Historians Vote George W. Bush Second Best President in History

  • metta

    Posts: 39107

    Jun 05, 2011 3:20 AM GMT


    http://thewashingtonroast.com/historians-vote-george-w-bush-second-best-president-in-u-s-history
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 05, 2011 4:05 PM GMT
    Yeah, and Obama just joined the KKK.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 05, 2011 4:06 PM GMT
    He did? Must have been self loathing.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 05, 2011 4:08 PM GMT
    metta8 said

    http://thewashingtonroast.com/historians-vote-george-w-bush-second-best-president-in-u-s-history


    Over time, I think top ten. W will be right up there with S.
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Jun 05, 2011 4:28 PM GMT
    OldGeezer said
    metta8 said

    http://thewashingtonroast.com/historians-vote-george-w-bush-second-best-president-in-u-s-history


    Over time, I think top ten. W will be right up there with S.


    I'm not sure if you read the article, but look who is tied for first:

    Washington, John Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, John Q. Adams, Jackson, Van Buren, W. Harrison, Tyler, Polk, Taylor, Fillmore, Pierce, Buchanan, Lincoln, A. Johnson, Grant, Hayes, Garfiled, Arthur, Cleveland, B. Harrison, McKinley, T. Roosevelt, Taft, Wilson, Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, F. Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, L. Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Clinton and Obama.

    Everybody but Bush icon_biggrin.gif
  • HndsmKansan

    Posts: 16311

    Jun 05, 2011 4:55 PM GMT
    I was going to say..... someone must be on another PLANET to ever give that any serious consideration...

    icon_evil.gif
  • HndsmKansan

    Posts: 16311

    Jun 05, 2011 4:56 PM GMT
    creature said
    OldGeezer said
    metta8 said

    http://thewashingtonroast.com/historians-vote-george-w-bush-second-best-president-in-u-s-history


    Over time, I think top ten. W will be right up there with S.


    I'm not sure if you read the article, but look who is tied for first:

    Washington, John Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, John Q. Adams, Jackson, Van Buren, W. Harrison, Tyler, Polk, Taylor, Fillmore, Pierce, Buchanan, Lincoln, A. Johnson, Grant, Hayes, Garfiled, Arthur, Cleveland, B. Harrison, McKinley, T. Roosevelt, Taft, Wilson, Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, F. Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, L. Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Clinton and Obama.

    Everybody but Bush icon_biggrin.gif


    There a few others in there that should be tied with Bush.....
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 05, 2011 4:56 PM GMT
    Who are these Historians?
  • tazzari

    Posts: 2937

    Jun 05, 2011 5:13 PM GMT
    TigerTim saidWho are these Historians?


    Now THERE'S an intelligent question!
  • thirdoz

    Posts: 69

    Jun 05, 2011 9:46 PM GMT
    I'd think the vast majority of historians would wait and see how things pan out before making any big calls.
    A bigger issue is that "historians" still argue about which medieval monarchs had a larger impact on early modern europe (even then in only certain limited scopes, like political philosophy, industrilization, etc), not even asking which one was "greater". Fact is, coming up with the critiera alone to judge how great a leader is, is often just bullshit. Most historians I know will do it for kicks among themselves and students; but wouldn't even consider publishing it.

    It's like asking, "what makes america great?" It's not history, it's just propaganda. Just put a positive spin on it whatever BS you wanna write a about. lol
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Jun 05, 2011 11:15 PM GMT
    Dudes

    I hope you all noticed that this was a COMPLETE joke
    Did ya happen to read the other articles in the paper ?

    Cinderella Sues The Royal Couple ? icon_rolleyes.gif

    George W Bush in any race in any retrospective will ALWAYS ALWAYS rank as one of if not .... the WORST President this country has ever seen
    ANY other conclusion makes you KNOW the story would be either a joke or a fake

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 05, 2011 11:25 PM GMT
    GQjock saidDudes

    I hope you all noticed that this was a COMPLETE joke
    Did ya happen to read the other articles in the paper ?

