- Joined
- Jan 29, 2011
- Messages
- 11,265
- Reaction score
- 2,921
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
The only bias is yours and you try, and fail, to dismiss every poll which indicates what a miserable failure Bush was.That the Black college in mention is heavily liberal, and in the very year of the survey, got the first black president... Of course they would rate lowly the guy he was replacing... it's called bias...
When there are such heavy biases, most legitmate scholars treat the results with a grain of salt... not go around shouting the praises of the results...
Yeah, thanks, but I can look up Harvard faculty members on the interwebs, too. :lol:
And try to follow the conversation, genius. The topic of FDR was raised specifically in relation to his contribution, or lack there of, to our success in WWII. Of course the seminal issues of his presidency were the economy and the war, so WTF do you think he did to garner those stellar rankings? Do you suppose it was all about his farm programs?
Oddly enough, I minored in history and had several poli-sci courses and I couldn't tell you what presidents ANY of my professors considered to be No. 1.
First of all, the survey was organized by three professors -- not three schools. Second, if you objected to one of the administrators because you thought he or she was biased there was still no need to bring race into it. Third, the fact the study ranked Reagan 10th over all — higher than most surveys — would suggest that there wasn't a liberal bias. I also notice you didnt mention that Rice and Mason are southern universities, which would imply more of a conservative bias Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln....
IOW, a typical ad hominem response by a conservative who doesn't like the results of a poll. with a dash of racism for good measure.
The only bias is yours and you try, and fail, to dismiss every poll which indicates what a miserable failure Bush was.
And to demonstrate your failure, though you tried to claim a black college was biased in their ranking in favor of a newly elected black president, the reality is that it was one woman from Howard, along with two white men from other universities who merely sponsored the survey of 65 scholars and historians from around the nation. So even if one were to accept your devious accusation of racism of a black woman , you fall short by 64 of the others, of whom you don't know if any were even black.
The article does mention some of those who sponsored/partook in the survey...
H. W. Brands (white guy from the University of Texas)
Thomas Cronin (white guy from Colorado College)
Robert Dallek (white guy from UCLA)
Alvin Felzenberg (white American presidential historian)
Fred Greenstein (white guy from Princeton University)
James McPherson (white historian)
Douglas Brinkley (white guy from Rice University)
Edna Medford (Black woman from Howard University)
Richard Smith (white guy from George Mason University)
According to your idiocy, these white guys should have raised Bush's standing because there was a black man in the White House. :roll:
Long before historians weighed in with their opinions, America declared him among the best by electing him an unprecedented 4 times. You can cry about historians and scholars being biased all you want, even though they only appear biased to you because you're the one who's biased, but winning 4 elections pretty much shuts you up, no matter how much you persist with this nonsense.Yes, you can look em up on the net... the difference is, I've actually had them... but your jealousy is duly noted...
:yawn: proving you wrong gets pretty boring after a while..
I could tell you what 95% of my professors favorite presidents were, nevermind the history professors... that could just be because I'm more astute at this than your are, though...
Another thing you're wrong about.... FDR was brought up because of the comment that his spending actually slowed the recovery... and that it was in decline prior to WWII spending saving his backside...
http://www.debatepolitics.com/2012-...owest-60-years-w-166-a-63.html#post1060576001
"Perhaps it is time for a reconsideration. I believe his policies prolonged the depression. If he was not the worst president we have ever had, saved only by winning WWII, he was a close second.
The one term Marxist flexible president Barrack Hussein Obama is essentially tied with FDR as the worst. Will he start a big war to complete the parallels? Why admit to Stuxnet if he is not trying to get a good little war going with Iran?"
You already confirmed why FDR, like Washington and Lincoln, got those rankings, when you condeded that the majority of historians focus on the revolution, civil war, and WWII... which is why those historians ranks the top 3 presidents as they do... There was also the Americanization teaching to tell students that's who they're supposed to believe is a great president... Same with the presidents on Mt Rushmore... you can't make a bad comment about Jefferson, because he's on Mt Rushmore... but as a president Jefferson was an abject failure... yet he is consistently ranked in the top 5... Wake up to the fact that these "ranking"s mean as much as they do in college football... since they can't be truly tested...
Now... :stop: This crap ist
Long before historians weighed in with their opinions, America declared him among the best by electing him an unprecedented 4 times. You can cry about historians and scholars being biased all you want, even though they only appear biased to you because you're the one who's biased, but winning 4 elections pretty much shuts you up, no matter how much you persist with this nonsense.
This ranks among the most unhinged posts made in these fora. Who knows how you figure the president who was elected the most times as the worst ever, but suffice it to say, you have no credibility remaining as that opinion of yours reveals you're not playing with a full deck.The one term Marxist flexible president Barrack Hussein Obama is essentially tied with FDR as the worst.
Ummm, the article doesn't actually state she hand picked even one person to be in the poll, only that she participated in supervising it. Anything beyond that stems from your uncontrollable imagination.When she was one of the 3 who organized the poll, that makes her a little more than just 1 of the 65... Since she can influence who is picked, what criteria are rated, and other people's votes by discussion...
