Off-Topic :
Fairfax Underground
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Presidential Rankings
Posted by:
Lame Duck
()
Date: February 16, 2009 02:30PM
Yeah. How about that Bush legacy? He was the worst in international relations, second-to-last in economic management and ranked 36th out of 41 overall.
-------------------------------------------------
WASHINGTON – Just days after the nation honored the 200th anniversary of his birth, 65 historians ranked Abraham Lincoln as the nation's best president.
Former President George W. Bush, who left office last month, was ranked 36th out of the 42 men who had been chief executive by the end of 2008, according to a survey conducted by the cable channel C-SPAN.
Bush scored lowest in international relations, where he was ranked 41st, and in economic management, where he was ranked 40th. His highest ranking, 24th, was in the category of pursuing equal justice for all. He was ranked 25th in crisis leadership and vision and agenda setting.
In contrast, Lincoln was ranked in the top three in each of the 10 categories evaluated by participants.
In C-SPAN's only other ranking of presidents, in 2000, former President Bill Clinton jumped six spots from No. 21 to 15. Other recent presidents moved positions as well: Ronald Reagan advanced from No. 11 to 10, George H.W. Bush rose from No. 20 to 18 and Jimmy Carter fell from No. 22 to 25.
This movement illustrates that presidential reputations are influenced by present-day concerns, said survey adviser and participant Edna Medford.
"Today's concerns shape our views of the past, be it in the area of foreign policy, managing the economy or human rights," Medford said in a statement.
After Lincoln, the academics rated George Washington, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt and Harry Truman as the best leaders overall. The same five received top spots in the 2000 survey, although Washington and Franklin D. Roosevelt swapped spots this year.
Rated worst overall were James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Franklin Pierce, William Henry Harrison and Warren G. Harding.
The survey was conducted in December and January. Participants ranked each president on a scale of one, "not effective" to 10, "very effective," on a list of 10 leadership qualities including relations with Congress, public persuasion and moral authority.
-------------------------------------------------
WASHINGTON – Just days after the nation honored the 200th anniversary of his birth, 65 historians ranked Abraham Lincoln as the nation's best president.
Former President George W. Bush, who left office last month, was ranked 36th out of the 42 men who had been chief executive by the end of 2008, according to a survey conducted by the cable channel C-SPAN.
Bush scored lowest in international relations, where he was ranked 41st, and in economic management, where he was ranked 40th. His highest ranking, 24th, was in the category of pursuing equal justice for all. He was ranked 25th in crisis leadership and vision and agenda setting.
In contrast, Lincoln was ranked in the top three in each of the 10 categories evaluated by participants.
In C-SPAN's only other ranking of presidents, in 2000, former President Bill Clinton jumped six spots from No. 21 to 15. Other recent presidents moved positions as well: Ronald Reagan advanced from No. 11 to 10, George H.W. Bush rose from No. 20 to 18 and Jimmy Carter fell from No. 22 to 25.
This movement illustrates that presidential reputations are influenced by present-day concerns, said survey adviser and participant Edna Medford.
"Today's concerns shape our views of the past, be it in the area of foreign policy, managing the economy or human rights," Medford said in a statement.
After Lincoln, the academics rated George Washington, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt and Harry Truman as the best leaders overall. The same five received top spots in the 2000 survey, although Washington and Franklin D. Roosevelt swapped spots this year.
Rated worst overall were James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Franklin Pierce, William Henry Harrison and Warren G. Harding.
The survey was conducted in December and January. Participants ranked each president on a scale of one, "not effective" to 10, "very effective," on a list of 10 leadership qualities including relations with Congress, public persuasion and moral authority.
Re: Presidential Rankings
Posted by:
Lame Duck
()
Date: February 16, 2009 02:31PM
EDIT:
Yeah. How about that Bush legacy? He was the second-to-worst in international relations, third-to-last in economic management and ranked 36th out of 41 overall.
