Well, shit.
Now I am out of luck!
Well with that aren't you one for two? And as for the 3/4ths, I said it will do but did not set a bottom limit. I myself hardly ever think at all except to find the words to put to feelings.
Well, shit.
Now I am out of luck!
Last good? Nixon. Best? Teddy Roosevelt.
Surely Franklin Roosevelt is the better one?
FDR did some good stuff as president, but he wasnt that great of a man.
What made Carter a good President?
Honestly I wasnt 100% sure on the pick, but he was not as bad as a person as everyone after him. For example, half the shit W gets blamed for was done by Clinton. And Reagan fucked a lot of shit up, and set a lot of the stage for where we are now. George H. W. Bush might be the sanest of the lot after Carter, but I wouldnt trust him to be an decent and honorable man. Obama seems pretty sane too, just apathetic and corrupt.
Teddy Roosevelt?
That supremacist fella?
Surely Franklin Roosevelt is the better one?
Definitely Teddy Roosevelt. No other president personally did as much to enhance the power and prestige of the United States as Teddy. (except *maybe* an argument could be made for Washington...)
Except when he is drone-strikingDefine good...
Obama is weak and inexperienced...
That's my thought. It really baffles my mind that the President who made the AIDS crisis significantly worse by ignoring and mocking it, committed treason, enacted the worst economic system since serfdom, created the Taliban and Al Quaeda, and is more responsible for the destruction of the middle class than probably any President could be considered a great President.
Honestly he's probably in the top 5 worst.
Except when he is drone-strikingterroristsAmerican citizens, right?
Just playing with the whole weak tyrant thing you guys make him out to be.
- I believe I supported Rand Paul's March 2013 filibuster against that.
- In one topic I decried Democrats holding the partisan line and supporting Obama in this. Though I admit that got a bit off topic.
- There's one topic out there where I cited September 11th as a case for why the government would legitimately shoot planes down, and would have done so if they could have moved faster.
But really, I'm just wondering what the hell you're trying to argue here? Could use some actual words for explanation. Perhaps to form a complete argument instead of baseless innuendo.
Just playing with the whole weak tyrant thing you guys make him out to be.
I call Obama weak and inexperienced because he relied on corrupt people, who he then allowed to corrupt his policies. I'm working under an assumption he's not inherently evil and was expressing something genuine back in 2008.
But when you look back at the first campaign I do not think America got an administration that reflected the man running for office.
That's my thought. It really baffles my mind that the President who made the AIDS crisis significantly worse by ignoring and mocking it, committed treason, enacted the worst economic system since serfdom, created the Taliban and Al Quaeda, and is more responsible for the destruction of the middle class than probably any President could be considered a great President.
Honestly he's probably in the top 5 worst.
Sort of how Mussolini made the trains run on time and Hitler brought jobs?
Impressive.
I wonder how much of his good reputation is due to him being killed while in office.
I wonder how much of his good reputation is due to him being killed while in office.
It could be, to a point, but if you look at the 4 POTUSES who were assassinated, two of them - Lincoln and Kennedy - are popular. The other two - McKinley and Garfield... Wait, who were McKinley and Garfield?