Ummm, you're the one asserting a racist bias to the survey. Whether you realize it or not, that places the burden of proving there was even another black among those polled beyond the one mentioned.But, by your moronic logic... the 8 whites you listed are just 8 of the 65... and you haven't the slightest what anyone else's race is...
Your backwards thinking remains ... backwards. I am not saying FDR was the best because he was elected four times -- I am saying there's no way in hell he ranks among the worst because he was elected four times.No it doesnt... because if it did he would be #1 and not #2 for winning most elections (also he's been #3, up until the new found rankings he's had post 2009 economic crash, in which he gets the added attention of the supposed bringing us out of the depression (which occured 3 years prior to his presidency begining)...
Additionally, you're still grasping at straws. Only 1 of his 4 victories came during wartime. But you do tacitly reveal why a ****ty president like Bush took us into an unnecessary war with Iraq over WMD which weren't there. That worked out in his favor, wouldn't you say?Additionally, he was president during wartime... and most Americans feel you shouldn't change president during a war... which guarantees him that election...
According to your nonsense ... historians don't know what they're talking about ... scholars don't know what they're talking about ... the people who gave FDR over 100 million votes don't know what they're talking about ... the millions of people represented by scientific polling these days don't know what they're talking about ... but you, an unhinged biased poster who's not playing with a full deck thinks he's the one who knows what he's talking about.Furthermore... the historians seemed biased even to the historians... which is why many of the polls tried to restructure the polling process, so it wouldn't be as biased as they felt the prior surveys have been...
I sincerely hope you can understand why it's impossible to take your opinion seriously. :2wave:Also, this polling works the other way, too... Nixon is often rated lowly... but he was actually an excellent president... and slowly over time his poll ranking keeps increasing ever so slightly... Similarly John Adams was a fairly decent president, but is often ranked in the bottom half... only recently has their been new recognition of his presidency... However Jefferson still stands out as the key failure of all of these polls... Jefferson was a TERRIBLE president, by nearly all measures of a presidency... however, Jefferson's popularity has stood out in each poll to make him a persistent top 5 president... The polls are just utter nonsense... someday youll come to grips with it...
Yes, you can look em up on the net... the difference is, I've actually had them... but your jealousy is duly noted...
I could tell you what 95% of my professors favorite presidents were, nevermind the history professors... that could just be because I'm more astute at this than your are, though...
Another thing you're wrong about.... FDR was brought up because of the comment that his spending actually slowed the recovery... and that it was in decline prior to WWII spending saving his backside...
You already confirmed why FDR, like Washington and Lincoln, got those rankings, when you condeded that the majority of historians focus on the revolution, civil war, and WWII... which is why those historians ranks the top 3 presidents as they do...
This ranks among the most unhinged posts made in these fora. Who knows how you figure the president who was elected the most times as the worst ever, but suffice it to say, you have no credibility remaining as that opinion of yours reveals you're not playing with a full deck.
Ummm, the article doesn't actually state she hand picked even one person to be in the poll, only that she participated in supervising it. Anything beyond that stems from your uncontrollable imagination.
Not to mention, 2 of the top 5, including #1, were Republicans; and 4 of the top 10 were Republican. Good luck selling your delusions.
Ummm, you're the one asserting a racist bias to the survey. Whether you realize it or not, that places the burden of proving there was even another black among those polled beyond the one mentioned.
Your backwards thinking remains ... backwards. I am not saying FDR was the best because he was elected four times -- I am saying there's no way in hell he ranks among the worst because he was elected four times.
Additionally, you're still grasping at straws. Only 1 of his 4 victories came during wartime. But you do tacitly reveal why a ****ty president like Bush took us into an unnecessary war with Iraq over WMD which weren't there. That worked out in his favor, wouldn't you say?
LMFAO @ scientific polling... wow... scientific ey? When each poll has different parameters, different numbers of presidents included, different ratios of respondents, etc. that's far from scientific... in a scientific poll, there would be 1 isolated variable, here you have several... that's what throws off the validity of it... plus, as I pointed out, even those conducting the polls felt the poll prior to them was biased in one way or another... so they admit there's bias involved, why can't you?According to your nonsense ... historians don't know what they're talking about ... scholars don't know what they're talking about ... the people who gave FDR over 100 million votes don't know what they're talking about ... the millions of people represented by scientific polling these days don't know what they're talking about ... but you, an unhinged biased poster who's not playing with a full deck thinks he's the one who knows what he's talking about.
:roll::roll::roll:
I sincerely hope you can understand why it's impossible to take your opinion seriously. :2wave:
Yeah, every chat forum I go to it seems the same thing...most ofthe Keynesians act like they are rabid or something, while (for the most part - there ARE exceptions) those that oppose them are generally much calmer.all I will say is if this was boxing match.. one should pray that AdamT's corner throw in the towel and cart him off..The pounding Indep is giving him is so brutal and at this point its OVER... Indep in a TKO.. and if it continues it will be a a KO and we would have to worry that AdamT might swallow his mouthpiece and Sheik would have to give him mouth to mouth to save his beloved tag team partner..LOL
well done my friend Indep!!!! I feel your frustration bro.... you are a real pro.!!! well done..
