News:

And we're back!

Main Menu

Most Overrated President

Started by Kleves, July 23, 2011, 03:45:12 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Mirror, mirror, on the wall, who's the most overrated of them all?

Jefferson
2 (3.9%)
TR
1 (2%)
FDR
9 (17.6%)
Truman
3 (5.9%)
JFK
10 (19.6%)
Reagan
20 (39.2%)
Bush I
0 (0%)
Clinton
2 (3.9%)
Other
4 (7.8%)

Total Members Voted: 50

Neil

Quote from: Ideologue on July 24, 2011, 07:37:44 PM
Quote from: grumbler on July 24, 2011, 06:11:44 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on July 24, 2011, 01:55:03 PM
The devil's advocate view might be, though, that "he held slaves, and is thus immediately overrated".
Hell, the devil's advocate view might be that "he had false teeth, and is thus immediately overrated."

Don't confuse devil's advocacy with actual rational argumentation.  Devil's advocacy is designed to provoke thought, but not to win arguments.
The rational argument in this case appearing to be "everyone was doing it."
Wouldn't slavery at that point be considered not only moral, but laudable?  They were rescuing people from Africa and transporting their descendents to a future of lucrative pro sports contracts and crime.
I do not hate you, nor do I love you, but you are made out of atoms which I can use for something else.

OttoVonBismarck

Quote from: Neil on July 24, 2011, 07:36:16 PM
Washington was a treasonous criminal, and thus not worthy of being considered 'great'.

You ought to be taken out back and flogged like the traitor you are. Everyone knows that the German pretender George III was no more a King than I, the true King during the Revolution was Charles Edward Louis John Casimir Sylvester Maria Stuart - Charles III (Bonnie Prince Charlie if you must), and since the peoples of Great Britain had long since forsaken the rightful monarchs of their Kingdom Washington was no more bound to them than I am to a random farm mule.

Neil

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 24, 2011, 08:30:23 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 24, 2011, 07:36:16 PM
Washington was a treasonous criminal, and thus not worthy of being considered 'great'.

You ought to be taken out back and flogged like the traitor you are. Everyone knows that the German pretender George III was no more a King than I, the true King during the Revolution was Charles Edward Louis John Casimir Sylvester Maria Stuart - Charles III (Bonnie Prince Charlie if you must), and since the peoples of Great Britain had long since forsaken the rightful monarchs of their Kingdom Washington was no more bound to them than I am to a random farm mule.
Charles Stuart was a Catholic, and thus it would be illegal for him to be king.
I do not hate you, nor do I love you, but you are made out of atoms which I can use for something else.

Razgovory

I thought that law postdated him.
I've given it serious thought. I must scorn the ways of my family, and seek a Japanese woman to yield me my progeny. He shall live in the lands of the east, and be well tutored in his sacred trust to weave the best traditions of Japan and the Sacred South together, until such time as he (or, indeed his house, which will periodically require infusion of both Southern and Japanese bloodlines of note) can deliver to the South it's independence, either in this world or in space.  -Lettow April of 2011

Raz is right. -MadImmortalMan March of 2017

OttoVonBismarck

Quote from: Neil on July 24, 2011, 08:45:14 PM
Charles Stuart was a Catholic, and thus it would be illegal for him to be king.

You put the laws of man before the rightful succession of a King? The German George I was more than 50 places removed from the throne, so much so that it is almost laughable to consider him or any of his descendants proper Kings of the United Kingdom. How could a man feel allegiance to someone whose claim to the crown is so manufactured?

CountDeMoney

Quote from: Neil on July 24, 2011, 08:45:14 PM
Charles Stuart was a Catholic, and thus it would be illegal for him to be king.

Well, there's your problem right there.

Neil

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 24, 2011, 10:13:06 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 24, 2011, 08:45:14 PM
Charles Stuart was a Catholic, and thus it would be illegal for him to be king.

