You're doing what, there, O'Henry?
(Sorry, but the rest of this is so childish, it has put me in this mood.)
ah yes! the good ol' typo!
That is ok, sometimes I take this too seriously
Bush just said goodbye!
- Thread starter trekkerguy
- Start date
ah yes! the good ol' typo!
That is ok, sometimes I take this too seriously
Well, there is a honeymoon period. I guess everything from March to March of inauguration years is the responsibility of the President.
Now, if after a while the economy doesn't improve and we're still in Iraq, that would be Obama's fault.
No, since Dayton failed to back up his claims, he still loses. You, however, win a year's supply of Rice-a-Roni.Don't worry Dayton3, I'll back you up
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_United_States_Presidents
The huge chart on this page does show Truman and Eishenhower rising, supporting his claim. This also supports my claim from a few pages ago on how Bush was considered in the middle of the pack as far as US presidents go.
*takes a bow*
Last edited:
I have a rule of thumb I use on presidential responsibility.
No president deserves credit or blame for anything that happens in the first year of his administration.
There are exceptions of course. A president who launches a trade war (or a shooting one) out of the blue six months after taking office naturally deserves credit or blame for it. But those things rarely happen.
Thus, if the U.S. suffers a domestic terrorist attack before January 20th, 2010, I think that is one George W. Bush and not on Obama.
Likewise, the economy in 2009 is not to be blamed on Barack Obama.
But, the events of 2010 both foreign or domestic can be laid at the feet of President Obama.
A perfect example is the fall of the Berlin War in late 1989. Of the U.S. presidents getting the most credit for it, Ronald Reagan is credit the most though he left office fully 10 months prior to it. Not George H.W. Bush who was in office at the time.
Likewise with 9-11. It happened less than 8 months after President Bush took office. No way it can be blamed on him.
Nor can the World Trade Center bombing in 1993 be blamed on President Clinton.
No president deserves credit or blame for anything that happens in the first year of his administration.
There are exceptions of course. A president who launches a trade war (or a shooting one) out of the blue six months after taking office naturally deserves credit or blame for it. But those things rarely happen.
Thus, if the U.S. suffers a domestic terrorist attack before January 20th, 2010, I think that is one George W. Bush and not on Obama.
Likewise, the economy in 2009 is not to be blamed on Barack Obama.
But, the events of 2010 both foreign or domestic can be laid at the feet of President Obama.
A perfect example is the fall of the Berlin War in late 1989. Of the U.S. presidents getting the most credit for it, Ronald Reagan is credit the most though he left office fully 10 months prior to it. Not George H.W. Bush who was in office at the time.
Likewise with 9-11. It happened less than 8 months after President Bush took office. No way it can be blamed on him.
Nor can the World Trade Center bombing in 1993 be blamed on President Clinton.
For some things yes, for some things no.
Closing Quantanamo? Doable within a year (I hope)
Fixing the economy? Could take a lot more time
I generally give any new President six to twelve months before I start bashing or praising.
Hey? Aren't you a U.S. History teacher? if so, providing something tangible to back up your claim should be easy. If you can't I don't see why anyone should take what you claim above as a fact.
Because I'm not going to spend time hunting down websites.
I read books.
And unless a person says they will consider a source and give it a fair hearing and seriously consider changing their mind...
I'm not bothering.
You can either believe me or call me a liar.
So post the excerpt from the book. You've been called on to show yours sources before and I'd have thought you would have learned by now but I guess not.
Fox News thumbs its nose at you.
I own some 800 books and have read thousands.
Do you think I have a photographic memory?
Or that I keep an enormous stack of books next to the computer just to win discussion board arguments?
Then refrain from using "facts" from those sources. If you can't be bothered to back up your arguments, then you aren't seriously participating in the discussion. If you aren't participating, then why are you here?
Surely, Dayton3, if you're a teacher, you know how to write a citation, as are used in footnotes of the thousands of books you claim to have read. How about two, eh? Otherwise, you're just whistling Dixie down there in Arkansas!
I do have some sadness over Bush's departure. Who will we mean, nasty liberals make fun of? Oh, I know! The Republican "leadership" in Congress! Take heart, my fellow pinkos! Boehner and McConnell are a comedy writer's dream!
Red Ranger
I put Bush right about there.
As bewildering as it is, Ike often places at or near the Top Ten in polls. Obviously, he places much higher in exclusively Right Wing polls because of his support of McCarthyist initiatives (the same polls often place Ronald Reagan in the Top Ten, so there you go), but there is also a generally favorable impression of him among the common people who have only a superficial knowledge of history.
The book "Star Spangled Men: America's Ten Worst Presidents" lists
Carter, Taft, Benjamin Harrison, Coolidge, Grant, Andrew Johnson, Harding, Pierce, Buchanan, and Nixon as America's worst presidents.
Nixon being the worst. As it says, take away Watergate and Nixon was an above average president. But you can't take away Watergate or what it did to the United States and Americans confidence and belief in the government. Not to mention how hard it was coming right after Vietnam, the general turmoil of the 60s and Kennedy's assassination.
The book was written in the late 1990s so naturally it doesn't rate Clinton or Bush.
Carter, Taft, Benjamin Harrison, Coolidge, Grant, Andrew Johnson, Harding, Pierce, Buchanan, and Nixon as America's worst presidents.
Nixon being the worst. As it says, take away Watergate and Nixon was an above average president. But you can't take away Watergate or what it did to the United States and Americans confidence and belief in the government. Not to mention how hard it was coming right after Vietnam, the general turmoil of the 60s and Kennedy's assassination.
The book was written in the late 1990s so naturally it doesn't rate Clinton or Bush.
What is the justification for Carter on that list? I can maybe see lowering his ranking a bit for lack of effectiveness, but it seems to me that if we had gone along with more of what he wanted us to do - energy independence and expanded nuclear power, especially, but also, more diplomatic relations with Middle Eastern countries and a little more distance from Israel - we'd be in a lot better shape than we are now.
Regardless of that, though, I think it would be hard to argue that he hasn't been one of the very best of the ex-Presidents. Possibly, he's even been more effective in that capactiy than he was as Prez.
Similar threads
