Worst US President of the last 50 years (1 Viewer)

[tommyGunZ]

LOL at Tea Party righties poking fun at Tim for being a left winger. Here's a hint - it's not tim who has moved far away from the center, it's you and your party.

 

[jon_mx]

LOL at Tea Party righties poking fun at Tim for being a left winger. Here's a hint - it's not tim who has moved far away from the center, it's you and your party.

 

[timschochet]

LOL at Tea Party righties poking fun at Tim for being a left winger. Here's a hint - it's not tim who has moved far away from the center, it's you and your party.

Unfortunately he's right.

 

[MaxThreshold]

LOL at Tea Party righties poking fun at Tim for being a left winger. Here's a hint - it's not tim who has moved far away from the center, it's you and your party.

Says the far-left zealot.

 

[tommyGunZ]

LOL at Tea Party righties poking fun at Tim for being a left winger. Here's a hint - it's not tim who has moved far away from the center, it's you and your party.

Says the far-left zealot.

The fact that you consider someone like me a "far left zealot" shows how far on the fringe right you are.

 

[Insein]

LOL at Tea Party righties poking fun at Tim for being a left winger. Here's a hint - it's not tim who has moved far away from the center, it's you and your party.

Unfortunately he's right.

This is why.

 

[MaxThreshold]

LOL at Tea Party righties poking fun at Tim for being a left winger. Here's a hint - it's not tim who has moved far away from the center, it's you and your party.

Says the far-left zealot.

The fact that you consider someone like me a "far left zealot" shows how far on the fringe right you are.

The fact that you don't realize you are so far left shows how out of touch with reality you are.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

LOL at Tea Party righties poking fun at Tim for being a left winger. Here's a hint - it's not tim who has moved far away from the center, it's you and your party.

Says the far-left zealot.

The fact that you consider someone like me a "far left zealot" shows how far on the fringe right you are.

Gunz I would love to hear out of curiosity what you think is your most moderate, center or even anywhere-right-of-"left" leaning opinion on any political opinion or issue under the sun.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

LOL at Tea Party righties poking fun at Tim for being a left winger. Here's a hint - it's not tim who has moved far away from the center, it's you and your party.

Ideology is a circle, not a straight line. If you keep moving right eventually you end up on the left and vice-versa. See Robespierre.

 

[jon_mx]

LOL at Tea Party righties poking fun at Tim for being a left winger. Here's a hint - it's not tim who has moved far away from the center, it's you and your party.

Says the far-left zealot.

The fact that you consider someone like me a "far left zealot" shows how far on the fringe right you are.

this thread is gold. I am not sure how anyone could be more left-wing than you or Tim.

 

[timschochet]

LOL at Tea Party righties poking fun at Tim for being a left winger. Here's a hint - it's not tim who has moved far away from the center, it's you and your party.

Says the far-left zealot.

The fact that you consider someone like me a "far left zealot" shows how far on the fringe right you are.

this thread is gold. I am not sure how anyone could be more left-wing than you or Tim.

LOLPower to the people!

Workers of the world unite!

 

[RCon]

You don't favor a powerful, overspending central government in theory, but on every issue, you favor the powerful, overspending, central government "solution".

No. I was opposed to Obamacare for this very reason.

Aren't you an advocate for single payer?

No. I just think it's inevitable, and will probably in the end be more efficient than Obamacare. But do I like it? Not at all.

So you're saying you don't advocate single payer, but you think it's the best solution? I have news for you: that's favoring the powerful, overspending central government solution.I should note that in this case, I probably agree with you. Single payer, at least for some conditions, is both inevitable and the best solution.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Hey KooKs!! Leave that Tim alone!

 

[timschochet]

You don't favor a powerful, overspending central government in theory, but on every issue, you favor the powerful, overspending, central government "solution".

No. I was opposed to Obamacare for this very reason.

Aren't you an advocate for single payer?

No. I just think it's inevitable, and will probably in the end be more efficient than Obamacare. But do I like it? Not at all.

So you're saying you don't advocate single payer, but you think it's the best solution? I have news for you: that's favoring the powerful, overspending central government solution.I should note that in this case, I probably agree with you. Single payer, at least for some conditions, is both inevitable and the best solution.

