Trans Ladyboy Forum

Go Back Trans Ladyboy Forum > General Discussion
Register Forum Rules Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Bookmark & Share

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-16-2009
Vanillas Vanillas is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 148
Vanillas will become famous soon enough
Default Very Non-Shemale

Several weeks ago the results of a presidential poll were made public. A large number of presidential historians had been asked to rank the 42 US Presidents, from George Washington to George Bush, in order from the "best" to the "worst." They were asked to critique each president based upon several parameters including leadership, success in foreign affairs and the state of the economy during their tenure. The individual rankings of each historian were then averaged with those of the others and a composite ranking was given.

The composite best and second best (Lincoln and FDR, respectively) were no great surprise to me as were most of the others, with the exception of Harry Truman finishing in the top five. I would not have expected this considering how unpopular he was while in office. What DID surprise me is that George Bush did Not finish dead last. As I recall his composite ranking was 36th. To rank him as "only" the seventh worst president was, in my opinion, a gift.

Had I been conducting the study I would have excluded W. H. Harrison who contracted pneumonia on Inauguration Day and died soon afterward. I would also have excluded the assassinated James Garfield who served less than a year and was confined to his sick bed for most of that. This would bring the number of presidents ranked to 40. Now, the favorite "worst" presidents have traditionally been either Franklin Pierce or his successor, James Buchanan. They served during the eight years prior to the Civil War and have been accused - correctly, in my opinion - of indecisiveness and a general lack of leadership that failed to prevent the Civil War. Other worsts or near worsts have included the impeached Andrew Johnson, Ulysses S. Grant (unabashed cronyism) and Warren G. Harding (Teapot Dome).

Granted, none of these men deserve accolades for presidential greatness. However, I personally would rank EACH of them above George Bush. He was in over his head from Day 1 but, instead of humbly seeking competent advice he surrounded himself with sycophants and Yes-people. Then, driven by hubris and sheer bravado, and aided by a blatant disregard for the truth, he embroiled the country in two wars, ran roughshod over civil liberties, destroyed our standing abroad, and left the economy in shambles. And for all that he is only 36th? It is enough to make me seek the comfort of a willing T-girl. Can anyone help me out here?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-16-2009
Rachel's Avatar
Rachel Rachel is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 273
Rachel is infamous around these parts
Send a message via AIM to Rachel Send a message via Yahoo to Rachel
Default worst?

At least he wasnt impeached like Bill Clinton. And now you all will say "Well he should have been"
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-16-2009
Marta21 Marta21 is offline
Apprentice Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: SoCal
Posts: 31
Marta21 is on a distinguished road
Default

That was very well written and well said.
Thank you, I to believe he was the WORST!
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-19-2009
guest
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rachel View Post
At least he wasnt impeached like Bill Clinton. And now you all will say "Well he should have been"
no, we'll say bill clinton wasn't impeached... lol
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-20-2009
CreativeMind's Avatar
CreativeMind CreativeMind is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: A place that's sunny & warm
Posts: 371
CreativeMind is a jewel in the roughCreativeMind is a jewel in the roughCreativeMind is a jewel in the roughCreativeMind is a jewel in the rough
Default

Vanillas, keep in mind it's always the PUBLIC...

They do these sort of polls fairly frequently, which only makes sense. After all, the whole POINT of history is to allow time to pass and for people to look BACK on things in a more reflective manner and THEN decide how they feel about a person (or a thing) -- not to mention, the passage of time allows you to more accurately judge "how" certain things actually worked out.

Plus, these things always crack me up since the press always qualifies them as being among "Presidential historians" to give it some kind of validation. So, the FIRST question you always have to ask yourself...if you REALLY want to be fair about things...is "who" participated in any particular poll that you're citing and "what" are their actual backgrounds or professional history to make them qualified to even participate in the polling to begin with.

That said, back in January, there was a poll taken just like this of 52 prominent Presidential authors/historians. This was done in response to a recent public poll that had been taken, where the results were determined by the average "Joe Public" citizens of America. In THAT poll, it was fascinating to see that the results were skewed towards two things: people either voted for a President that they could remember something about from High School history class OR they voted based on their current political leanings.

As a result, Abraham Lincoln and George Washington came out as Numbers 1 and 2 to the average person (ie. people still feel that historically they were America's greatest presidents)... Ronald Reagan actually came in at Number 3, followed by FDR at 4...there were a few more after that...

