You know, your own source already disagrees with you and says he's the worst since Nixon, who was only two before him. And anyone between Hoover and Nixon seems to be ranked well above average, so even if Carter wasn't really bad he'd likely to be the worst since Hoover (excluding Nixon and Ford).Originally Posted by Loki
Not to say you're not right that he was bad (I have no idea at all), but if you are throwing around stats, at least make them support yourself.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
Loki, using links as some sort of argument is annoying. What did you mean to state here? How awesome FDR was?
Besides, I'd disagree with these. Nixon was better than listed (OK, he was a crook, but many of his policies were excellent, and he was moderate on many issues.) Reagan is too high and HW Bush too low. Clinton too high (really, doing as little as possible while letting polls dictate every decision, all while banging a non-hot employee is good?)
You keep them there so-shha-list words out of these hear threads now, you hear sonny? We don't take kindly to them kinds of treasonous talk here.How awesome FDR was?
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
If you look at the breakdown of the rankings, you'll see Nixon gets penalized heavily for his ethics. If you take that out, he'd be substantially better than Carter. And if you look at the more recent surveys, he is ranked higher than Carter.
I'd ignore the rankings for anyone who's served in the last 20 years or so. It's why Nixon's rankings have improved the further away we get from Watergate. It's also why you really shouldn't pay attention to the current ranking of Bush Jr. or Clinton.Loki, using links as some sort of argument is annoying. What did you mean to state here? How awesome FDR was?
Besides, I'd disagree with these. Nixon was better than listed (OK, he was a crook, but many of his policies were excellent, and he was moderate on many issues.) Reagan is too high and HW Bush too low. Clinton too high (really, doing as little as possible while letting polls dictate every decision, all while banging a non-hot employee is good?)
Hope is the denial of reality
OK, fair enough. Reagan? More than 20 years. I can't say that I agree with most of the things with which he is credited.
He did:
A) get reelected.
B) helped bankrupt the USSR
C) presided over the beginning of the realignment that would put an end to huge Democratic majorities in Congress
D) presided over pretty high economic growth
Not that I'd put him in the top 10.
Hope is the denial of reality
That's a political attribute that doesn't reflect on the quality of one's service to the country (or however we want to define "best.") Along these lines, think of my arguments that Bush I was arguably the best modern president. Bottom line: putting the wellbeing of the country ahead of ideology and/or political gain.
Merely accelerated it. You yourself have pointed out the studies from the 70s showing that the USSR was on a fast track to economic failure. Heck, I even remember such in Newsweek in the late 70s, when I started reading it. By any account that failure happens with Reagan never leaving California.B) helped bankrupt the USSR
He actually LOST seats in his 1982 midterms. The GOP surge happened six years after Reagan left office, and the restructuring was more Gingrich than Reagan. Regaining majority was really an opposition party achievement, a role Reagan wasn't in. Also, you could argue that regaining seats was more due to a moderate ad more proximal Bush I than Reagan. {Though as Phil Gramm jokes, Reagan wouldn't be elected by today's GOP.}C) presided over the beginning of the realignment that would put an end to huge Democratic majorities in Congress
Except for his first couple of years of horrific recession, which arguably led to his midterm losses (above). Plus, a consequence of his extreme deficit spending to push the Soviets to over-spending must have harmed long term economic growth. Hey, if you hate Obama's deficit spending to combat an existential crisis, then you have to hate Reagan's deficit spending for an ideological battle, and predict the same effects of it. Right?D) presided over pretty high economic growth
I'd put him a bit behind Nixon. Reagan was just far more appealing; even when winning, Nixon was a slightly grotesque man. So, maybe 40-50th percentile range. IMO Reagan's legacy was more telegenic than anything. His actual achievements were underwhelming. And the ugliness of Iran-Contra, which could technically be argued to be treasonous, is in the range of Watergate.Not that I'd put him in the top 10.
You're so gracious
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
He's certainly not in the bottom 10, as some liberals would have it. Me, I heavily favor presidents who take a metaphorical bullet (or potential bullet) for the good of the country. It's why I'm so bullish on Bush I, and tepid on Reagan and Clinton. Heck, I think I may even prefer Carter to Clinton, only because Clinton was such a damned political wuss.
You mean worsening a recession, creating artificial shortages, embarrassing America over Iran, doing little over the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, being incapable of deciding whether he wants to pursue human rights as a foreign policy priority, and generally being incompetent is better than Clinton, who might at the very least didn't screw anything up? I do like that you think not being a political wuss should be a priority for presidents.
Hope is the denial of reality
http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/dpp/news...20100811-am-sd
This was just to get an APPLICATION for section 8 housing. My God....
In East Point. Other places are better, some are possibly even worse. They close themselves to taking new applications for years at a time there, apparently.
Incidentally, Deal won the gubernatorial runoff, and Handel conceded without demanding a recount.
http://www.11alive.com/news/local/st...49849&catid=40
http://www.11alive.com/news/local/st...49888&catid=40
http://www.11alive.com/news/local/st...49863&catid=40
We're stuck in a bloody snowglobe.
Why can't you just download the form, print it, and mail it in?
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
Read my second link, Trixy.
The answer is because they are fucking idiots, of course. And the possibility of the poor not having access to computers (don't know a thing about East Point public libraries, although I'd guess they have them), or being computer illiterate (or actually illiterate).
But basically, the answer is that they are fucking idiots.
I mean, the worst part is not even opening their waiting list for 8 years. Thewaiting list.
We're stuck in a bloody snowglobe.
What a fubar system! Closed for 8 years, what's that all about? And only 455 spots for 30,000 applicants?
Damned if I know.
http://www.gasection8.com/pa/HousingAuths.aspx
(not being lazy, per se, just reading all about it, too)
Their link to the city of Marietta is broken, so looked it up - they haven't been accepting applications there since 2001.
Also closed.
links to check for waiting list openings.
One that is open
I do, however, wonder how much time someone who actually needs it would be able to put into finding a place where they could get it, or even if they could manage to pack up and move.
Last edit - there's also this.
Last edited by littlelolligagged; 08-12-2010 at 12:08 AM.
We're stuck in a bloody snowglobe.
Moving to Work (MTW) is a demonstration program for public housing authorities (PHAs) that provides them the opportunity to design and test innovative, locally-designed strategies that use Federal dollars more efficiently, help residents find employment and become self-sufficient, and increase housing choices for low-income families. MTW gives PHAs exemptions from many existing public housing and voucher rules and more flexibility with how they use their Federal funds. MTW PHAs are expected to use the opportunities presented by MTW to inform HUD about ways to better address local community needs.
Glad to hear that Deal won, he seems like a decent man, particularly in comparison to Handel's lunacy.
I enjoy blank walls.
Ya could always move to Wyoming...where men are men...and sheep are scared shitless!Gah, Georgia. I'm not one for state patriotism in general, but if I were from Georgia I'm not sure I'd tell people!
I don't have a problem with authority....I just don't like being told what to do!Remember, the toes you step on today may be attached to the ass you have to kiss tomorrow!RIP Fluffy! 01-07-09 I'm so sorry Fluffster! People who don't like cats were probably mice in an earlier life! My mind not only wanders, sometimes it leaves completely!The nice part about living in a small town: When you don't know what you're doing, someone else always does!
Atari bullshit refugee!!
http://www.11alive.com/news/local/st...49940&catid=40
I can't decide if John Shirek writes like this because he is an idiot himself or because he thinks the people who watch this station and read their news stories are.
We're stuck in a bloody snowglobe.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
