[Subjectivist]

+1 sixstrings.....as a non American , I would rank FDR as one of the US's best president ever.....with Obama at #1 and Lincoln #2

Really? Obama?

The guys been a AWG disaster and his foreign policies have made Libia and Syria much worse.

Now, if you are comparing him to the Bushes or Regan maybe. But against Carter, and Eisenhauer surely not.

I would rate him about equal with Nixon and Johnson and Bill Clinton. They all did good things but lost their way. Above the Bushes, below FDR, Eisenhauer, Truman, Kennedy or Carter.

You highly rate Johnson, who hauled several hundred thousand young americans off to nam to kill or be killed? Seriously?

[Newfie]

I did NOT highly rate Johnson. I had a low pack, a mid pack and an upper pack. Johnson was in the middle.

These things are highly subjective and I'm open to rearranging this, it's an off the cuff statement. My thinking was yes he made some terrible blunders. He did also push through equal rights much against portions of his own party and he declined to run for a second term. He said he couldn't run the country and run for President at the same time. I think he was worn out and to some extent did the honera me thing by stepping aside to let new blood run the show.

Johnson was trying to get out of Nam. Nixon and Kiasinger were undermining that process by encouraging the North to wait for Nixon who would give them a better deal.

If you like think of the groups as
Low .... Abbismal
Medium ... Really bad
Upper....merely poor to OK

[vtsnowedin]

I did NOT highly rate Johnson. I had a low pack, a mid pack and an upper pack. Johnson was in the middle.

These things are highly subjective and I'm open to rearranging this, it's an off the cuff statement. My thinking was yes he made some terrible blunders. He did also push through equal rights much against portions of his own party and he declined to run for a second term. He said he couldn't run the country and run for President at the same time. I think he was worn out and to some extent did the honera me thing by stepping aside to let new blood run the show.

That's not how I remember it. He withdrew when it became clear after the New Hampshire primary he was going to lose.
Wiki has it this way.

On March 12, McCarthy won 42% of the primary vote to Johnson's 49%, an extremely strong showing for such a challenger, and one which gave McCarthy's campaign legitimacy and momentum. In a surprise move on March 16, Robert F. Kennedy renounced his earlier support for Johnson and proclaimed his candidacy. McCarthy and his supporters viewed this as opportunism, creating a lasting enmity between the campaigns.
Johnson withdraws

Johnson was now faced with two strong primary challenges. In declining health and facing bleak political forecasts in the upcoming primaries,[1] Johnson believed that he could not win the nomination without a major political and personal struggle.

On March 31, 1968, the President startled the nation by ending a televised address regarding the War by announcing he would not seek re-election. By withdrawing from the race, he could avoid the stigma of defeat and could keep control of the party machinery to support Hubert Humphrey, his loyal Vice President.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrati ... _withdraws

[litesong]

You can drag her up the stairs or carry her into a van when she collapses or even put her in a bed and roll it around from room to room. It won't help. There isn't much that can be done for her neurological problems.

Repeating: The Grope Our Pu$$ies party needs to go extinct. In 2008 re-pubic-lick-un polls said it would be close between McCain & Obama & McCain lost by a large margin. In 2012 re-pubic-lick-un polls said they would win, & Romney lost handily to Obama....
The elections of 2008 & 2012 showed how numerous are the racists still in america. This election of 2016 still shows how numerous are the racist, sexist, xenophobic, self-righteous, white pigs (including women voting for T-rump), still festering in america.

Your non-doctor, unknowing reply is to talk of Hillary Clinton's health. When President Clinton goes to the White House & democrats recover in the Congress, re-pubic-lick-uns will worry about their own political health. Twice racist re-pubic-lick-uns predicted they'd beat the black man & lost. Now sexist re-pubic-lick-uns predict they'll beat the female. racist sexist re-pubic-lick-uns will be deep-sixed for the third time. Hopefully, T-rump will destroy racist sexist re-pubic-lick-un structure completely. Then, racist sexist re-pubic-lick-uns will understand they need new life directions.

[Plantagenet]

....Grope Our Pu$$ies ....pubic-lick....pubic-lick.... racist...racist, sexist..... white pigs....pubic-lick....racist...pubic-lick...beat the black man .....pubic-lick....racist sexist....pubic-lick....racist sexist...pubic-lick.... racist sexist...pubic-lick...

I've edited your post to clarify its meaning

Cheers!