...And then to illustrate what I said before about people voting based on their personal politics and not looking too far back in time (in other words, they vote what they can remember of recent history) -- yes, Bill Clinton AND George Bush BOTH made the top 10.

Why? Because even now the country is still SO amazingly split and SO amazingly polarized.
Which accounted for half the country saying (and voting) "I liked Clinton!" and the other half saying "I liked Bush!"
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-20-2009
CreativeMind's Avatar
CreativeMind CreativeMind is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: A place that's sunny & warm
Posts: 371
CreativeMind is a jewel in the roughCreativeMind is a jewel in the roughCreativeMind is a jewel in the roughCreativeMind is a jewel in the rough
Default

...Versus the HISTORIANS

You said in your post: "They were asked to critique each president based upon several parameters including leadership, success in foreign affairs and the state of the economy during their tenure. The individual rankings of each historian were then averaged with those of the others and a composite ranking was given."

Well, while you seem to be very anti-Bush, keep in mind the above quote is the key to it all. Presidential historians are always looking at different factors...they have their own reasons for reaching their assorted (and often differing) judgments... and, in the end, they just might not come to the same conclusion that you personally did. Given the rankings, as you've already seen, that's certainly true about Bush.

For example, you said he[ I]"ran roughshod over civil liberties, destroyed our standing abroad"[/I], but I'm not even a "Presidential historian" and I don't agree with that. You also said "he embroiled the country in two wars", yet one of those wars is a conflict that now-President Obama is fully behind and supports, in fact he's even increased troop strengths towards that war (Afghanistan). So that's a good example -- when you say Bush got us embroiled in two wars, are you saying BOTH were wrong? Meanwhile, some historians will say both are wrong...some historians will say "Well, one of them is valid"...and yet other historians will say "No, both actually had merit. Hence, Bush deserves credit for waging them."

Back in January, when the ranking of the 52 Historical authors came out, they listed the top 10 in this order...

1. Abraham Lincoln
2. George Washington
3. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
4. Teddy Roosevelt
5. Harry Truman
6. John F. Kennedy
7. Thomas Jefferson
8. Dwight Eisenhower
9. Woodrow Wilson
10. Ronald Reagan

And they listed the bottom 5 as...

38. Warren G. Harding
39. William Henry Harrison
40. Franklin Pierce
41. Andrew Johnson
42. James Buchanan

At the time, I saw 3 of the historians on a news show on MSNBC (which certainly leans Left) and they noted why they felt Bush DIDN'T deserve to be at the bottom, in fact why he DIDN'T even deserve to be in the bottom 5 (I think they had him ranked at 29 or so). When asked about Bush's placment, they noted that Bush HAD changed the course of history in terms of the war on terror... Bush HAD inherited a recession from Bill Clinton and not only pulled America out of it, but Wall Street and personal finances for the average American citizen hit all-time record highs... and Bush HAD done many other things that many don't even give him credit for. For example, for all your condemnation of Bush, did you know he actually pushed for, won, and signed into law the largest maritime preserves in history? That involved banning offshore drilling or development of any kind in order to protect marine life and to create some of the largest underwater sanctuaries ever?

And in the end, one historian noted: since Bush was our most recent history, it was therefore TOO SOON to really rate and rank him accurately since we just don't know yet "how" things will turn out. I recall him basically saying: "Look, if 10 years from now it turns out that Iraq really is functioning as a democracy or is in stable condition and not having TOO much radical infighting, that's one you have to give Bush. The removal of a murderous dictator like Saddam Hussein and the establishment of a new country that is now living peacefully within its own rights will show that Bush's actions weren't necessarily wrong and they had a positive outcome overall -- and thus his ranking points on Iraq go UP. So it's just too soon to tell where history will rank George Bush."

Of interesting note -- this same historian then noted that a perfect example was Dwight Eisenhower. Ike was well loved at the time of his election...he went out of office on a basically good note...BUT over the years that followed historians only ranked him middle of the pack (at best) for his accomplishments...

...And yet in recent years, as the Ike Years have been reflected on, most Presidential historians have now bumped him into the Top 10. So as this one historian noted, the one thing that everyone has to keep in mind is that history is ALWAYS changing it's view on people due to ever changing views of people, conditions in the world, and simply the way certain Presidential decisions can ultimately affect people (and the world) DECADES after the fact.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-20-2009
Vanillas Vanillas is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 148
Vanillas will become famous soon enough
Default Perhaps the Same Poll.....

