The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Ok this is not directed at you ffa. I am sick and tired of young people who have only ever seen the Clinton and Bush administrations saying word one about anything. I respect everyones opinion but when a person who hasn't even completed college starts spouting off about the "worst" anything I can only take it so seriously. Ask anyone whose ever made it past 20 and matured and they will tell you that your entire views on life and everything related changes. Yours will too.

While I may be young I'd bet dollars to donuts that I've spent more time studying political science and history than you have.

Does an 80 year old high school graduate know more than a 40 year old PhD? I think not.

While you're "sick and tired of young people who have only ever seen the Clinton and Bush administrations saying word one about anything." I'm sick and tired of "mature" people automatically discounting someone elses opinion based solely on age.

I should add to my post above that the same reasons that the commentators that I read really dislike Bush, FDR, and others are the same reasons why others call them (respectively) great. That's kind of what I meant by ideological glasses.

There's probably still room, even considering that, to make calls on who the greatest / worst is. Perhaps not, but I'm not one to know. I didn't intend on making any judgements there with my initial post, anyway. (This isn't in response to you Niki, I just thought I needed to clarify).

Even though I think this "Good President/Bad President" thread started out very unprofessionally, and I'll continue to steer clear of this one, I will say this: Individuals can like or dislike a President, but only History can tell whether a President is, was, or will forever be a "Great" president. Or, more specifically, only History can tell us whether any one President is/was the best or worst President that this country has ever had. Again, as I said, us as individuals have every right to think whether or not a President is or was a great or greatest President, but in reality, only History will be the barometer by which Presidents are judged.

JPFair wrote:Even though I think this "Good President/Bad President" thread started out very unprofessionally, and I'll continue to steer clear of this one, I will say this: Individuals can like or dislike a President, but only History can tell whether a President is, was, or will forever be a "Great" president. Or, more specifically, only History can tell us whether any one President is/was the best or worst President that this country has ever had. Again, as I said, us as individuals have every right to think whether or not a President is or was a great or greatest President, but in reality, only History will be the barometer by which Presidents are judged.

The only thing I would add is that a case can probably be made by someone to call any president the worst depending on the criteria, but no such case has been actually made here. That being said, of course we are all entitled to our opinions.

The only thing I would add is that a case can probably be made by someone to call any president the worst depending on the criteria, but no such case has been actually made here.

I fully agree, but if someone individually thinks that a current, or for that matter a "recent" President is/was the "worst" President, it's merely an individual opinion. Like you say though, no criteria has been set and if there were, I'm sure we could start naming names then.

In many cases, history is the only way to dictate a Presidents legacy. Some people might argue that John F. Kennedy was one of the "greatest" Presidents of our time, but in reality he was wildly unpopular on the homefront. History though, and in all likelihood because of his unfortunate untimely demise, will be kind to JFK. Some people can argue that Ronald Reagan helped bring down the Soviet Union. Some can argue that Richard Nixon opened the door to China. Some people can say that Bill Clinton paved the way for peace in Northern Ireland.

My point is this, and this is only my opinion, that how good a President is or was, can only be determined by the passage of time. My, or other peoples opinions of a current President can be just that, an opinion. But, IMO, only History can tell us if any President, including Bush, was a "great" President.

This is... an interesting thread. Blaming Bush for things outside of his control is a popular pasttime amongst many people. It appears to me that this particular one comes from the far-right, not the left.

FanfromAnnapolis wrote:
You'll never find a true conservative that really thinks Bill Clinton was a great pres., and likewise with liberals and Bush.

I think you're wrong on this point. I'm about as conservative as they come and I believe that Clinton bordered on good/great.

Liberals are the ones with hate in their heart. Libs abhor Bush, adored Clinton, yet looking at their records, Clinton is actually more conservative than Bush. (If any policy wonks care to argue this point, bring it.)

Skinsfan55 wrote:

Does an 80 year old high school graduate know more than a 40 year old PhD? I think not.

Well, then you think incorrectly.

I'm probably as "degreed" as anyone on this board and I don't know **** compared to my grandfather who quit school at 16 to "kill them d*** krauts" (his words).

