53%, or 5% higher than Ronald Reagan's at this point in his presidency.  Barry! Barry! Barry!
Click to expand...
Just out of curiosity. How does Barry compare to that paragon of presidents George W. Bush?

 
squistion said:
Gen. Dwight Eisenhower a big enough name for you?

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/it-wasnt-necessary-to-hit-them-with-that-awful-thing-why-dropping-the-a-bombs-was-wrong/article/2534018#.V0ob83xy3X4.facebook

Gen. Dwight Eisenhower said in 1963, “the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.”

That wasn’t merely hindsight. Eisenhower made the same argument in 1945. In his memoirs, Ike recalled a visit from War Secretary Henry Stimson:

"I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face.' "
Click to expand...
Now you have veracity.   I have to re-think this thing.    Eisenhower is probably the best source or "ALL TIME".

I just saying thanks, because I didn't know information about that .

 
I think Eisenhower might have been right.  Thing is Japan was not giving up.   The given was that it would cost 1,000,000  dead of United States soldiers to land on Japan and go door to door, kill everyone, get killed  & then get Japan to surrender.   The 2nd Atomic cut that figure to zero.

 
tone1oc said:
The way his approval rating is going, it might be by then end of this decade.  The people love Barry!
Click to expand...
Not the ones getting hit with 25% a year increases in health insurance rates and ever increasing deductibles and out of pockets.

 
BassNBrew said:
Not the ones getting hit with 25% a year increases in health insurance rates and ever increasing deductibles and out of pockets.
Click to expand...
That might explain offer up another reason why so many Americans hated Bush in the end. Health insurance costs rose faster under GWB than Obama. From Factcheck.org site:

Under Bush, the average family premiums (including both what employers and employees pay) went up $4,677 in his last six years in office, from 2002 to 2008, an increase of 58 percent. That $4,154 growth under Obama is a 33 percent increase. If we look at Bush’s first six years, the discrepancy gets even bigger: From 2000, the year before Bush was first inaugurated, to 2006, the average family premium went up $5,042, or an increase of 78 percent.
Click to expand...

 
saintfool said:
That might explain offer up another reason why so many Americans hated Bush in the end. Health insurance costs rose faster under GWB than Obama. From Factcheck.org site:
Click to expand...
(including both what employers and employees pay)
Click to expand...
Of which the employer pays 80% and writes that off and reduces pay increases.

Take a look at the statistics on the individual market.

 
irishidiot said:
I think Eisenhower might have been right.  Thing is Japan was not giving up.   The given was that it would cost 1,000,000  dead of United States soldiers to land on Japan and go door to door, kill everyone, get killed  & then get Japan to surrender.   The 2nd Atomic cut that figure to zero.
Click to expand...
It's a very difficult question IMO. There is no "right" answer. The weapons were there; we used them. It's been 71 years and there's no going back. 

However, since we created these weapons and are the only country ever to use them, it has always been our responsibility to the world to try to limit their spread. Every US President since Truman has held the same attitude regarding this. Trump is the first major candidate ever to suggest that it is not our responsibility to limit the spread of nuclear weapons.

 
squistion said:
That isn't true and not the consensus of most historians. From the NYTimes 1988:

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/10/29/opinion/l-a-bombing-of-japan-was-unnecessary-393488.html

A-Bombing of Japan Was Unnecessary

R.H. Hodges's letter (''An Inner Circle of 100 or So Carried Out A-Bombing of Japan,'' Oct. 1), which defends the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, ignores longstanding evidence and documents unearthed by historians in recent years.

Even the official strategic bombing survey concluded shortly after World War II that the atomic bombs were unnecessary: ''Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.''

United States intelligence had long predicted that when the Soviet Union entered the war (planned for early August 1945), Japan would collapse. President Truman's ''misplaced'' diaries (discovered in 1978) record his agreement with this judgment. Stalin, he wrote on July 17, 1945, confirmed that ''he'll be in the *** War on August 15th.'' The President added, ''Fini Japs when that comes about.''

United States intelligence broke the Japanese code early in the war. Truman's diary also confirms that he knew Japan was trying desperately to get out of the war by opening a negotiating channel through Moscow.

Truman's advisers told him that surrender was likely if the United States let it be known Japan could keep its Emperor, a clarification the President told several top officials he had no fundamental objections to (and which he subsequently offered).