Yeah. How about that Bush legacy? He was the second-to-worst in international relations, third-to-last in economic management and ranked 36th out of 41 overall.
Re: Presidential Rankings
Posted by:
dono
()
Date: February 16, 2009 03:43PM
Hard to believe there have been worse...
Re: Presidential Rankings
Posted by:
slipstream
()
Date: February 16, 2009 03:51PM
dono Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hard to believe there have been worse...
Where did Truman rank four weeks out of office?
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hard to believe there have been worse...
Where did Truman rank four weeks out of office?
Re: Presidential Rankings
Posted by:
WashingToneLocian
()
Date: February 16, 2009 03:54PM
slipstream Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> dono Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Hard to believe there have been worse...
>
> Where did Truman rank four weeks out of office?
Let's get some things straight about Truman and W. Bush. Truman did not launch a pre-emptive War in Korea. The North Koreans invaded the South Koreans. George W. Bush CHOSE to invade Iraq.
I don't know how things will turn out with Iraq. Right now things seem to be okay because the U.S. is paying the Sunnis not to kill us or Shi'ites. What happens when that changes?
-------------------------------------------------------
> dono Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Hard to believe there have been worse...
>
> Where did Truman rank four weeks out of office?
Let's get some things straight about Truman and W. Bush. Truman did not launch a pre-emptive War in Korea. The North Koreans invaded the South Koreans. George W. Bush CHOSE to invade Iraq.
I don't know how things will turn out with Iraq. Right now things seem to be okay because the U.S. is paying the Sunnis not to kill us or Shi'ites. What happens when that changes?
Re: Presidential Rankings
Posted by:
ObamaNot
()
Date: February 16, 2009 04:48PM
Join the Resistance before its too late!
http://www.grassfire.org/111/petition.asp?PID=18776802&NID=1
http://www.grassfire.org/111/petition.asp?PID=18776802&NID=1
Re: Presidential Rankings
Posted by:
slipstream
()
Date: February 16, 2009 05:20PM
WashingToneLocian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> slipstream Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > dono Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Hard to believe there have been worse...
> >
> > Where did Truman rank four weeks out of office?
>
>
> Let's get some things straight about Truman and W.
> Bush. Truman did not launch a pre-emptive War in
> Korea. The North Koreans invaded the South
> Koreans. George W. Bush CHOSE to invade Iraq.
>
> I don't know how things will turn out with Iraq.
> Right now things seem to be okay because the U.S.
> is paying the Sunnis not to kill us or Shi'ites.
> What happens when that changes?
Your comparison is pretty weak. There are similarities and differences in any two given scenarios. In hindsight, is containment of communism a valid reason for intervention. By your own account, a justification for the Iraq invasion could be its invasion of Kuwait, its treatment of the Kurds, etc.
-------------------------------------------------------
> slipstream Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > dono Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Hard to believe there have been worse...
> >
> > Where did Truman rank four weeks out of office?
>
>
> Let's get some things straight about Truman and W.
> Bush. Truman did not launch a pre-emptive War in
> Korea. The North Koreans invaded the South
> Koreans. George W. Bush CHOSE to invade Iraq.
>
> I don't know how things will turn out with Iraq.
> Right now things seem to be okay because the U.S.
> is paying the Sunnis not to kill us or Shi'ites.
> What happens when that changes?
Your comparison is pretty weak. There are similarities and differences in any two given scenarios. In hindsight, is containment of communism a valid reason for intervention. By your own account, a justification for the Iraq invasion could be its invasion of Kuwait, its treatment of the Kurds, etc.
Re: Presidential Rankings
Posted by:
WashingTone Locian
()
Date: February 16, 2009 07:14PM
slipstream Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Your comparison is pretty weak.
No. Bush comparing himself to Truman is pretty weak.
> There are
> similarities and differences in any two given
> scenarios.
More differences than similarities in this case.
