Favorite and Least Favorite Presidents

[Dudebro]

Look, I've heard of worse presidents than GW Bush, okay.

That may be true but you also have to consider that GW Bush had the benefit of learning from past mistakes. Somehow he still managed to become one of the most loathed presidents in history. Sure he has his fans but a good percent of the population(of the world) doesn't like him.

[fenrir1887]

A lot of presidents make efforts to learn. Andrew Johnson on the other hand refused to and it is his own fault he got close to being removed as president. You don't try and go over Congress' head in an illegal manner.

[Demon-Mask]

Originally Posted by fenrir1887

Look, I've heard of worse presidents than GW Bush, okay. I'm not saying you have to like him. But for those who disrespect Lincoln, I would like to know what he did that would make him one of the worst. The man kept our nation together under circumstances that would tear our nation apart today. Another favorite is FDR.

I bet that they didn't say "Nukular" instead of nuclear though.

[fenrir1887]

Lincoln had the brass to do things no president can do now. So what if most regarded him back then as a country bumpkin who did nothing but tell stories. His debates with Douglas were legendary and obviously, his pronunciation wasn't a problem in Cabinet meetings.

[MichelleHeart]

Ah, the cult of personality.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-WXlZ6kO_I"]YouTube- Broadcast Yourself.[/ame]

Originally Posted by fenrir1887

A lot of presidents make efforts to learn. Andrew Johnson on the other hand refused to and it is his own fault he got close to being removed as president. You don't try and go over Congress' head in an illegal manner.

The Radical Republicans in Congress were defying the Constitution, and Andrew Johnson realized that. Unfortunately, he made the mistake of thinking that the Supreme Court would uphold the Constitution. Whoops. (And for those who say that Reconstruction was only dragged on so long because of Johnson, the Radicals had a sufficient majority to override pretty much every single one of his vetoes, and they passed most of their legislation. Therefore, the Radicals were at fault for their own terrible policies.)

[Kong]

Seriously. You can't use FOX News as a source.

[MichelleHeart]

Judge Napolitano departs from the typical neoconservative claptrap that spews forth from FOX News. He's a Constitutional lawyer and a hardcore, small government libertarian. He's a brilliant man and a hero.

[fenrir1887]

That's got nothing to do with it. Anyway, Johnson had a falling out with the Court anyway. That's why the Radicals tried to get him out. They ensnared him with the Tenure of Office Act. He fired Secretary of War Edwin Stanton illegally. The Court did not strike down said law.

[Dudebro]

Originally Posted by MichelleHeart

Judge Napolitano departs from the typical neoconservative claptrap that spews forth from FOX News. He's a Constitutional lawyer and a hardcore, small government libertarian. He's a brilliant man and a hero.

Yeah sure he's a smart guy but you only see him as so great because he shares your borderline radical anti government belief.
I watched your video and I was unimpressed. He seems like the typical political windbag. I noticed he says FDR allowed Pearl Harbor to happen, not even a mention of how that viewpoint is the extreme minority(to the point of almost being a conspiracy theory). The rest of his rant is just sensationalist hot air-

Originally Posted by the judge in reference to FDR

aroused more condemnation of those who love freedom

Who exactly is he talking about? Is he saying that anyone who supported FDR didn't love freedom?
He's just a professional talking head now and he knows how to do his job. He gets paid to make things seem worse than they are and you're buying right into it.

Originally Posted by Kong

Seriously. You can't use FOX News as a source.

Well technically she can but no one will take her seriously.

[MichelleHeart]

Originally Posted by fenrir1887

They ensnared him with the Tenure of Office Act. He fired Secretary of War Edwin Stanton illegally. The Court did not strike down said law.

Johnson defied a *cough* unconstitutional *cough* law by firing a Radical Republican mole who censored telegraphs to and from his office. What a scandal. That aside, the Framers of the Constitution argued that Congress interfering with the president firing his own Cabinet members was unconstitutional.

