Obama named 15th best president by 238 Presidential Scholars

Yeah...Where does it say it's a joke?Snipes_2

It was a joke, brother.

He was self-deprecating himself due to the Irish PM's mistake.

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="Snipes_2"] I read it, I don't see the part where Obama thanks himself. Snipes_2

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"] What are you reading? :? 'When he ended, at 8:12, Obama stepped to the microphone and said, "First, I'd like to say thank you to President Obama...(much laughter). Happy Saint Patrick's Day, everybody." Then we were escorted out.'Ninja-Hippo

Bleh... Shows how people have been brainwashed into socialism!!11!oen!!

im only suprised bush is that high up on the list.................he should be dead last, hell he shouldnt even be on the list

dont know a lot about US politics but wow people really hateAndrew Johnson...

His term isn't even over.

Both Roosevelts? Wilson in the top ten? Lincoln? Worst list I've ever seen. savebattery

Wow really? Lincoln, and both Roosevelts you will see in the top 10 for just about every ranking from scholar.. Infact Lincoln and FDR are consistently in the top 3, and usually ahead of George Washington who is either ranked 3rd or 4th.

Both Roosevelts? Wilson in the top ten? Lincoln? Worst list I've ever seen. savebattery

im only suprised bush is that high up on the list.................he should be dead last, hell he shouldnt even be on the list

blaznwiipspman1

Bush was horrible but he was far from the worst...

Just goes to show how liberal the media is, ranking him only 18 months into a term :roll:

Honestly, I think he's messed up more than done things right in that time as well.

We'll see how things turn out though, it's best to remain optimistic :P

Hindsight is always 20/20...

Just goes to show how liberal the media is, ranking him only 18 months into a term :roll:

Honestly, I think he's messed up more than done things right in that time as well.

We'll see how things turn out though, it's best to remain optimistic :P

Suzy_Q_Kazoo

While people point out that 'they always do it before a president term ends', that doesn't make it right.

i would think you would have to wait and see the impact of a president's decision making over a course of time.

But I get the feeling this list is just to get attention, which it is succeeding at.

▲ Why is Obama beating Adams? Why is Bush not at the bottom of the list? wtf! ▲

▲ Why is Obama beating Adams? Why is Bush not at the bottom of the list? wtf! ▲

Loco_Live

List all the reasons why you think Bush should be on the bottom.

And what did Adams do better than Obama?

Maybe others can answer.

That's an opinion. I'd say Bush did way better than that and obama should be last.

[QUOTE="Loco_Live"]

▲ Why is Obama beating Adams? Why is Bush not at the bottom of the list? wtf! ▲

flazzle

List all the reasons why you think Bush should be on the bottom.

And what did Adams do better than Obama?

Maybe others can answer.

▲ Name one good thing Bush did for this country that out ways the bad. I'm no historian and no US president specialist, but Obama is a meh president while Bush was just terrible. ▲

[QUOTE="flazzle"]

[QUOTE="Loco_Live"]

▲ Why is Obama beating Adams? Why is Bush not at the bottom of the list? wtf! ▲

Loco_Live

List all the reasons why you think Bush should be on the bottom.

And what did Adams do better than Obama?

Maybe others can answer.

▲ Name one good thing Bush did for this country that out ways the bad. I'm no historian and no US president specialist, but Obama is a meh president while Bush was just terrible. ▲

[QUOTE="flazzle"]

[QUOTE="Loco_Live"]

▲ Why is Obama beating Adams? Why is Bush not at the bottom of the list? wtf! ▲

Loco_Live

List all the reasons why you think Bush should be on the bottom.

And what did Adams do better than Obama?

Maybe others can answer.

▲ Name one good thing Bush did for this country that out ways the bad. I'm no historian and no US president specialist, but Obama is a meh president while Bush was just terrible. ▲

That's an opinion. I'd say Bush did way better than that and obama should be last.

dunl12496

However badly one may feel Obama has done, I don't exactly think there's an argument that can be successfully mounted for why he is worse than James Buchanan.

I guess these guys were snorting some funny things when they made this list.

Haha. This is one more instance of how biased and dillusional "scholars" are. Obama hasn't done anything good. All he does is assure people he is going to do what he can to take care of what's urgent. But, what he can do is nothing. He doesn't know how to do anything. He's incompetant. However, he knows how to read people; therefore, he is a talking head.

They just like him because he believes in the poor ideas academia has swayed them to into wanting to believe.

He does not understand how to accomplish anything. He doesn't know how to think logistically. He doesn't know how to think outside of the impulsive, fantasy moralism so many share. He's a would-be liberal theocrat. But, hey, what person in academia isn't?