The sooner you understand that, the sooner you'll understand the difference between education and learning.

curveball wrote:Liberals are the ones with hate in their heart.

What is the purpose of this statement?

cvillehog wrote:

curveball wrote:Liberals are the ones with hate in their heart.

What is the purpose of this statement?

The purpose is simple.

There is a hate by extremist liberals for Bush that is unprecedented in Presidential history. These extremists now play a larger role in a major party than at any other point since the civil war.

A liberal bomb thrower like Michael Moore is celebrated within the party faithful with a honored spot next to a former POTUS at their nominating convention, while the Ann Coulters of the world are relegated to cable programs and talk radio.

Many conservatives had a hate for Clinton, but the liberals have definitely ratcheted it up a notch or twelve.



I supported the impeachment of Clinton and still feel he was guilty but it had nothing to do with hate, but rather constitutionality.(As a side note, I would have been against Johnson's impeachment, against Nixon's potential impeachment, but for the impeachment of Grant, Harding and FDR)

curveball wrote:

FanfromAnnapolis wrote:
You'll never find a true conservative that really thinks Bill Clinton was a great pres., and likewise with liberals and Bush.

I think you're wrong on this point. I'm about as conservative as they come and I believe that Clinton bordered on good/great.

Liberals are the ones with hate in their heart. Libs abhor Bush, adored Clinton, yet looking at their records, Clinton is actually more conservative than Bush. (If any policy wonks care to argue this point, bring it.)

Point taken. Universalized statements always come back to haunt you (yes, always )

curveball wrote:

cvillehog wrote:

curveball wrote:Liberals are the ones with hate in their heart.

What is the purpose of this statement?

The purpose is simple.

There is a hate by extremist liberals for Bush that is unprecedented in Presidential history. These extremists now play a larger role in a major party than at any other point since the civil war.

A liberal bomb thrower like Michael Moore is celebrated within the party faithful with a honored spot next to a former POTUS at their nominating convention, while the Ann Coulters of the world are relegated to cable programs and talk radio.

Many conservatives had a hate for Clinton, but the liberals have definitely ratcheted it up a notch or twelve.



I supported the impeachment of Clinton and still feel he was guilty but it had nothing to do with hate, but rather constitutionality.(As a side note, I would have been against Johnson's impeachment, against Nixon's potential impeachment, but for the impeachment of Grant, Harding and FDR)

Well, you are entitled to your opinion, but Liberals aren't the ones I see going around spouting hate. In fact, most conservatives aren't either. However, the extremists with the greatest influence in Washington right now aren't from the left. Fred Phelps has a massively better chance of gaining audience with the President than Michael Moore.

I also do see any liberals trying to amend the Constitution in order to discriminate against a social group.

Just so we are clear:

lib·er·al (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.

1.
1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
2. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

Just to be clear on my point: Don't pick some loonie and assign his or her views to me because I have convictions that are different than yours, and I'll extend you the same respect.

If you'd care do delve into pure defintions, classical liberalism is more closely aligned with what we consider "libertarianism" today than the quais-socialism that modern "liberals" seem to embrace.



Face it, Bush could come out tomorrow supporting drive-thru windows offering abortions, gay marriage, raising the lowest tax rate to 85%, increasing government to the point of "0 unemployment", imprison every CEO of a Fortune 500 company and the extremists who elected Howard Dean would still claim "it isn't enough" because there was an "R" next to his name.

curveball wrote:If you'd care do delve into pure defintions, classical liberalism is more closely aligned with what we consider "libertarianism" today than the quais-socialism that modern "liberals" seem to embrace.



Face it, Bush could come out tomorrow supporting drive-thru windows offering abortions, gay marriage, raising the lowest tax rate to 85%, increasing government to the point of "0 unemployment", imprison every CEO of a Fortune 500 company and the extremists who elected Howard Dean would still claim "it isn't enough" because there was an "R" next to his name.

Even if you are right, how is that any different from extremists on the other side?

Abortion went down under Clinton, the deficit was erased and a huge surplus created, etc., etc., but none of that stopped the vitriol from even mainstream conservatives. There is nothing anyone named Clinton could ever do that would keep Ann Coulter from spewing her insults in the Clintons' direction.

cvillehog wrote:

curveball wrote:If you'd care do delve into pure defintions, classical liberalism is more closely aligned with what we consider "libertarianism" today than the quais-socialism that modern "liberals" seem to embrace.