> In hindsight, is containment of
> communism a valid reason for intervention.
Yes. The Truman Doctrine proved to be a valid approach. But I will remind you that our involvement in Korea last two years and resulted in a relative peace (actually, an ongoing ceasefire). Truman was unpopular because 1) he had a very public falling out with Gen. MacArthur and 2) he didn't try to "win" the war in North Korea by defeating the North Koreans because of China's intervention.
As for Iraq, the real test will be what happens when Iraqis really figure out how to rule their own country. What is going to happen when the Sunnis start insisting that the Kurds leave Kirkuk or Mosul?
> By
> your own account, a justification for the Iraq
> invasion could be its invasion of Kuwait, its
> treatment of the Kurds, etc.
The Persian Gulf War is a great example. Iraq invaded Kuwait. We liberated Kuwait from the Iraqis. We did not go to Baghdad in 1990 and we did not occupy Iraq.
In Korea, the North Koreans invaded South Korea. We liberated South Korea from the North Koreans. We did not go to Pyongyang and we did not occupy North Korea.
See the difference?
As for the Kurds, the U.S. cannot go around invading every country that treats its people like shit. There isn't enough time or treasure and it isn't in our national interest, no matter how morally right it might be.
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Your comparison is pretty weak.
No. Bush comparing himself to Truman is pretty weak.
> There are
> similarities and differences in any two given
> scenarios.
More differences than similarities in this case.
> In hindsight, is containment of
> communism a valid reason for intervention.
Yes. The Truman Doctrine proved to be a valid approach. But I will remind you that our involvement in Korea last two years and resulted in a relative peace (actually, an ongoing ceasefire). Truman was unpopular because 1) he had a very public falling out with Gen. MacArthur and 2) he didn't try to "win" the war in North Korea by defeating the North Koreans because of China's intervention.
As for Iraq, the real test will be what happens when Iraqis really figure out how to rule their own country. What is going to happen when the Sunnis start insisting that the Kurds leave Kirkuk or Mosul?
> By
> your own account, a justification for the Iraq
> invasion could be its invasion of Kuwait, its
> treatment of the Kurds, etc.
The Persian Gulf War is a great example. Iraq invaded Kuwait. We liberated Kuwait from the Iraqis. We did not go to Baghdad in 1990 and we did not occupy Iraq.
In Korea, the North Koreans invaded South Korea. We liberated South Korea from the North Koreans. We did not go to Pyongyang and we did not occupy North Korea.
See the difference?
As for the Kurds, the U.S. cannot go around invading every country that treats its people like shit. There isn't enough time or treasure and it isn't in our national interest, no matter how morally right it might be.
Re: Presidential Rankings
Posted by:
Hmm
()
Date: February 16, 2009 10:29PM
WashingTone Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Persian Gulf War is a great example. Iraq
> invaded Kuwait. We liberated Kuwait from the
> Iraqis. We did not go to Baghdad in 1990 and we
> did not occupy Iraq.
>
> In Korea, the North Koreans invaded South Korea.
> We liberated South Korea from the North Koreans.
> We did not go to Pyongyang and we did not occupy
> North Korea.
>
> See the difference?
Actually, I'm not so sure this comparison would be the best one to use. After liberating Kuwait, we did not go into Iraq, into Baghdad, and occupy it. Although the Korean war essentially ended up in a stalemate near the 38th Parallel, doesn't change the fact that we DID go into North Korea, and were all the way up at the Yalu River before the Chinese invaded.
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Persian Gulf War is a great example. Iraq
> invaded Kuwait. We liberated Kuwait from the
> Iraqis. We did not go to Baghdad in 1990 and we
> did not occupy Iraq.
>
> In Korea, the North Koreans invaded South Korea.
> We liberated South Korea from the North Koreans.
> We did not go to Pyongyang and we did not occupy
> North Korea.
>
> See the difference?