My philosophy about government, formed back when I was a libertarian, remains unchanged: I believe that in most cases the private sector is far more efficient, and if left to its own devices, will produce prosperity and liberty. I believe capitalism is not just the best economic system, but is also a moral good. These principles, which I got from reading Ayn Rand and a few others, are ingrained in my thinking. But I've also come to believe they can't always be applied to every current situation, and to attempt to do so often makes things worse. The analogy I would offer is in football you can believe that the way to success is a power running game, but when it's 3rd and long you have to throw the ball. Our healthcare situation is 3rd and long.

 

[cstu]

My philosophy about government, formed back when I was a libertarian, remains unchanged: I believe that in most cases the private sector is far more efficient, and if left to its own devices, will produce prosperity and liberty. I believe capitalism is not just the best economic system, but is also a moral good. These principles, which I got from reading Ayn Rand and a few others, are ingrained in my thinking.But I've also come to believe they can't always be applied to every current situation, and to attempt to do so often makes things worse. The analogy I would offer is in football you can believe that the way to success is a power running game, but when it's 3rd and long you have to throw the ball. Our healthcare situation is 3rd and long.

 

[cstu]

I spoke with a surgeon last night whose clinic is in a lower income neighborhood (Inglewood) and he said that he's already detected and treated cancers in people who would never have seen a doctor. He said his Obamacare reinbursements are lower (still higher than Medicare though) but he's able to make it up on higher volume.

 

[Rush Limbaugh Fan]

You don't favor a powerful, overspending central government in theory, but on every issue, you favor the powerful, overspending, central government "solution".

No. I was opposed to Obamacare for this very reason.

Aren't you an advocate for single payer?

No. I just think it's inevitable, and will probably in the end be more efficient than Obamacare. But do I like it? Not at all.

So you're saying you don't advocate single payer, but you think it's the best solution? I have news for you: that's favoring the powerful, overspending central government solution.I should note that in this case, I probably agree with you. Single payer, at least for some conditions, is both inevitable and the best solution.

My philosophy about government, formed back when I was a libertarian, remains unchanged: I believe that in most cases the private sector is far more efficient, and if left to its own devices, will produce prosperity and liberty. I believe capitalism is not just the best economic system, but is also a moral good. These principles, which I got from reading Ayn Rand and a few others, are ingrained in my thinking.But I've also come to believe they can't always be applied to every current situation, and to attempt to do so often makes things worse. The analogy I would offer is in football you can believe that the way to success is a power running game, but when it's 3rd and long you have to throw the ball. Our healthcare situation is 3rd and long.

Ayn Rand, lol.

 

[Politician Spock]

You don't favor a powerful, overspending central government in theory, but on every issue, you favor the powerful, overspending, central government "solution".

No. I was opposed to Obamacare for this very reason.

Aren't you an advocate for single payer?

No. I just think it's inevitable, and will probably in the end be more efficient than Obamacare. But do I like it? Not at all.

So you're saying you don't advocate single payer, but you think it's the best solution? I have news for you: that's favoring the powerful, overspending central government solution.I should note that in this case, I probably agree with you. Single payer, at least for some conditions, is both inevitable and the best solution.

My philosophy about government, formed back when I was a libertarian, remains unchanged: I believe that in most cases the private sector is far more efficient, and if left to its own devices, will produce prosperity and liberty. I believe capitalism is not just the best economic system, but is also a moral good. These principles, which I got from reading Ayn Rand and a few others, are ingrained in my thinking.But I've also come to believe they can't always be applied to every current situation, and to attempt to do so often makes things worse. The analogy I would offer is in football you can believe that the way to success is a power running game, but when it's 3rd and long you have to throw the ball. Our healthcare situation is 3rd and long.

The right offensive play depends on what the defense does. Once again you're assuming you now the right thing to do in a situation where the right thing to do depends.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

You don't favor a powerful, overspending central government in theory, but on every issue, you favor the powerful, overspending, central government "solution".

No. I was opposed to Obamacare for this very reason.

Aren't you an advocate for single payer?

No. I just think it's inevitable, and will probably in the end be more efficient than Obamacare. But do I like it? Not at all.

So you're saying you don't advocate single payer, but you think it's the best solution? I have news for you: that's favoring the powerful, overspending central government solution.I should note that in this case, I probably agree with you. Single payer, at least for some conditions, is both inevitable and the best solution.

My philosophy about government, formed back when I was a libertarian, remains unchanged: I believe that in most cases the private sector is far more efficient, and if left to its own devices, will produce prosperity and liberty. I believe capitalism is not just the best economic system, but is also a moral good. These principles, which I got from reading Ayn Rand and a few others, are ingrained in my thinking.But I've also come to believe they can't always be applied to every current situation, and to attempt to do so often makes things worse. The analogy I would offer is in football you can believe that the way to success is a power running game, but when it's 3rd and long you have to throw the ball. Our healthcare situation is 3rd and long.