Yes, Creativemind, there is an unavoidable amount of subjectivity everywhere. Even, God forbid, in History. I think we are referring to the same poll, though I saw it discussed on C-SPAN. I recall the top 10 being pretty much as you listed them. Rankings rise and fall a bit over time as new information is learned and as public attitudes shift. A case in point would be James K. Polk, who prosecuted the Mexican War, a largely unpopular war at the time. Today, however, he is usually referred to as one of the "near greats." A particularly under appreciated president, in my opinion, is Rutherford B. Hayes. Following Grant's shenanigans, he was honesty and fairness incarnate. Yet he seldom gets more than a passing mention.

As to which historians were polled I'm not sure but I believe Richard Norton Smith was one. I'd be surprised if John Siegenthaller and Robert Remini were not among them, and I would expect Douglas Brinkly and Michael Beschloss to have been as well. They are all respected scholars who have also written widely for the general public. Finally, in your conclusion that I don't respect George Bush, you are entirely correct. And, though his stocks may rise in future polls I think it is more likely that they will stay the same or drop. As I wrote in my original piece, I believe W. H. Harrison should have been excluded (How can you rank a man who died a mere 30 days after inauguration?). This would automatically drop Bush to fifth from the cellar.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-21-2009
transjen's Avatar
transjen transjen is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: NJ
Posts: 1,769
transjen has much to be proud oftransjen has much to be proud oftransjen has much to be proud oftransjen has much to be proud oftransjen has much to be proud oftransjen has much to be proud oftransjen has much to be proud oftransjen has much to be proud oftransjen has much to be proud of
Default

Lets be fair here ,how could W be the worst president when he was never elected? His sleezy brother in FL threw a monkey wrench in the voting then the unsupreme court voted down party lines basicly saying every vote doesn't count from 2001 to 2008 we had no president we had a little runt who thought he was a king and for 6 years he had a house and senate who said yes George what ever you say George, Oh the reason the little runt was never impeached is simple Miss Rice never wore a blue dress S.I.G. Jennifer
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-22-2009
Vanillas Vanillas is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 148
Vanillas will become famous soon enough
Default

Oh the reason the little runt was never impeached is simple Miss Rice never wore a blue dress S.I.G. Jennifer[/QUOTE]


Hence the urgency expressed in the recently popular bumper sticker: FOR GOD'S SAKES, SOMEBODY GIVE HIM A BLOWJOB SO WE CAN IMPEACH HIM!
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-22-2009
racquel's Avatar
racquel racquel is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 198
racquel is just really niceracquel is just really niceracquel is just really niceracquel is just really nice
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vanillas View Post
Granted, none of these men deserve accolades for presidential greatness. However, I personally would rank EACH of them above George Bush. He was in over his head from Day 1 but, instead of humbly seeking competent advice he surrounded himself with sycophants and Yes-people. Then, driven by hubris and sheer bravado, and aided by a blatant disregard for the truth, he embroiled the country in two wars, ran roughshod over civil liberties, destroyed our standing abroad, and left the economy in shambles. And for all that he is only 36th? It is enough to make me seek the comfort of a willing T-girl. Can anyone help me out here?
I don't necessarily think Bush will be regarded as the worst president that ever lived, but I definitely agree with what you're saying. I really think the worst thing he did was surround himself with bad people. The president should be taking advice from Harvard economics professors, not appointing his asshole friends to run everything for him.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Rachel View Post
At least he wasnt impeached like Bill Clinton. And now you all will say "Well he should have been"
I think perjury is actually a pretty big deal, and Clinton did some other really shady stuff. As many jokes as people make about it, the fact is that Clinton sexually harassed a lot of people and supposedly made a habit of pulling his cock out then calling random women into his office. Regardless, if you think that's worse than Bush starting a war and pissing away unheard of amounts of money -- not to mention the overt corruption of demanding that nobody can be prosecuted for misuse of bailout money, and the abuse of power involved in the signing statements where he basically rewrote everything Congress did -- and let's not even get into the Patriot Act -- well ... forget all that. The point is that I sincerely hope you are not who you say you are because you're an embarrassment to the trans community. Bush considers us abominations and would gladly have us executed for being freaks if he could.



Quote:
Originally Posted by guest View Post
no, we'll say bill clinton wasn't impeached... lol
Yes he was. Impeachment isn't the same as being removed from office.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeach...f_Bill_Clinton
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:11 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright © Trans Ladyboy