Actually, I'm not so sure this comparison would be the best one to use. After liberating Kuwait, we did not go into Iraq, into Baghdad, and occupy it. Although the Korean war essentially ended up in a stalemate near the 38th Parallel, doesn't change the fact that we DID go into North Korea, and were all the way up at the Yalu River before the Chinese invaded.
Re: Presidential Rankings
Posted by:
WashingTone Locian
()
Date: February 16, 2009 11:03PM
Hmm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WashingTone Locian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The Persian Gulf War is a great example. Iraq
> > invaded Kuwait. We liberated Kuwait from the
> > Iraqis. We did not go to Baghdad in 1990 and we
> > did not occupy Iraq.
> >
> > In Korea, the North Koreans invaded South
> Korea.
> > We liberated South Korea from the North
> Koreans.
> > We did not go to Pyongyang and we did not
> occupy
> > North Korea.
> >
> > See the difference?
>
> Actually, I'm not so sure this comparison would be
> the best one to use. After liberating Kuwait, we
> did not go into Iraq, into Baghdad, and occupy it.
> Although the Korean war essentially ended up in a
> stalemate near the 38th Parallel, doesn't change
> the fact that we DID go into North Korea, and were
> all the way up at the Yalu River before the
> Chinese invaded.
It's not the best one, but it is more appropriate than comparing our current six-year occupation of Iraq to an incursion we made into North Korea against Truman's wishes that led to MacArthur's firing.
-------------------------------------------------------
> WashingTone Locian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The Persian Gulf War is a great example. Iraq
> > invaded Kuwait. We liberated Kuwait from the
> > Iraqis. We did not go to Baghdad in 1990 and we
> > did not occupy Iraq.
> >
> > In Korea, the North Koreans invaded South
> Korea.
> > We liberated South Korea from the North
> Koreans.
> > We did not go to Pyongyang and we did not
> occupy
> > North Korea.
> >
> > See the difference?
>
> Actually, I'm not so sure this comparison would be
> the best one to use. After liberating Kuwait, we
> did not go into Iraq, into Baghdad, and occupy it.
> Although the Korean war essentially ended up in a
> stalemate near the 38th Parallel, doesn't change
> the fact that we DID go into North Korea, and were
> all the way up at the Yalu River before the
> Chinese invaded.
It's not the best one, but it is more appropriate than comparing our current six-year occupation of Iraq to an incursion we made into North Korea against Truman's wishes that led to MacArthur's firing.
Re: Presidential Rankings
Posted by:
Hmm
()
Date: February 17, 2009 06:33PM
WashingTone Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hmm Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > WashingTone Locian Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > The Persian Gulf War is a great example. Iraq
> > > invaded Kuwait. We liberated Kuwait from the
> > > Iraqis. We did not go to Baghdad in 1990 and
> we
> > > did not occupy Iraq.
> > >
> > > In Korea, the North Koreans invaded South
> > Korea.
> > > We liberated South Korea from the North
> > Koreans.
> > > We did not go to Pyongyang and we did not
> > occupy
> > > North Korea.
> > >
> > > See the difference?
> >
> > Actually, I'm not so sure this comparison would
> be
> > the best one to use. After liberating Kuwait,
> we
> > did not go into Iraq, into Baghdad, and occupy
> it.
> > Although the Korean war essentially ended up in
> a
> > stalemate near the 38th Parallel, doesn't
> change
> > the fact that we DID go into North Korea, and
> were
> > all the way up at the Yalu River before the
> > Chinese invaded.
>
> It's not the best one, but it is more appropriate
> than comparing our current six-year occupation of
> Iraq to an incursion we made into North Korea
> against Truman's wishes that led to MacArthur's
> firing.
Fair enough, I agree with that.