The right offensive play depends on what the defense does. Once again you're assuming you now the right thing to do in a situation where the right thing to do depends.

Sure! But we ran the draw (ObamaCare) so if that doesn't work we will left needing to punt.

 

[Politician Spock]

You don't favor a powerful, overspending central government in theory, but on every issue, you favor the powerful, overspending, central government "solution".

No. I was opposed to Obamacare for this very reason.

Aren't you an advocate for single payer?

No. I just think it's inevitable, and will probably in the end be more efficient than Obamacare. But do I like it? Not at all.

So you're saying you don't advocate single payer, but you think it's the best solution? I have news for you: that's favoring the powerful, overspending central government solution.I should note that in this case, I probably agree with you. Single payer, at least for some conditions, is both inevitable and the best solution.

My philosophy about government, formed back when I was a libertarian, remains unchanged: I believe that in most cases the private sector is far more efficient, and if left to its own devices, will produce prosperity and liberty. I believe capitalism is not just the best economic system, but is also a moral good. These principles, which I got from reading Ayn Rand and a few others, are ingrained in my thinking.But I've also come to believe they can't always be applied to every current situation, and to attempt to do so often makes things worse. The analogy I would offer is in football you can believe that the way to success is a power running game, but when it's 3rd and long you have to throw the ball. Our healthcare situation is 3rd and long.

The right offensive play depends on what the defense does. Once again you're assuming you now the right thing to do in a situation where the right thing to do depends.

Sure! But we ran the draw (ObamaCare) so if that doesn't work we will left needing to punt.

Looks more like a modified flea flicker to me.

 

[mr. furley]

LOL at Tea Party righties poking fun at Tim for being a left winger. Here's a hint - it's not tim who has moved far away from the center, it's you and your party.

Says the far-left zealot.

The fact that you consider someone like me a "far left zealot" shows how far on the fringe right you are.

this thread is gold. I am not sure how anyone could be more left-wing than you or Tim.

hi> maybe we haven't met

 

[caglassc]

With hindsight this poll should be easy - the answer is Johnson. He is responsible for the modern welfare state - the are on poverty is a sham. None of his ideas worked. Our nation is worse off - the more money we spend on welfare the worse the problem becomes - the more the federal government gets involved in education the worse our schools become, etc. Rinse recycle and repeat. We should create a system based on the Seinfeld episode were George does the exact opposite of what he thinks he should say or do.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

With hindsight this poll should be easy - the answer is Johnson. He is responsible for the modern welfare state - the are on poverty is a sham. None of his ideas worked. Our nation is worse off - the more money we spend on welfare the worse the problem becomes - the more the federal government gets involved in education the worse our schools become, etc. Rinse recycle and repeat. We should create a system based on the Seinfeld episode were George does the exact opposite of what he thinks he should say or do.

And I still say throw in the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and all the lies behind that leading to 58,000+ combat deaths, 303,000+ wounded (the run-up to Iraq has nothing on any of that), a divided and transformed society, beginning of inflationary policies, and the fact that he was so bad he essentially resigned as a sitting president who decided to not run for reelection.

Prior to the U.S. air strikes, top officials in Washington had reason to doubt that any Aug. 4 attack by North Vietnam had occurred. Cables from the U.S. task force commander in the Tonkin Gulf, Captain John J. Herrick, referred to "freak weather effects," "almost total darkness" and an "overeager sonarman" who "was hearing ship's own propeller beat."

One of the Navy pilots flying overhead that night was squadron commander James Stockdale, who gained fame later as a POW and then Ross Perot's vice presidential candidate. "I had the best seat in the house to watch that event," recalled Stockdale a few years ago, "and our destroyers were just shooting at phantom targets — there were no PT boats there.... There was nothing there but black water and American fire power."

In 1965, Lyndon Johnson commented: "For all I know, our Navy was shooting at whales out there."

http://fair.org/media-beat-column/30-year-anniversary-tonkin-gulf-lie-launched-vietnam-war/

64 CRA is a big boost but IMO it only puts him above Nixon and Carter.

 

[cstu]

With hindsight this poll should be easy - the answer is Johnson. He is responsible for the modern welfare state - the war on poverty is a sham. None of his ideas worked. Our nation is worse off - the more money we spend on welfare the worse the problem becomes - the more the federal government gets involved in education the worse our schools become, etc. Rinse recycle and repeat. We should create a system based on the Seinfeld episode were George does the exact opposite of what he thinks he should say or do.