Yup, the voters of the western world sure were brilliant in the 1920's and 1930's.
They elected Mussolini and Hitler over and over until they died as well.
Yeah, every chat forum I go to it seems the same thing...most ofthe Keynesians act like they are rabid or something, while (for the most part - there ARE exceptions) those that oppose them are generally much calmer.
Why do Keynesians seem to get SO angry and take it SO personal?
And then they just start the mud throwing instead of just remaining calm, debating the facts and using unbiased evidence to make their case.
Because Hitler and Mussolini were elected in a fair election :roll:
And your unbiased evidence that both of them were not the most popular candidates is what?
I see you won't defend their elections as being fair
Because Hitler and Mussolini were elected in a fair election :roll:
You made the point they are not...not me.
Yup, the voters of the western world sure were brilliant in the 1920's and 1930's.
They elected Mussolini and Hitler over and over until they died as well.
If the person that was most popular, got elected...then I would say the elections were fair enough.
That is what elections are for (imo).
Now do you have unbiased evidence that the most popular candidate was not elected or don't you?
Well Hitler certainly was at first, Mussolini was asked by the king of Italy to create a new government so I am unaware if there were any elections, but the Germans had in fact initially elected Hitler.
So you did. My apologies. That rant remains unhinged, but you are correct, it was misterveritis', not yours.Wow... like your buddy AdamT... you can't read either...
That's not my opinion, it was the post that sparked the FDR debate... which is what AdamT falsely referenced, so I provided to correct reference... Even providing the link to the actual post... by another poster...
So whose credibility is questionable?
You have no evidence of bias on her part. None. You can pretend like you do, but you don't. And again, your hollow denials remain empty in the face of 2 of the top 5 were Republican as were 4 of the top 10. That's some biased survey!I never said she handpicked the respondents... nor did I say that everyone taking the survey was black... but from the evidence provided, the potential existence for bias would qualify as a reason to toss out the results in any strict scientific experiment, and history, the actual scholarly study of history, is meant to be a science, not some hobby, as these people seem to have made it...
You have not described what her actions were. You inferred she didn't hand pick the participants, but other than crying that it's biased, you have not offered anything other than she, and Howard U. are black and Liberal. That doesn't demonstrate how she injected bias into the survey by any stretch of the imagination. And once again, a poll which had 2/5 and 4/10 Republicans does not appear biased except for those who are fluffing to get Bush up in the rankings.Like it or not, what I described are actions supervisors do in organizing a poll... she's from Howard, which is well known to be a liberal pro-black college... and the survey is measuring the conservative president that was replaced by a liberal being the first black president... in the very year that that occured... There is a strong likelihood for bias... and thus the poll itself, is brought into question...
Ummm, until America was at war and FDR was not a war-time president. American's don't like changing commander-in-chiefs while we are at war. Americans don't hold onto presidents because other countries are at war, even with the possibility we could get dragged in. We dumped Taft while the Mexican revolution was raging.Again, a limited knowledge of history impares your reasoning... 1 of his 4 victories came during wartime... 2 other of his victories came during WWII, when most people felt we could be at war at any time... and 1 when it was almost certain we'd be heading to war, with either Germany of Japan... During each of those 3 elections the discussion of changing a president when we might be headed to war was brought up... As it has on other occasions...
Scientific polling as in individual scientific polls taken on occasion. Not combining them ... saying they all agree with Bush being close the bottom.LMFAO @ scientific polling... wow... scientific ey? When each poll has different parameters, different numbers of presidents included, different ratios of respondents, etc. that's far from scientific... in a scientific poll, there would be 1 isolated variable, here you have several... that's what throws off the validity of it... plus, as I pointed out, even those conducting the polls felt the poll prior to them was biased in one way or another... so they admit there's bias involved, why can't you?
The hysterical part you don't get is while you were claiming that people were stupid enough to elect Hitler and Mussolini, in your vain attempt to paint Americans as stupid for electing FDR 4 times -- is that neither Hitler nor Mussolini were elected to lead their respective countries. So your point is baseless hyperbole which only serves to bolster FDR's performance as America kept electing him until he died.You made the point they are not...not me.
If the person that was most popular, got elected...then I would say the elections were fair enough. That is what elections are for (imo).
Now do you have unbiased evidence that the most popular candidate was not elected or don't you?
No, Hitler was not elected in a free and fair election.
First off a Free and Fair election is a very rare thing in any society perhaps one or the other but very rarely both. Perhaps afterwords the elections after his initial win were indeed manipulated, but the election making him chancellor in 1933 was a comptition between several parties and the Nazi's won that election and although im sure it was manipulated and not free i'm sure it was fair for the time period and area.
First AND last off, neither Hitler nor Mussolini were elected to lead their nations
No, I was responding to a point *you* made:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?