▲ Name one good thing Bush did for this country that out ways the bad. I'm no historian and no US president specialist, but Obama is a meh president while Bush was just terrible. ▲

Loco_Live

We weren't attacked on the scale of 9/11 again. As a resident of New York I'm very thankful to President Bush for that.

[QUOTE="Loco_Live"]

▲ Name one good thing Bush did for this country that out ways the bad. I'm no historian and no US president specialist, but Obama is a meh president while Bush was just terrible. ▲

We weren't attacked on the scale of 9/11 again. As a resident of New York I'm very thankful to President Bush for that.

Isn't that similar to the whole, "This rock keeps away tigers," mentality?

ConMan: "This rock keeps away tigers."

Mark:"That's ridiculous. How can you make such claims?"

ConMan: "You don't see any tigers around here, do you?" mattbbpl

Not really. Have we been attacked resulting in over 3000 deaths since 9/11? No. Thank you President Bush.

Also, any list without the earlier version of Obama, Jimmy Carter, in the bottom five, is totally biased.

And what good is imagination if you can't think logistically? And what good is intellectual capacity when it isn't reached.

I hear professors rave about Wilson having a "first class mind". What that means in academic circles is that he has high intellectual capacity and is imaginitive. The real strength of Wilson was that he was able to discipline that area to let logistical contemplation occur enough. It enabled greater potential to be plausible.

However, Obama does not actually make progress in his consideration. He does not think logistically. He is too concerned with promoting liberalism that he doesn't actually figure out how he might impliment it. He is not discerning. Thus, he is not a good leader. But, again, he can qualify as a talking head because of his people skills.

He is quite stupid for being so "imaginitive" and for having such a strong intellect.

I'd say thats pretty fair. Doesn't really stand out as good, but he hasn't really acomplished anything special either.

Only guys on there I would rank very different are Kennedy, who I'd drop a bit, and Johnson and Bush 2 who I'd raise a lot. Bush always gets a lot of undue criticism, but when you ask people why he was so terrible they rarely give you a logical reason. Johnson also was very accomplished, except the Vietnam war which he actually had little to do with.

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"]

Isn't that similar to the whole, "This rock keeps away tigers," mentality?

ConMan: "This rock keeps away tigers."

Mark:"That's ridiculous. How can you make such claims?"

ConMan: "You don't see any tigers around here, do you?"

Not really. Have we been attacked resulting in over 3000 deaths since 9/11? No. Thank you President Bush.

But that is a similar mentality to the tiger/rock scenario. You've established correlation but not causality. Bush/Cheney used to same argument to claim that waterboarding/torture directly resulted in no more terrorist attacks, but that assumption is based on faulty reasoning.mattbbpl

I don't really care what they did, to be honest.

We didn't get attacked. You can call it whatever mentality you like. I don't know why you just can't admit that what they were doing worked. It's really not argument worthy, me thinks.

FDR? George washington? Lincoln?

Lol.

Worthless list.

Isn't that similar to the whole, "This rock keeps away tigers," mentality?

ConMan: "This rock keeps away tigers."

Mark:"That's ridiculous. How can you make such claims?"

ConMan: "You don't see any tigers around here, do you?" mattbbpl

It's similar. But the difference is, Bush was an assertive force (whether or not it was the key factor we can only speculate); a rock is a passive force. The way they function reveals different information. But, as the beloved Christoper Hitchens would say, "what should he have done? relax?" A non-decision was a necessary disaster. Also, the fact that no major instances of war have occurred since his plans to pursue the forces of the attacks have been enacted should suggest he was doing right at least in terms of national security. He was financially liberal and obviously dumped a lot of our economy away. But I would say he was a key role in preventing their furthered assertion on us.

Kennedy should be on top 5 IMO.

The presidential scholars hate bush :lol:

He doesn't know how to do anything.

Sudsy86_

He got health care reform passed, which people have been trying to do for about a century now.

"He hasn't done things I would like the president to do" is not the same as "He doesn't know how to do anything".

FDR? George washington? Lincoln?

Lol.

Worthless list.

JustusCF

Based off what we know of them, FDR might be the most progressive (not liberal progressive. but ideas that have a foreseen ability to work) president ever.

Washington's great because he's essentially the Richard Hatch of the US game: set all the precedents for how to be an effective leader.

Lincoln's great because he is one of the few presidents who wasn't willing to compromise (compromise is bad when you have good plans). His ability to work both sides enabled great change in US culture.

Name three people who are clearly better than them.

I don't really care what they did, to be honest.

We didn't get attacked. You can call it whatever mentality you like. I don't know why you just can't admit that what they were doing worked. It's really not argument worthy, me thinks.

airshocker

Wouldn't that imply that basically any president during whose term terrorists did not succeed in carrying out a major attack can have his policies credited for protecting America, regardless of what they are?