Think again.

 

[timschochet]

Not Johnson. He got the Civil Rights Act passed, which Kennedy could not do. Johnson had to twist a lot of arms, and he changed the nature of American politics, as the South turned away from the Democratic party and African-Americans became Dems for life.

But it was a major major accomplishment, and it was great. Johnson has many flaws, but this one achievement puts him far beyond the realm of worst ever consideration. Plus, LBJ is arguably the most effective President since Roosevelt when it came to dealing with Congress.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Does it not seem like the whole middle east is exploding under Obama's watch?:

• Syria
• Iraq
• Gaza
• Deadline for Iran nuke negotiations coming and going
• Libya
• Now quiet, but Egypt had been in total turmoil

 

[igbomb]

Does it not seem like the whole middle east is exploding under Obama's watch?:

• Syria
• Iraq
• Gaza
• Deadline for Iran nuke negotiations coming and going
• Libya
• Now quiet, but Egypt had been in total turmoil

Clearly all Obama's fault. I mean, he is the global overlord now, right?

Next thing you know he'll do something really stupid and start a protracted war over there to try to fix the region.

 

[timschochet]

There's no question that the Middle East is going through some of the most significant change right now in our lifetime. Obama has attempted to deal with it, and with the mistakes of the previous administration which caused some of this, without the use of military force. It will be up to future historians as to whether this was the correct decision. I think it is, even though it weakens our ability to help shape events.

 

[Greggity]

There's no question that the Middle East is going through some of the most significant change right now in our lifetime. Obama has attempted to deal with it, and with the mistakes of the previous administration which caused some of this, without the use of military force. It will be up to future historians as to whether this was the correct decision. I think it is, even though it weakens our ability to help shape events.

The only thing Obama has accomplished in the middle east is weaken our allies and strengthen our enemies. Thats what a muslim would do so its not suprising....

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I thought this article posted by Todd in another thread was good:

Fascinating article. The idea that the Vietnam War could have ended 5 years earlier seems preposterous but apparently it might have been possible.

Richard Nixon was a traitor.

The new release of extended versions of Nixon's papers now confirms this long-standing belief, usually dismissed as a "conspiracy theory" by Republican conservatives. Now it has been substantiated by none other than right-wing columnist George Will.

Nixon's newly revealed records show for certain that in 1968, as a presidential candidate, he ordered Anna Chennault, his liaison to the South Vietnam government, to persuade them refuse a cease-fire being brokered by President Lyndon Johnson.

Nixon's interference with these negotiations violated President John Adams's 1797 Logan Act, banning private citizens from intruding into official government negotiations with a foreign nation.

Published as the 40th Anniversary of Nixon's resignation approaches, Will's column confirms that Nixon feared public disclosure of his role in sabotaging the 1968 Vietnam peace talks. Will says Nixon established a "plumbers unit" to stop potential leaks of information that might damage him, including documentation he believed was held by the Brookings Institute, a liberal think tank. The Plumbers' later break-in at the Democratic National Committee led to the Watergate scandal that brought Nixon down.

Nixon's sabotage of the Vietnam peace talks was confirmed by transcripts of FBI wiretaps. On November 2, 1968, LBJ received an FBI report saying Chernnault told the South Vietnamese ambassador that "she had received a message from her boss: saying the Vietnamese should "hold on, we are gonna win."

...

I think this info has been out there for a while, but I think the article fair.

Now why the FBI had been bugging these conversations, I have no idea, maybe ask LBJ about that one.

But in any event Nixon's actions in the Vietnam War - and LBJ's including especially the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution - make the Iraq War pale in comparison.

And you can throw in Truman in Korea, where our country had one of its bloodiest of wars without even a Congressional authorization. And the incredibly stupid decision to push past the Yalu and drag China into war. Think about that. And he up and nationalized the whole steel industry (only thankfully to be slapped down by the USSC) - think about that insanity.

Frankly this has been a pretty lousy stretch of foreign involvement. I used to believe in the Kennan strategy of containment and foreign intervention for the assurance of democracy and individual rights, but looking back at things in context I really wonder just how things would have been if another approach had been taken.

In any event Obama and Bush Jr., the main focuses of this thread, have nothing on Nixon.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Interesting ranked stats on a number of economic factors for Presidents going back a long ways.

Draw your own conclusions.