We all know the saying "hindsight is 20/20", and though I seriously doubt Bush's ranking will significantly improve over time (nor should it), I think something along the lines of what's happened to Truman's image (more in regards to foreign policy than anything else) may possibly happen with Bush. Truman left office with meager ratings, but I think future generations have come to understand the difficult decisions he was faced with at the time. Who knows, the same may happen to our last President.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hmm Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > WashingTone Locian Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > The Persian Gulf War is a great example. Iraq
> > > invaded Kuwait. We liberated Kuwait from the
> > > Iraqis. We did not go to Baghdad in 1990 and
> we
> > > did not occupy Iraq.
> > >
> > > In Korea, the North Koreans invaded South
> > Korea.
> > > We liberated South Korea from the North
> > Koreans.
> > > We did not go to Pyongyang and we did not
> > occupy
> > > North Korea.
> > >
> > > See the difference?
> >
> > Actually, I'm not so sure this comparison would
> be
> > the best one to use. After liberating Kuwait,
> we
> > did not go into Iraq, into Baghdad, and occupy
> it.
> > Although the Korean war essentially ended up in
> a
> > stalemate near the 38th Parallel, doesn't
> change
> > the fact that we DID go into North Korea, and
> were
> > all the way up at the Yalu River before the
> > Chinese invaded.
>
> It's not the best one, but it is more appropriate
> than comparing our current six-year occupation of
> Iraq to an incursion we made into North Korea
> against Truman's wishes that led to MacArthur's
> firing.
Fair enough, I agree with that.
We all know the saying "hindsight is 20/20", and though I seriously doubt Bush's ranking will significantly improve over time (nor should it), I think something along the lines of what's happened to Truman's image (more in regards to foreign policy than anything else) may possibly happen with Bush. Truman left office with meager ratings, but I think future generations have come to understand the difficult decisions he was faced with at the time. Who knows, the same may happen to our last President.
Re: Presidential Rankings
Posted by:
booty for
()
Date: May 23, 2009 03:48PM
TO LAME DUCK:
Maybe he wasn't chasing tail over seas like that retarded peice of shit bill KLINTON. Klinton was sucking off men(I.E., his husband, hitlary klinton). Bill was for bill and dick. he sucked more dick with do do all over it than chelsea, the aids carring whore.
Maybe he wasn't chasing tail over seas like that retarded peice of shit bill KLINTON. Klinton was sucking off men(I.E., his husband, hitlary klinton). Bill was for bill and dick. he sucked more dick with do do all over it than chelsea, the aids carring whore.
Re: Presidential Rankings
Posted by:
Republicans: Repetitive Ass Puckering Excercises Daily (RAPED)
()
Date: May 26, 2009 11:19AM
I'm sorry, but there are so many errors in grammar, punctuation and spelling in your post that it appears your IQ hovers around 48. It's amazing that you learned of this website, let alone how to power on a computer.
Please try again,"moran."
Please try again,"moran."
Re: Presidential Rankings
Posted by:
ITRADE
()
Date: May 26, 2009 11:27AM
WashingTone Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> slipstream Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > Your comparison is pretty weak.
>
> No. Bush comparing himself to Truman is pretty
> weak.
>
> > There are
> > similarities and differences in any two given
> > scenarios.
>
> More differences than similarities in this case.
>
> > In hindsight, is containment of
> > communism a valid reason for intervention.
>
> Yes. The Truman Doctrine proved to be a valid
> approach. But I will remind you that our
> involvement in Korea last two years and resulted
> in a relative peace (actually, an ongoing
> ceasefire). Truman was unpopular because 1) he had
> a very public falling out with Gen. MacArthur and
> 2) he didn't try to "win" the war in North Korea
> by defeating the North Koreans because of China's
> intervention.
>
> As for Iraq, the real test will be what happens
> when Iraqis really figure out how to rule their
> own country. What is going to happen when the
> Sunnis start insisting that the Kurds leave Kirkuk
> or Mosul?
>
> > By
> > your own account, a justification for the Iraq
> > invasion could be its invasion of Kuwait, its
> > treatment of the Kurds, etc.