    Cinderella Sues The Royal Couple ? icon_rolleyes.gif

    George W Bush in any race in any retrospective will ALWAYS ALWAYS rank as one of if not .... the WORST President this country has ever seen
    ANY other conclusion makes you KNOW the story would be either a joke or a fake

    It was immediately apparent to me it was a joke. It's also apparent to you're quite a joke as well. You have absolutely no way of knowing for certain how future "conclusions" will look at the Bush Presidency. That you would make such a stupid comment is indicative of what has been quite obvious to many of us, namely your ability to reason deductively is totally lacking.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 06, 2011 2:00 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    GQjock saidDudes

    I hope you all noticed that this was a COMPLETE joke
    Did ya happen to read the other articles in the paper ?

    Cinderella Sues The Royal Couple ? icon_rolleyes.gif

    George W Bush in any race in any retrospective will ALWAYS ALWAYS rank as one of if not .... the WORST President this country has ever seen
    ANY other conclusion makes you KNOW the story would be either a joke or a fake

    It was immediately apparent to me it was a joke. It's also apparent to you're quite a joke as well. You have absolutely no way of knowing for certain how future "conclusions" will look at the Bush Presidency. That you would make such a stupid comment is indicative of what has been quite obvious to many of us, namely your ability to reason deductively is totally lacking.


    I'm pretty confident that history will not be kind to Bush. The one good thing he's done is move back to Texas and keep a low profile. It helps the memory of his idiocy fade a bit, but this policies were so bad for this country that no one will be forgetting them soon. And that will be true no matter if you use inductive, reductive, or deductive reasoning to draw your conclusions.
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Jun 06, 2011 2:02 AM GMT
    OldGeezer said
    metta8 said

    http://thewashingtonroast.com/historians-vote-george-w-bush-second-best-president-in-u-s-history


    Over time, I think top ten. W will be right up there with S.





    Stalin ?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 06, 2011 2:37 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness said
    GQjock saidDudes

    I hope you all noticed that this was a COMPLETE joke
    Did ya happen to read the other articles in the paper ?

    Cinderella Sues The Royal Couple ? icon_rolleyes.gif

    George W Bush in any race in any retrospective will ALWAYS ALWAYS rank as one of if not .... the WORST President this country has ever seen
    ANY other conclusion makes you KNOW the story would be either a joke or a fake

    It was immediately apparent to me it was a joke. It's also apparent to you're quite a joke as well. You have absolutely no way of knowing for certain how future "conclusions" will look at the Bush Presidency. That you would make such a stupid comment is indicative of what has been quite obvious to many of us, namely your ability to reason deductively is totally lacking.


    I'm pretty confident that history will not be kind to Bush. The one good thing he's done is move back to Texas and keep a low profile. It helps the memory of his idiocy fade a bit, but this policies were so bad for this country that no one will be forgetting them soon. And that will be true no matter if you use inductive, reductive, or deductive reasoning to draw your conclusions.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_revisionism
    I normally don't like to quote Wikipedia, but this is an interesting excerpt from a historian, James McPherson, on historical revisionism, not the deliberate changing of history, but how the view of history changes over time.

    Unlike the other poster, you are stating your position as an opinion, albeit a strong one, which is fine. The only thing I would point out is, given there is a wide diversity in opinion on Bush in the present day, the future view may not be something we can easily predict. The future view could be based on events or different attitudes that we are not aware of today.
  • HndsmKansan

    Posts: 16311

    Jun 06, 2011 2:39 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness said
    GQjock saidDudes

    I hope you all noticed that this was a COMPLETE joke
    Did ya happen to read the other articles in the paper ?

    Cinderella Sues The Royal Couple ? icon_rolleyes.gif

    George W Bush in any race in any retrospective will ALWAYS ALWAYS rank as one of if not .... the WORST President this country has ever seen
    ANY other conclusion makes you KNOW the story would be either a joke or a fake

    It was immediately apparent to me it was a joke. It's also apparent to you're quite a joke as well. You have absolutely no way of knowing for certain how future "conclusions" will look at the Bush Presidency. That you would make such a stupid comment is indicative of what has been quite obvious to many of us, namely your ability to reason deductively is totally lacking.