[vtsnowedin]

....Grope Our Pu$$ies ....pubic-lick....pubic-lick.... racist...racist, sexist..... white pigs....pubic-lick....racist...pubic-lick...beat the black man .....pubic-lick....racist sexist....pubic-lick....racist sexist...pubic-lick.... racist sexist...pubic-lick...

I've edited your post to clarify its meaning

Cheers!

Thanks Planty, I couldn't think of a response to that that didn't involve sinking to that level. It is like wrestling a pig. Your going to get dirty and the pig might like it.

[kiwichick]

was there something inaccurate about litesong's post?

[kiwichick]

some seem to have forgotten that Bush 2 took the world into the 2nd worst economic recession ever, behind only the 1930's depression

and he left 2 wars to try to deal with

as well as a planet struggling with declining quality of non renewable resources

and over population of at least 2.5 billion driving down average wages

it is almost impossible to compare the problems the next president will face ,with those faced by last century's leaders

and there is also the increasing possibility of abrupt global warming dramatically worsening our current situation

[Newfie]

And what has Obama, Mr. "All the above", done to prepare the USA, let alone the world, from climate change?

Look, I'm not going to get into a pissing contest over who was the worst President. There is just too much fertile soil for that conversation and it's too subjective. Opinions vary.

[AgentR11]

I think Obama has *tried*; but people overstate the power of the presidency in this regard. No president will be able to do anything other than nibble a bit at the issue until both houses of congress are on board. And they aren't.

I'm not convince that the congress isn't being rational though. The US emissions could drop some, or be stable, and it wouldn't really make any difference. There is an emissions juggernaut incoming that is Asia; Russia, India, and China; accounted for as a combined unit, will vastly overwhelm the emissions of the US and EU in the coming years. Its not even going to be close.

So, given that analysis, what do you gain from huge expense on CO2 when you could spend that money on particulates or other pollution issues that will deliver some return on investment within the US.

[Tanada]

was there something inaccurate about litesong's post?

Only everything. Free speech is the rule on this website and I have argued to keep it that way most of the time, but ranting obviously false accusations based solely on ideology is not an effect way to convince anyone of anything.

Are their racists in the Republican party? Yes. Are their racists in the Democrat party? Yes. Are their sexists in the republican/Democrat party? Yes. Do they dominate and control the party structure in either case? You can make arguments for and against.

Are their good moral people in the Republican party? Yes. Are their good moral people in the Democrat party? Yes. Are their bad evil people in the republican/Democrat party? Yes. Do they dominate and control the party structure in either case? You can make arguments for and against.

A blanket charge is in and of itself is just as wrong no matter who it comes from no matter what political affiliation they may have. I am a member of the Libertarian Party and we get painted with the 'free love drug addict' label fairly often. It is no more accurate of us than the other charges are about any party.

If you want to be taken seriously address your opinions to individual members of the group, not the group as a whole. You don't like Trump and think he is a jerk? Complain about Trump, not all Republicans or all Trump voters, many of whom are not Republicans. You don't like Clinton and think she is a career criminal? Complain about Clinton, not all the people voting for her some of whom are not Democrats.

[Tanada]

I think Obama has *tried*; but people overstate the power of the presidency in this regard. No president will be able to do anything other than nibble a bit at the issue until both houses of congress are on board. And they aren't.

I'm not convince that the congress isn't being rational though. The US emissions could drop some, or be stable, and it wouldn't really make any difference. There is an emissions juggernaut incoming that is Asia; Russia, India, and China; accounted for as a combined unit, will vastly overwhelm the emissions of the US and EU in the coming years. Its not even going to be close.

So, given that analysis, what do you gain from huge expense on CO2 when you could spend that money on particulates or other pollution issues that will deliver some return on investment within the US.

People find it convenient to label other by group and some love to classify Democrats as right thinking on climate and Republicans as wrong thinking on climate. The problem with that is, the Democrats had full control of Congress for four years, both houses from 2007-2011 January to January. Instead of doing something, anything really, to change the trajectory they did nothing but talk. If they had really meant any of it they would have passed a climate bill in 2007 and made President Bush either sign it or veto it openly. They chose to do nothing because their Lobbyists and their voter base both encourage them to do nothing. That has not changed between the 2010 elections and the 2016 elections. When the Republicans took the House in 2011 and the Senate in 2014 they also could have passed bills forcing President Obama to either sign it or veto it openly. Again they chose to do nothing because the Lobbyists and Voters want them to do nothing.

All the childish finger pointing is denied by the facts on the ground. The vast majority of voters and nearly all the Lobbyists want to burn fossil fuels and don't give two hoots in heck what that does to the climate.