You put the laws of man before the rightful succession of a King? The German George I was more than 50 places removed from the throne, so much so that it is almost laughable to consider him or any of his descendants proper Kings of the United Kingdom. How could a man feel allegiance to someone whose claim to the crown is so manufactured?
He wasn't a Catholic, so that's a pretty strong claim right there.
I do not hate you, nor do I love you, but you are made out of atoms which I can use for something else.

grumbler

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 24, 2011, 10:13:06 PM
You put the laws of man before the rightful succession of a King? The German George I was more than 50 places removed from the throne, so much so that it is almost laughable to consider him or any of his descendants proper Kings of the United Kingdom. How could a man feel allegiance to someone whose claim to the crown is so manufactured?
This is starting to sound like a No True Scotsman argument.  All claims to all crowns are highly manufactured.  Some people (e.g. Neil) willfully ignore that fact, and insist that all others willfully ignore that fact, but they are like Islamic extremists: to be guarded against, lest they do rash things, but not to be otherwise taken seriously.
The future is all around us, waiting, in moments of transition, to be born in moments of revelation. No one knows the shape of that future or where it will take us. We know only that it is always born in pain.   -G'Kar

Bayraktar!

Camerus

I'm tempted to choose Jefferson for a variety of reasons.  Ide already outlined most of them, but I will also add that in retrospect Jefferson was so obviously on the wrong side of history in his hatred of banks and desire to foster an agrarian republic that it is almost painful.  Dude was also one self-righteous, hypocritical human being.  However, Jefferson is already a figure of such immense controversy, that I'm not sure whether he is truly the most "overrated" of presidents.

From my vantage point in late July 2011, I've got to go with Reagan as the most overrated of presidents.  Sure, I think he was in many ways a pretty good president who, coming after Carter and the upheavals of the '70's, restored some pride and prosperity to the US.  But his legacy left an extremely damaging belief among his millions of fanbois, and that is "voodoo economics".  The idea that deficits don't really matter, taxes should only be cut, never raised, etc. has contributed to what is arguably the greatest crisis for the USA in my lifetime.  So many post-Reagan Republicans and their retarded Tea Bagging cousins have simply accepted that as a fundamental economic axiom that it is making the current attempt at dire-needed reform more difficult by several orders of magnitude.

Valmy

The problem with Reagan is that alot of the things he did were expedients that were good in the particular circumstances of the time.  But for some reason now they are embraced as eternal dogma.

I think JFK is more over-rated but unlike Reagan we do not keep trying to recreate his presidency all the time.

Well ok I guess the exception would be the Americorps thing.
Quote"This is a Russian warship. I propose you lay down arms and surrender to avoid bloodshed & unnecessary victims. Otherwise, you'll be bombed."

Zmiinyi defenders: "Russian warship, go fuck yourself."

Malthus

I chose JFK as "most overrated" simply because his high rating was mostly based on his image* and the manner of his death, not on any concrete policies he actually enacted.




*Oh, and boffing Monroe.  ;)
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane—Marcus Aurelius

The Brain

Quote from: Malthus on July 25, 2011, 09:31:13 AM
I chose JFK as "most overrated" simply because his high rating was mostly based on his image* and the manner of his death, not on any concrete policies he actually enacted.




*Oh, and boffing Monroe.  ;)

OK, vM.
Women want me. Men want to be with me.

grumbler

Quote from: Valmy on July 25, 2011, 08:58:50 AM
The problem with Reagan is that alot of the things he did were expedients that were good in the particular circumstances of the time.  But for some reason now they are embraced as eternal dogma.
I agree with the latter part of your observation, but disagree that that's a "problem with Reagan."  It's a problem with the Reagan idolators, but he is dead.

I would say that the problem with Reagan is that his second term pretty much undid any good his first term accomplished.
The future is all around us, waiting, in moments of transition, to be born in moments of revelation. No one knows the shape of that future or where it will take us. We know only that it is always born in pain.   -G'Kar

Bayraktar!

derspiess

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 23, 2011, 08:03:16 PM
Fuck you, sweater vest monkey.  You come after James Earle Carter: Cold Warrior, you come after me.

:lol:
"If you can play a guitar and harmonica at the same time, like Bob Dylan or Neil Young, you're a genius. But make that extra bit of effort and strap some cymbals to your knees, suddenly people want to get the hell away from you."  --Rich Hall

Zeus

To be cunning and vicious is a fairly obvious shortcut to total victory.