    I'm pretty confident that history will not be kind to Bush. The one good thing he's done is move back to Texas and keep a low profile. It helps the memory of his idiocy fade a bit, but this policies were so bad for this country that no one will be forgetting them soon. And that will be true no matter if you use inductive, reductive, or deductive reasoning to draw your conclusions.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_revisionism
    I normally don't like to quote Wikipedia, but this is an interesting excerpt from a historian, James McPherson, on historical revisionism, not the deliberate changing of history, but how the view of history changes over time.

    Unlike the other poster, you are stating your position as an opinion, albeit a strong one, which is fine. The only thing I would point out is, given there is a wide diversity in opinion on Bush in the present day, the future view may not be something we can easily predict. The future view could be based on events or different attitudes that we are not aware of today.


    I woiuld agree with Socal... it could be worse... LOL
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 06, 2011 3:09 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    GQjock saidDudes

    I hope you all noticed that this was a COMPLETE joke
    Did ya happen to read the other articles in the paper ?

    Cinderella Sues The Royal Couple ? icon_rolleyes.gif

    George W Bush in any race in any retrospective will ALWAYS ALWAYS rank as one of if not .... the WORST President this country has ever seen
    ANY other conclusion makes you KNOW the story would be either a joke or a fake

    It was immediately apparent to me it was a joke. It's also apparent to you're quite a joke as well. You have absolutely no way of knowing for certain how future "conclusions" will look at the Bush Presidency. That you would make such a stupid comment is indicative of what has been quite obvious to many of us, namely your ability to reason deductively is totally lacking.




    LOL!

    In this comment of socal's we see him exhibiting:
    1.) Denial
    2.) Ignorance
    3.) Delusion
    4.) Projection

    Plus he name-called GQ - merely because GQ posted a truth that socal is offended by.

    In other words - the same tired old crap - from socal.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 06, 2011 3:23 AM GMT
    rickrick91 said
    socalfitness said
    GQjock saidDudes

    I hope you all noticed that this was a COMPLETE joke
    Did ya happen to read the other articles in the paper ?

    Cinderella Sues The Royal Couple ? icon_rolleyes.gif

    George W Bush in any race in any retrospective will ALWAYS ALWAYS rank as one of if not .... the WORST President this country has ever seen
    ANY other conclusion makes you KNOW the story would be either a joke or a fake

    It was immediately apparent to me it was a joke. It's also apparent to you're quite a joke as well. You have absolutely no way of knowing for certain how future "conclusions" will look at the Bush Presidency. That you would make such a stupid comment is indicative of what has been quite obvious to many of us, namely your ability to reason deductively is totally lacking.

    LOL!

    In this comment of socal's we see him exhibiting:
    1.) Denial
    2.) Ignorance
    3.) Delusion
    4.) Projection

    Plus he name-called GQ - merely because GQ posted a truth that socal is offended by.

    In other words - the same tired old crap - from socal.

    I won't call you a name, but you have demonstrated total idiocy. My point was you cannot tell with certainty what a future position will be. The other guys understood that, even if they had different opinions. But it obviously went completely over your head.
  • HndsmKansan

    Posts: 16311

    Jun 06, 2011 3:30 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    rickrick91 said
    socalfitness said
    GQjock saidDudes

    I hope you all noticed that this was a COMPLETE joke
    Did ya happen to read the other articles in the paper ?

    Cinderella Sues The Royal Couple ? icon_rolleyes.gif

    George W Bush in any race in any retrospective will ALWAYS ALWAYS rank as one of if not .... the WORST President this country has ever seen
    ANY other conclusion makes you KNOW the story would be either a joke or a fake

    It was immediately apparent to me it was a joke. It's also apparent to you're quite a joke as well. You have absolutely no way of knowing for certain how future "conclusions" will look at the Bush Presidency. That you would make such a stupid comment is indicative of what has been quite obvious to many of us, namely your ability to reason deductively is totally lacking.

    LOL!

