Is it safe to say that Bush 43/Obama are America's...

[catamount man]

...worst Presidents ever? I keep hearing about how the prosperous economy under Clinton was a "sham". I just want someone to explain how the surplus he built has been utterly destroyed since 2001 by both Bush and Obama. Thanks.

[Ivytalk]

So are you giving James Buchanan and Millard Fillmore a pass?

[TheDancinMonarch]

...worst Presidents ever? I keep hearing about how the prosperous economy under Clinton was a "sham". I just want someone to explain how the surplus he built has been utterly destroyed since 2001 by both Bush and Obama. Thanks.

The surplus was a sham. Designed and agreed to by Clinton and Gingrich to make them both look good.

[bulldog10jw]

So are you giving James Buchanan and Millard Fillmore a pass?

and Jimmy Carter.

[CitadelGrad]

So are you giving James Buchanan and Millard Fillmore a pass?

and Jimmy Carter.

and U.S. Grant and Tyrant of Tyrants Abraham Lincoln.

[GannonFan]

So are you giving James Buchanan and Millard Fillmore a pass?

Eh, that's too long ago. Most Americans can't think of history past the 70's these days. I wonder how many people could even identify Buchanan as a President, let alone the worst President as he was.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

I said this throughout Bush's second term... you cannot judge a presidency in historical context until at LEAST 30 years has passed... just not possible.

That being said, as strong a case as I suspect Bush II will make in 28 years... It's REALLY hard to be worse the Buchanan... It's damn near impossible.

[AZGrizFan]

I said this throughout Bush's second term... you cannot judge a presidency in historical context until at LEAST 30 years has passed... just not possible.

That being said, as strong a case as I suspect Bush II will make in 28 years... It's REALLY hard to be worse the Buchanan... It's damn near impossible.

Obama is making a strong case, though.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

I said this throughout Bush's second term... you cannot judge a presidency in historical context until at LEAST 30 years has passed... just not possible.

That being said, as strong a case as I suspect Bush II will make in 28 years... It's REALLY hard to be worse the Buchanan... It's damn near impossible.

Obama is making a strong case, though.

meh... number of major American cities lost under Obama (or Buchanan for that matter)?: 0
number lost under Bush the 2nd: 1.

history is not kind to that kind of blunder.

[AZGrizFan]

Obama is making a strong case, though.

meh... number of major American cities lost under Obama (or Buchanan for that matter)?: 0
number lost under Bush the 2nd: 1.

history is not kind to that kind of blunder.

True. Obama's failures are measured in much BIGGER numbers....he's losing an entire country.

[CitadelGrad]

Obama is making a strong case, though.

meh... number of major American cities lost under Obama (or Buchanan for that matter)?: 0
number lost under Bush the 2nd: 1.

history is not kind to that kind of blunder.

So who lost Detroit?

[ASUMountaineer]

meh... number of major American cities lost under Obama (or Buchanan for that matter)?: 0
number lost under Bush the 2nd: 1.

history is not kind to that kind of blunder.

So who lost Detroit?

Canada.

[citdog]

Obama is making a strong case, though.

meh... number of major American cities lost under Obama (or Buchanan for that matter)?: 0
number lost under Bush the 2nd: 1.

history is not kind to that kind of blunder.

President Buchanan was a fine public servant who knew that coercion of SOVEREIGN States to be something that the national government had not the power to legally do.

He also lost hundreds of cities from 20 Dec 1860 until the day he left office and the tyrant was inaugurated.

[LeadBolt]

As far as America's worst President, two words:

Warren Harding

[GannonFan]

meh... number of major American cities lost under Obama (or Buchanan for that matter)?: 0
number lost under Bush the 2nd: 1.

history is not kind to that kind of blunder.

President Buchanan was a fine public servant who knew that coercion of SOVEREIGN States to be something that the national government had not the power to legally do.

He also lost hundreds of cities from 20 Dec 1860 until the day he left office and the tyrant was inaugurated.

Of course, he also believed that the South had no legal right to seceede from the Union, so once again this is a good example of your cherry picking of history to serve a purpose.

[citdog]

President Buchanan was a fine public servant who knew that coercion of SOVEREIGN States to be something that the national government had not the power to legally do.

He also lost hundreds of cities from 20 Dec 1860 until the day he left office and the tyrant was inaugurated.

Of course, he also believed that the South had no legal right to seceede from the Union, so once again this is a good example of your cherry picking of history to serve a purpose.

The FACT that the Cotton States HAD seceded and formed their own government rendered all questions of that point MOOT. Pres. Buchanan held the CORRECT and LEGAL opinion on COERCION.

[citdog]

btw gannonjocksniffer I am glad to see you have the time to post and that you're not taking all your time composing pm's of support to opie.

[GannonFan]

Of course, he also believed that the South had no legal right to seceede from the Union, so once again this is a good example of your cherry picking of history to serve a purpose.