Truman was advised not to use the atomic bombs by such figures as Adm. William D. Leahy, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower. We know from Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson's diaries and other documents that the rush to use atomic bombs quickly, rather than follow other available courses, was intimately connected with the desire to end the conflict before the Soviet Union entered it on Aug. 15, 1945, and with the hope that the bomb would help in disputed European negotiations.

But the central point was probably best put in General Eisenhower's blunt formulation: ''It wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing.'' GAR ALPEROVITZ Washington, Oct. 4, 1988 The writer is author of ''Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam.''
Click to expand...
Google and post all of the articles you want.  So easy to look up stuff and make claims on something that happened on a time you know nothing about.  You're from same group who criticizes military actions in every generation.  Typical lib stuff.   Just sit back and enjoy your freedom. 

You guys are really disillusioned.  The war was not over.  Japan was given time and did not surrender.  They dropped the 2nd bomb and they surrendered immediately.  It's as simple as that.  Use all of the articles you want.   We have some armchair 5 Star Generals in here. 

 
timschochet said:
It's a very difficult question IMO. There is no "right" answer. The weapons were there; we used them. It's been 71 years and there's no going back. 

However, since we created these weapons and are the only country ever to use them, it has always been our responsibility to the world to try to limit their spread. Every US President since Truman has held the same attitude regarding this. Trump is the first major candidate ever to suggest that it is not our responsibility to limit the spread of nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...
Trump would be right if he actually believes this.

 
cstu said:
The original plan was to continue nuking Japan after the first two were dropped, but it was Truman who stopped it.  Truman really didn't have much involvement in the decision to use both of the nukes since it was planned well before he became President.

http://www.warbirdforum.com/third.htm
Click to expand...
Wasn't aware of the first part.  There weren't going to be any ready after the second bomb for quite some time.   If they hadn't surrendered after the second,  I'm not sure what would've happened.  I guess keep dropping them but hard to say.   You're correct on the Truman part.  The plan was put into place long before he came into office,  but I think they were initially meant for Germany. 

 
McGarnicle said:
That level of hatred toward Obama has got to be racism right? I can understand some arguments that he's not a great president, but words like vile, evil, divider are just weird.
Click to expand...
Just quit with the racism stuff.  No one cares what color Obama is.  It's just his race.  Should have no effect on his ability to be President. 

 
flapgreen said:
Google and post all of the articles you want.  So easy to look up stuff and make claims on something that happened on a time you know nothing about.  You're from same group who criticizes military actions in every generation.  Typical lib stuff.   Just sit back and enjoy your freedom. 

You guys are really disillusioned.  The war was not over.  Japan was given time and did not surrender.  They dropped the 2nd bomb and they surrendered immediately.  It's as simple as that.  Use all of the articles you want.   We have some armchair 5 Star Generals in here. 
Click to expand...
:lmao:

And at least one real 5 star General on the record.

 
flapgreen said:
Just quit with the racism stuff.  No one cares what color Obama is.  It's just his race.  Should have no effect on his ability to be President. 
Click to expand...
The visceral hatred you spew in here screams of something other than his presidentin' skills.

I'd bet money you're a frequent Limbaugh listener? The divider stuff sounds familiar from the Clinton years. 

 
McGarnicle said:
The visceral hatred you spew in here screams of something other than his presidentin' skills.

I'd bet money you're a frequent Limbaugh listener? The divider stuff sounds familiar from the Clinton years. 
Click to expand...
More like he is posting about Obama's lack of presidential skills, but feel free to call him racist for that opinion.  Got any links to his racism?  Obama is more racist than the people you call out.

pathetic

 
Worst ever? Not sure I can make that claim, but he's pretty bad. I'll be interested to see how he behaves once he's out of office. Former presidents tend to bond over their common experience... its a pretty small club. Not sure how he'll be received after 8 years of bashing a former POTUS. 

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Senor Schmutzig
What kind of lawyer do I need?
Replies
15
Views
812
fatness
fatness
Joe Bryant
  • Poll Poll
Clickbaity vs Boring Subject Lines - What do you think?
Replies
32
Views
680
Phil Elliott
Phil Elliott
Ministry of Pain
For those starting a Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program with family or friends
Replies
11
Views
495
Hoh
H

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top