>
> The Persian Gulf War is a great example. Iraq
> invaded Kuwait. We liberated Kuwait from the
> Iraqis. We did not go to Baghdad in 1990 and we
> did not occupy Iraq.
>
> In Korea, the North Koreans invaded South Korea.
> We liberated South Korea from the North Koreans.
> We did not go to Pyongyang and we did not occupy
> North Korea.
>
Actually we tried to. We were within 30 miles of closing all salients along the Yalu River and had stopped at the Yalu in several points - all of which are well to the NORTH of Pyongyang which was clearly occupied.
Once the PLA showed up, we had to withdraw towards the 38th parallel. Had it not been for the PLA, we would most certainly have occupied N.K.
Check your facts, station.
-------------------------------------------------------
> slipstream Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > Your comparison is pretty weak.
>
> No. Bush comparing himself to Truman is pretty
> weak.
>
> > There are
> > similarities and differences in any two given
> > scenarios.
>
> More differences than similarities in this case.
>
> > In hindsight, is containment of
> > communism a valid reason for intervention.
>
> Yes. The Truman Doctrine proved to be a valid
> approach. But I will remind you that our
> involvement in Korea last two years and resulted
> in a relative peace (actually, an ongoing
> ceasefire). Truman was unpopular because 1) he had
> a very public falling out with Gen. MacArthur and
> 2) he didn't try to "win" the war in North Korea
> by defeating the North Koreans because of China's
> intervention.
>
> As for Iraq, the real test will be what happens
> when Iraqis really figure out how to rule their
> own country. What is going to happen when the
> Sunnis start insisting that the Kurds leave Kirkuk
> or Mosul?
>
> > By
> > your own account, a justification for the Iraq
> > invasion could be its invasion of Kuwait, its
> > treatment of the Kurds, etc.
>
> The Persian Gulf War is a great example. Iraq
> invaded Kuwait. We liberated Kuwait from the
> Iraqis. We did not go to Baghdad in 1990 and we
> did not occupy Iraq.
>
> In Korea, the North Koreans invaded South Korea.
> We liberated South Korea from the North Koreans.
> We did not go to Pyongyang and we did not occupy
> North Korea.
>
Actually we tried to. We were within 30 miles of closing all salients along the Yalu River and had stopped at the Yalu in several points - all of which are well to the NORTH of Pyongyang which was clearly occupied.
Once the PLA showed up, we had to withdraw towards the 38th parallel. Had it not been for the PLA, we would most certainly have occupied N.K.
Check your facts, station.
Re: Presidential Rankings
Posted by:
McDonnell Loves Pube Parties
()
Date: May 26, 2009 04:47PM
I guess that's why Republicans are known for failure.
You could use the word Republican in the place of "fail" perfectly.
------------------------
John: Wow, you seriously just pulled a Republican on your speech. Now no one will buy our product.
Melissa: I know. I didn't sleep well last night. I was too busy masturbating to Showtime's soft-porn at the hotel.
You could use the word Republican in the place of "fail" perfectly.
------------------------
John: Wow, you seriously just pulled a Republican on your speech. Now no one will buy our product.
Melissa: I know. I didn't sleep well last night. I was too busy masturbating to Showtime's soft-porn at the hotel.
Re: Presidential Rankings
Posted by:
ITRADE
()
Date: May 26, 2009 05:46PM
Noting of course, that Abraham Lincoln was a republican.
Those little facts...
Those little facts...
Re: Presidential Rankings
Posted by:
Judge Crater
()
Date: May 26, 2009 05:49PM
ITRADE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Noting of course, that Abraham Lincoln was a
> republican.
>
> Those little facts...
The republican party then was completely different to what it is today.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Noting of course, that Abraham Lincoln was a
> republican.
>
> Those little facts...
The republican party then was completely different to what it is today.