Originally Posted by Dudebro

Yeah sure he's a smart guy but you only see him as so great because he shares your borderline radical anti government belief.

The "radical" anti-government belief espoused by the Jeffersons among our Founding Fathers, might I add.

Originally Posted by Dudebro

I watched your video and I was unimpressed. He seems like the typical political windbag. I noticed he says FDR allowed Pearl Harbor to happen, not even a mention of how that viewpoint is the extreme minority(to the point of almost being a conspiracy theory). The rest of his rant is just sensationalist hot air-

Explain.

Originally Posted by Dudebro

Who exactly is he talking about? Is he saying that anyone who supported FDR didn't love freedom?

Anyone whose idea of freedom is taking from the haves and giving to the have-nots in the name of "social justice" has a very distorted idea of freedom indeed.

Originally Posted by Dudebro

He's just a professional talking head now and he knows how to do his job. He gets paid to make things seem worse than they are and you're buying right into it.

Of course he gets paid. How else do you make a living? A talking head who makes a profit telling the truth deserves every cent he makes. I'll buy into his pro-liberty message any day.

Originally Posted by Dudebro

Well technically she can but no one will take her seriously.

Yep, because CNN, ABC, MSNBC, CBS, and all of the other fascist, government-loving media outlets sure are trustworthy!

[Kong]

Originally Posted by MichelleHeart

Judge Napolitano departs from the typical neoconservative claptrap that spews forth from FOX News.

I am skeptical. Taking a pay check from a company proven to have horrible journalistic integrity, IMO, causes a stain that does not easily wash off.

Originally Posted by MichelleHeart

Yep, because CNN, ABC, MSNBC, CBS, and all of the other fascist, government-loving media outlets sure are trustworthy!

There are degrees of trustworthiness. I do not think anything from any of them should be automatically believed at face value but I think FOX has gone to such extremes that just about everything from them should be immediatly ignored.

[MichelleHeart]

I'd say that all the other media outlets have been just as guilty of dishonesty and unreliability as FOX. As for Napolitano, you can't claim him to be unreliable if you don't attempt to debunk any of the things he said. If you disregard him entirely just because he works for FOX, then you fail to keep an open mind. FOX News only gives him an internet show (not a TV show) because they think his ideas are far too radical to be aired on television. Also note that many anti-government, anti-media types appear on his show, among them Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Peter Schiff, Tom Woods, Lew Rockwell, Thomas DiLorenzo, Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, Debra Medina, Adam Kokesh, and a vast array of others whose time given on his show wouldn't be allowed on most other FOX shows (or most media outlets for that manner, as I've never seen these people make an appearance on any show but his and Beck's, save Ron and Rand. I've read tons of their articles, though).

I watch and judge clips from MSNBC, even though it's clearly not credible:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0OsfEziVyw"]YouTube- Broadcast Yourself.[/ame]

Yet I refuse to disregard everyone paid by MSNBC as 100% strained of credibility. At least Napolitano gives Medina a fair interview:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zp25NCUVnxg&feature=related"]YouTube- Broadcast Yourself.[/ame]

[Kong]

Originally Posted by MichelleHeart

I'd say that all the other media outlets have been just as guilty of dishonesty and unreliability as FOX.

OK. Then don't trust any of them. Being as dishonest and unreliable as the rest isn't exactly a shining review.

If you disregard him entirely just because he works for FOX, then you fail to keep an open mind.

Being open minded does not mean tossing out the fool me once shame on you fool me twice shame on me rule. If someone is known to be a habitual liar then don't trust them even when they might be telling the truth. Watch http://retrouprising.com/other/debat...ebating/t7821/ or read the little boy who cried wolf.

I watch and judge clips from MSNBC, even though it's clearly not credible:

Why? If you know it is not credible then what do you gain from watching? Facts that you suspect are lies and manipulations? Are you better off having allowed yourself to listen to information designed to trick you? Propaganda does not deserve your attention.