[AgentR11]

I did no partisan finger pointing the above. I'm just pointing out, that the focus on the office of president is misplaced. If folks in the US want action on climate change, they are going to have to send reps and senators to Washington who have that as a priority. And that is NOT happening.

[litesong]

the kkk(always small letters) endorse T-rump. But the kkk(always small letters) are keeping T-rump from talkin' so much about rigged elections, since the kkk(always small letters) are suppressing black democratic voters in N. Carolina.Yeah, there are enough white racists to fight on many different fronts, simultaneously.

////////
kiwichick wrote:
was there something inaccurate about litesong's post?
////////
Tanada wrote:
Only everything.
//////
litesong wrote:
Tanada tries to smooth things over by saying "everybody is at fault". But, it is the kkk(always small letters) that endorse T-rump. All the facets I mention fall into place. T-rump has led the willing re-pubic-lick-un party away from the best hopes of america. The kkk(always small letters) sees their literature become reality. Democratic & black voter suppression issues ARE THE MARK of the kkk(always small letters). Three courts vociferously stamp out these voter suppression efforts by the kkk(always small letters) backed re-pubic-lick-un party.

Tanada.... everyone is NOT at fault. T-rump & the kkk(always small letters) are at fault.

Repeating: In 2008 re-pubic-lick-un polls said it would be close between McCain & Obama & McCain lost by a large margin. In 2012 re-pubic-lick-un polls said they would win, & Romney lost handily to Obama. After the FBI bombshell, the racist Grand Old Party(Tanada doesn't like the more accurate definition) now says they will win the election. Sorry, racist Grand Old Party(Tanada doesn't like the more accurate definition), you are going to lose. I will only be disappointed because you won't lose 90% to 10%.

[Newfie]

Agent,
I read Tanda as agreeing and Clarifying why they are not onboard.

[Newfie]

Litesong,
Your use of derogatory names for groups is confusing and distracts from any message you may be trying to convey.

If you have something to substantive to say then say it. Plain and concise are the ways to write with impact.

See example below.

TROLL
In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into ...

[vtsnowedin]

Litesong you must have slept through history class. At least the day they covered Yellow dog democrats and the history of the KKK.
You could watch this to get some reality but as it starts back at the civil war you might want to skip ahead to the middle.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jl7Sx08JBZ0

[litesong]

Litesong,
If you have something to substantive to say then say it. Plain and concise are the ways to write with impact.

litesong wrote:
It is the kkk(always small letters) that endorse T-rump. T-rump has led the willing re-pubic-lick-un party away from the best hopes of america. The kkk(always small letters) see their literature become reality. Democratic & black voter suppression issues ARE THE MARK of the kkk(always small letters). Three courts instantly & vociferously stamp out these voter suppression efforts by the kkk(always small letters) backed re-pubic-lick-un party.

In 2008 re-pubic-lick-un polls said it would be close between McCain & Obama & McCain lost by a large margin. In 2012 re-pubic-lick-un polls said they would win, & Romney lost handily to Obama. The racist Grand Old Party now says they will win the election. Sorry, racist Grand Old Party, you are going to lose. I will only be disappointed because you won't lose 90% to 10%.

Newfie doesn't like too many words that it doesn't agree with.

[litesong]

Litesong you must have slept through history class. At least the day they covered Yellow dog democrats and the history of the KKK.
You could watch this to get some reality but as it starts back at the civil war you might want to skip ahead to the middle.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jl7Sx08JBZ0

Yes, racist re-pubic-lick-uns like to side-track to the history of U.S. racism, starting with the democrats. Its voiced on many websites.

Don't worry. My Native Tribe & all Native Tribes know the history of euros, who took their superior technology & poor morality, blasting, pillaging, murdering & starving to death Native Tribes, world-wide. The transplanted euros who ended up in the very northern western hemisphere continued their racist devastations in what they called Canada & the U.S. Yeah, democrats continued the racism of europe. But, re-pubic-lick-uns said we can do racism better..... & they did..... & do so, presently.

T-rump who traditionally rubbed shoulders with democrats, knew his racist, sexist, xenophobic invective would NOT be accepted by present day democrats, became a racist re-pubic-lick-un. With lots of money, T-rump did it easily.

[Newfie]

Lite song,

You may be from some disadvantaged sub group. That does not excuse profiling or bigotry.

Are you becoming the kind of hateful person you rail against?

Bigot
: a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)

Profiling
g
: the act or process of learning information about someone based on what is already known
: the act or practice of regarding particular people as more likely to commit crimes because of their appearance, race, etc.