Face it, Bush could come out tomorrow supporting drive-thru windows offering abortions, gay marriage, raising the lowest tax rate to 85%, increasing government to the point of "0 unemployment", imprison every CEO of a Fortune 500 company and the extremists who elected Howard Dean would still claim "it isn't enough" because there was an "R" next to his name.

Even if you are right, how is that any different from extremists on the other side?

Abortion went down under Clinton, the deficit was erased and a huge surplus created, etc., etc., but none of that stopped the vitriol from even mainstream conservatives. There is nothing anyone named Clinton could ever do that would keep Ann Coulter from spewing her insults in the Clintons' direction.

Remember that I stated that Bill Clinton was more conservative than Bush.

My point is that the bomb throwers on the right are relegated to obscure corners, while those on the left are beatified.



Let's look at the two major parties. On the major social issues of the day, the Republicans seem to have a basic understanding that abortion is a divisive issue. There are many pro-choice Republicans that play a major role within their pary.

Find me a pro-life Democrat in a high profile position. So much for a claim of diversity. I guess that doesnt' apply to diversity of thought.

You are debating a strawman, here.

In your imaginary universe, all Democrats are far-left liberals, and all liberals are Michael Moore. But the long, long list of conservative and neo-con lunies are the exception rather than the rule of the Republican party.

If you really want to get into a long protracted discussion on this line, I will go dig up a dozen or so hateful remarks from right wingers. However, hopefully you can see what you are doing and that won't be necessary. Are there left-wing extremists? Yes. Are there right-wing extremists? Yes. I think you would have a pretty hard time 'proving' that one extreme or the other is in a position of more power within the parties.

cvillehog wrote:You are debating a strawman, here.

In your imaginary universe, all Democrats are far-left liberals, and all liberals are Michael Moore. But the long, long list of conservative and neo-con lunies are the exception rather than the rule of the Republican party.

If you really want to get into a long protracted discussion on this line, I will go dig up a dozen or so hateful remarks from right wingers. However, hopefully you can see what you are doing and that won't be necessary. Are there left-wing extremists? Yes. Are there right-wing extremists? Yes. I think you would have a pretty hard time 'proving' that one extreme or the other is in a position of more power within the parties.

You seem to be missing the point. Looking at last year's nominating coventions, where exactly did you see Rush Limbaugh at GWB's?

I saw Moore sitting next to Carter.






This isn't about which side has extremists. They both do. This is about which side's extremists are gaining control over the direction their party's heading. Any guesses on who that would be?

curveball wrote:This isn't about which side has extremists. They both do. This is about which side's extremists are gaining control over the direction their party's heading. Any guesses on who that would be?

Yes, clearly it's the republican party. Unless you know of some of those people you called socialists who are proposing legislation to ban religion? Or, perhaps the Democrats are ruling on legal cases from the floor of the senate based on the writings of Marx?

Ann Coulter was also at the Democratic convention. So, what does that mean?

There isn't a conservative bone in Bush's body.
He's an extremist right wing, theocratic elitist. He has subverted democracy, repeatedly attacked the constitution, introduced torture and foreign adventurism for personal vendetta and profit, used political scare tactics to control his constituents, squandered resources, centralized government, exploded the budget with governmental cronyism and giveaways, and repeatedly attempted to erases lines between church and state. Where's the conservative? We live in a society in which the word conservative has lost its meaning. Traditional conservatives are against every thing above, everything Bush stands for. Bush is the anti-conservative. Upon seeing Bush come into a room, Goldwater and even Nixon, as well as Reagan, would have puked. Nancy and Ronald Reagan hated the first George Bush. Think how they would have felt about this one-- a congenital liar who has tossed their ideals into the trash can of history.

crazyhorse1 wrote:There isn't a conservative bone in Bush's body.
He's an extremist right wing, theocratic elitist. He has subverted democracy, repeatedly attacked the constitution, introduced torture and foreign adventurism for personal vendetta and profit, used political scare tactics to control his constituents, squandered resources, centralized government, exploded the budget with governmental cronyism and giveaways, and repeatedly attempted to erases lines between church and state. Where's the conservative? We live in a society in which the word conservative has lost its meaning. Traditional conservatives are against every thing above, everything Bush stands for. Bush is the anti-conservative. Upon seeing Bush come into a room, Goldwater and even Nixon, as well as Reagan, would have puked. Nancy and Ronald Reagan hated the first George Bush. Think how they would have felt about this one-- a congenital liar who has tossed their ideals into the trash can of history.