[jim5cents]

Watch the BBC World News, best there is.

[MichelleHeart]

Originally Posted by Kong

OK. Then don't trust any of them.

The media outlets? I don't. I generally take what they share with a grain of salt unless a particular employee is consistent in both their research and their opinions.

Originally Posted by Kong

Being open minded does not mean tossing out the fool me once shame on you fool me twice shame on me rule.

I agree. O'Reilly and Hannity are only against big government when a Democrat is in office. Olbermann and Maddow are only against big government when a Republican is in office. Judge Napolitano (FOX) and Pat Buchanan (MSNBC), however, are consistently against big government, regardless of whether a Democrat or Republican in office. Both are consistently for small government, free markets, and a humble foreign policy. Both were harsh critics of Bush, and both are harsh critics of Obama, and from the research I've done and the knowledge I have acquired, both are accurate in facts and consistent in opinion.

Originally Posted by Kong

Why? If you know it is not credible then what do you gain from watching? Facts that you suspect are lies and manipulations? Are you better off having allowed yourself to listen to information designed to trick you? Propaganda does not deserve your attention.

Critical viewing allows me to see what information people are being fed, and then analyze some of the reasons that people believe in the things they do and how information is grossly distorted to fit certain ideological agendas. In order to debunk myths and falsehoods, I have to figure out why they are upheld in the first place. Seeing as I'm young, I'm an amateur at this, but educating myself is important if I am to engage in any kind of political activism, write any books, or run for office when I'm older. I once flirted with socialism and neoconservatism (which are two peas in a pod, as I've noticed). I have now discovered how flawed both ideologies are and how many lies I once believed.

[fenrir1887]

You know what? This is all fine and dandy if you want boredom, Michelle. I hate being told something entirely wrong by someone who thinks they know more than me. No offense to the rest of you, but history was always my specialty. If that law was so unconstitutional, Michelle, why didn't the Supreme Court say so? The Tenure of Office Act is still on the books as being in effect. Our current President had to wait to fill his Cabinet because so many of Bush's Cabinet appointees had a little time of their terms left.

[MichelleHeart]

Originally Posted by fenrir1887

You know what? This is all fine and dandy if you want boredom, Michelle. I hate being told something entirely wrong by someone who thinks they know more than me. No offense to the rest of you, but history was always my specialty. If that law was so unconstitutional, Michelle, why didn't the Supreme Court say so? The Tenure of Office Act is still on the books as being in effect. Our current President had to wait to fill his Cabinet because so many of Bush's Cabinet appointees had a little time of their terms left.

Because the Supreme Court doesn't always rule in favor of the Constitution. That's what nullification is for. If you trust the Feds to have ultimate authority over the Constitution, they're only going to keep ruling in favor of themselves. I'll explain more later, but I think I have to go. And no, I don't think I know more than you. I just like debating.

[Dudebro]

Originally Posted by jim5cents

Watch the BBC World News, best there is.

Yeah but they talk funny and the US news isn't headlined.

[jim5cents]

Originally Posted by dudebro

Yeah but they talk funny and the US news isn't headlined.

on the plus side, they do remind us of proper dental hygene in every broadcast. joking aside, sure us news isn't headlined, but i'm ok with that. my interest in local news is practically zero, unless it is about some serial killer that likes to kill fat dudes.

[Dudebro]

Oh I was definitely joking, the vast majority of US news stories are garbage. I check BBC when I want non sensational news stories.

[samejamesbond]

Can I have a link, I'd like to get the important news.

[Dudebro]

BBC - Homepage
That? All you gotta do is type in BBC. It covers world events but it will be more focused on the UK and Europe.

[jim5cents]

Sky News, First for Breaking News, Latest News and Video News from the UK and around the World

also, the bbc's main competition. it is as equally as good. i think some of their reporters are hotter too.