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.
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?
I'm not sure how much the rest of this clownlike rant that follows is worth responding, to, but I will until I get bored...
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.
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... 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...
That's what actual scholarship requires... questioning sources... and attempting to create complete impartiality...
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.
My backwards thinking? When did I ever say he was ranked among the worst? Oh yeah, that's right... your the one who can't read a source, to see me quoting someone else...
My thinking is presidential opinion polls hold no weight whatsoever, regardless... When discussing the issue of a presidency, you take the merits and analyze them for what they are... and skip the Dick Clark top 40 nonsense...
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?
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...
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:
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?
oh yes, but I'm "unhinged"... that's great... I'm probably the most rational and even keel person you've had the pleasure of speaking with, but because I disagree with your POV it must make me "unhinged"...
Oh wait, that's right... I'm "unhinged" because you couldn't read the post correctly and think I said something I didn't... which actually makes you blind, stupid, illiterate, or "unhinged"...
I sincerely hope you can understand why it's impossible to take your opinion seriously. :2wave:
Says the clown with the blue font, baboon avatar, and shake your bootie screename... that poorly argues the liberal talking points... in his worst Jon Stewart impression...
and apparantly can't read...