    In this comment of socal's we see him exhibiting:
    1.) Denial
    2.) Ignorance
    3.) Delusion
    4.) Projection

    Plus he name-called GQ - merely because GQ posted a truth that socal is offended by.

    In other words - the same tired old crap - from socal.

    I won't call you a name, but you have demonstrated total idiocy. My point was you cannot tell with certainty what a future position will be. The other guys understood that, even if they had different opinions. But it obviously went completely over your head.



    Now let's play nice.... if you can't go on to bed......
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 06, 2011 3:34 AM GMT
    HndsmKansan saidNow let's play nice.... if you can't go on to bed......

    Wouldn't that also apply to Mr. RR, or because he is always that way, is it a given? icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 06, 2011 4:16 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    rickrick91 said
    socalfitness said
    GQjock saidDudes

    I hope you all noticed that this was a COMPLETE joke
    Did ya happen to read the other articles in the paper ?

    Cinderella Sues The Royal Couple ? icon_rolleyes.gif

    George W Bush in any race in any retrospective will ALWAYS ALWAYS rank as one of if not .... the WORST President this country has ever seen
    ANY other conclusion makes you KNOW the story would be either a joke or a fake

    It was immediately apparent to me it was a joke. It's also apparent to you're quite a joke as well. You have absolutely no way of knowing for certain how future "conclusions" will look at the Bush Presidency. That you would make such a stupid comment is indicative of what has been quite obvious to many of us, namely your ability to reason deductively is totally lacking.

    LOL!

    In this comment of socal's we see him exhibiting:
    1.) Denial
    2.) Ignorance
    3.) Delusion
    4.) Projection

    Plus he name-called GQ - merely because GQ posted a truth that socal is offended by.

    In other words - the same tired old crap - from socal.

    I won't call you a name, but you have demonstrated total idiocy. My point was you cannot tell with certainty what a future position will be. The other guys understood that, even if they had different opinions. But it obviously went completely over your head.




    LOL!
    More partisan-based delusion form socal!

    Bush will be evaluated by the FACTS of his record as president.
    Those FACTS are NOT going to change over time.
    And those FACTS make it clear that Bush did a SHITTY job as president and that he left the country in VASTLY worse shape than it was when he took office.

    We most certainly can "tell with certainty" what the facts are that future generations will use to judge Bush.
    The same FACTS that show that Bush did a shitty job today - will show that Bush did a shitty job tomorrow.
    DUH!

    YOU are the one who has a problem with deductive reasoning - due to those pro-Repub blinders you see the world through.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 06, 2011 4:26 AM GMT
    Haha, the responses to this thread show how many people don't bother reading whats on the link. But I must say I have to agree with the findings of the scholars.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 06, 2011 4:27 AM GMT
    rickrick91 saidLOL!
    More partisan-based delusion form socal!

    Bush will be evaluated by the FACTS of his record as president.
    Those FACTS are NOT going to change over time.
    And those FACTS make it clear that Bush did a SHITTY job as president and that he left the country in VASTLY worse shape than it was when he took office.

    We most certainly can "tell with certainty" what the facts are that future generations will use to judge Bush.
    The same FACTS that show that Bush did a shitty job today - will show that Bush did a shitty job tomorrow.
    DUH!

    YOU are the one who has a problem with deductive reasoning - due to those pro-Repub blinders you see the world through.

    No offense to third graders, but that is the level you appear to be at. If you look at the reference link I provided, there was no suggestion that facts are changed, but that the interpretation of the facts are subject to differences based upon historical perspectives. The concept might be pretty advanced so it may not sink in, but perhaps others might explain it in even simpler terms.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 06, 2011 4:29 AM GMT
    Webster666 said
    OldGeezer said
    metta8 said

    http://thewashingtonroast.com/historians-vote-george-w-bush-second-best-president-in-u-s-history


    Over time, I think top ten. W will be right up there with S.





    Stalin ?


    A left wing dipshit like you would be proud to have Stalin as an American president.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 06, 2011 4:31 AM GMT
    Suecer4 saidHaha, the responses to this thread show how many people don't bother reading whats on the link. But I must say I have to agree with the findings of the scholars.


    the link was broken.