My wording would be different, but I finally agree with you on something...

Your grandfather is clearly the exception rather than the rule...

curveball wrote:

Skinsfan55 wrote:

Does an 80 year old high school graduate know more than a 40 year old PhD? I think not.

Well, then you think incorrectly.

I'm probably as "degreed" as anyone on this board and I don't know **** compared to my grandfather who quit school at 16 to "kill them d*** krauts" (his words).

The sooner you understand that, the sooner you'll understand the difference between education and learning.

while the Ann Coulters of the world are relegated to cable programs and talk radio

1) Ann Coulter has been fired on more than one occassion, she hasn't been relegated anywhere. Many in the conservative movement tend to shun her. The fact that she's been marginalized is her own fault.

2) She was just on the cover of TIME

3) Cable programs (like FOX) are the highest-rated news programs in the country

4) Talk radio programs draw millions of listeners each day

Abortion went down under Clinton, the deficit was erased and a huge surplus created, etc., etc., but none of that stopped the vitriol from even mainstream conservatives. There is nothing anyone named Clinton could ever do that would keep Ann Coulter from spewing her insults in the Clintons' direction.

While I agree with you on Ann Coulter ... the surplus was none of Clinton's doing other than he signed the bills into law. The credit actually belongs to the Republican Congress which took over in January 1995 (after election of 1994). If you doubt me on this I can recap it for you on how it is not the Clinton administrations doing.

As for bomb throwers they are on both sides of the political aisle. That is just a fact of politics. The problem from a moderate Republican view is that while the right's bomb throwers tend to be columnists and talking heads (Ann Coulter, Michael Savage, Limbaugh, etc...), the ones on the left tend to be actual Democrat politicians serving in the House and Senate (Pelosi, Boxer, Kennnedy, Kerry,etc...). And while the Republican Party might appreciate the bomb throwers taking shots at the Left they do generally disavow their tactics at least in public. The Democrats actually defend their bomb throwers. After all, I guess one should if they need their help on the next spending bill.

thaiphoon wrote:

Abortion went down under Clinton, the deficit was erased and a huge surplus created, etc., etc., but none of that stopped the vitriol from even mainstream conservatives. There is nothing anyone named Clinton could ever do that would keep Ann Coulter from spewing her insults in the Clintons' direction.

While I agree with you on Ann Coulter ... the surplus was none of Clinton's doing other than he signed the bills into law. The credit actually belongs to the Republican Congress which took over in January 1995 (after election of 1994). If you doubt me on this I can recap it for you on how it is not the Clinton administrations doing.

As for bomb throwers they are on both sides of the political aisle. That is just a fact of politics. The problem from a moderate Republican view is that while the right's bomb throwers tend to be columnists and talking heads (Ann Coulter, Michael Savage, Limbaugh, etc...), the ones on the left tend to be actual Democrat politicians serving in the House and Senate (Pelosi, Boxer, Kennnedy, Kerry,etc...). And while the Republican Party might appreciate the bomb throwers taking shots at the Left they do generally disavow their tactics at least in public. The Democrats actually defend their bomb throwers. After all, I guess one should if they need their help on the next spending bill.

Look, you seem knowledgeable, and you treat other posters with respect, so please realize I mean to disrespect to you when I say this. You are seeing things through the filter of your political allegiances.

To say the thought leaders and outspoken members of the Republican party are mainstream and centrist and the leaders of the Democratic party are extremist is simply false.

For goodness sake, Republican Congressmen have publically incited violence against judges!

If you are a neo-con or a christian extremist, I can see how you would be pleased with the direction of the RNC, but if you are a true conservative who believes in traditional conservative values, you should be very concerned with the direction the party and the country are headed.