The FACT that the Cotton States HAD seceded and formed their own government rendered all questions of that point MOOT. Pres. Buchanan held the CORRECT and LEGAL opinion on COERCION.

Like I said, you find him a reputable legal scholar when one of his opinions support your cause, and you disregard it when one of his opinions goes against your cause. Cherry picking at its finest.

[GannonFan]

btw gannonjocksniffer I am glad to see you have the time to post and that you're not taking all your time composing pm's of support to opie.

Who the hell is opie? Another Citadel guy?

[citdog]

The FACT that the Cotton States HAD seceded and formed their own government rendered all questions of that point MOOT. Pres. Buchanan held the CORRECT and LEGAL opinion on COERCION.

Like I said, you find him a reputable legal scholar when one of his opinions support your cause, and you disregard it when one of his opinions goes against your cause. Cherry picking at its finest.

the point, which you know very well, is that the Cotton States HAD seceded and as far as the union was concerned may as well have been on the moon for they would have had as much authority and as much luck enforcing their laws if those States HAD been so located. Secession was an ACCOMPLISHED FACT and the only question was......


[youtube][/youtube]

[houndawg]

btw gannonjocksniffer I am glad to see you have the time to post and that you're not taking all your time composing pm's of support to opie.

Who the hell is opie? Another Citadel guy?

Opie was a Citadel guy?

[JohnStOnge]

...worst Presidents ever? I keep hearing about how the prosperous economy under Clinton was a "sham". I just want someone to explain how the surplus he built has been utterly destroyed since 2001 by both Bush and Obama. Thanks.

Presidents do not control the economy. They can affect it, but not control it. The economy under Clinton was indeed a sham. You remember it and have the benefit of hindsight now. You know that a lot of what was going on was falsification of profits. The Enron thing and other things like it were flowering. They were recognized later, but they were going on then.

I know my effort is futile. But my effort it to make people understand that they should not vote for who is going to be President based on what the economy is doing at the time.

I will vote against Obama. But it's not because of what the economy is doing at any particular time. It's because I fundamentally disagree with his philosophy with respect to what the role of government is, how the Constitution is viewed, etc. It's looking at the long term; not at what the economy is doing right now.

I don't think we should even be looking at government as responsible for what the economy is doing.

[houndawg]

...worst Presidents ever? I keep hearing about how the prosperous economy under Clinton was a "sham". I just want someone to explain how the surplus he built has been utterly destroyed since 2001 by both Bush and Obama. Thanks.

Presidents do not control the economy. They can affect it, but not control it. The economy under Clinton was indeed a sham. You remember it and have the benefit of hindsight now. You know that a lot of what was going on was falsification of profits. The Enron thing and other things like it were flowering. They were recognized later, but they were going on then.

I know my effort is futile. But my effort it to make people understand that they should not vote for who is going to be President based on what the economy is doing at the time.

I will vote against Obama. But it's not because of what the economy is doing at any particular time. It's because I fundamentally disagree with his philosophy with respect to what the role of government is, how the Constitution is viewed, etc. It's looking at the long term; not at what the economy is doing right now.

I don't think we should even be looking at government as responsible for what the economy is doing.

That's very moving, but this is the USA and we don't do long term here, we do quarterly P&L.

[kalm]

...worst Presidents ever? I keep hearing about how the prosperous economy under Clinton was a "sham". I just want someone to explain how the surplus he built has been utterly destroyed since 2001 by both Bush and Obama. Thanks.

Presidents do not control the economy. They can affect it, but not control it. The economy under Clinton was indeed a sham. You remember it and have the benefit of hindsight now. You know that a lot of what was going on was falsification of profits. The Enron thing and other things like it were flowering. They were recognized later, but they were going on then.

I know my effort is futile. But my effort it to make people understand that they should not vote for who is going to be President based on what the economy is doing at the time.

I will vote against Obama. But it's not because of what the economy is doing at any particular time. It's because I fundamentally disagree with his philosophy with respect to what the role of government is, how the Constitution is viewed, etc. It's looking at the long term; not at what the economy is doing right now.

I don't think we should even be looking at government as responsible for what the economy is doing.

So you clearly never voted for Bush.

[GannonFan]

Like I said, you find him a reputable legal scholar when one of his opinions support your cause, and you disregard it when one of his opinions goes against your cause. Cherry picking at its finest.

the point, which you know very well, is that the Cotton States HAD seceded and as far as the union was concerned may as well have been on the moon for they would have had as much authority and as much luck enforcing their laws if those States HAD been so located. Secession was an ACCOMPLISHED FACT and the only question was......


[youtube][/youtube]

Buchanan's belief that secession was illegal was established well before anyone voted to leave. And the Union had plenty enough luck in enforcing their laws - I thought that was the whole outcome of the Civil War, no? Seemed pretty conclusive there at the end.