tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7851614.post112853762788941278..comments2023-12-21T05:18:05.820-05:00Comments on Lemming's Progress: more on presidentslemminghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06767103318863906140noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7851614.post-63577042133962189612007-03-14T19:30:00.000-04:002007-03-14T19:30:00.000-04:00The end does not justify the means.The end does not justify the means.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7851614.post-1129058444413624562005-10-11T14:20:00.000-05:002005-10-11T14:20:00.000-05:00I think Occam's Razor comes into play. Bush's acti...I think Occam's Razor comes into play. Bush's actions look like Rube Goldberg efforts to achieve his stated goals. They look like fairly direct efforts to achieve the goals Grigor suggests.Doughttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11424730556609713021noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7851614.post-1128660324963410782005-10-06T23:45:00.000-05:002005-10-06T23:45:00.000-05:00Grigor--How do you know what GWB thinks? Your argu...Grigor--<BR/><BR/>How do you know what GWB thinks? <BR/><BR/>Your argument is unwinnable unless you can answer that question. <BR/><BR/>Yeah, I know Lemming and I can't answer it either, but given a standstill, it seems to me we should assume someone is better than Goebbels until we have irrefutable evidence of evil (as Goebbels had). Not bad choices--evil. <BR/><BR/>What troubles me most is that this kind of rhetoric makes it far harder for our side to win an election as we so desperately need to.TeacherRefPoethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10087147646389275919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7851614.post-1128634396621739262005-10-06T16:33:00.000-05:002005-10-06T16:33:00.000-05:00OK, I can't resist. :-)Rome burning? I say "urban...OK, I can't resist. :-)<BR/><BR/>Rome burning? I say "urban renewal by arson."<BR/><BR/>GWB's not just blundering around well-intentionedly making things worse, he's out there energetically fanning flames to free up all that land for his investor buddies. He's using Katrina as the excuse to ramrod through school vouchers and Medicare "reforms." He's using the war in Iraq for just about everything - re-election (all that "strong leadership in troubled times" bullshit), no-bid contracts and massive spending increases going to defense contractors, an excuse to cut funding to domestic programs, oil drilling in ANWR, dismantling all those inconvenient human and civil rights that only get in their way, tax cuts to the very people who need it least, ... I'm sure I missed a few. The official reasons for his actions and the actual results have little, if any correlation.<BR/><BR/>I think you and TRP are buying a bit of the spin. <I>Of course</I> he's going to spin screwing us all over in terms that make it sound like he's trying to "Do What's Right(tm)". His folksy, "gawsh, I just want to help" attitude is great camouflage to cover his astonishingly-brazen assaults on our civil society. As much was we all like to joke about the Bush-isms and how foolishly he acts, <I>nobody</I> that stupid can obtain and hold the Presidency of the United States. No, GWB is more a student of Goebbels and Orwell than Howdy Doody and Gomer Pyle.Greghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11353591301596453989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7851614.post-1128632912898759062005-10-06T16:08:00.000-05:002005-10-06T16:08:00.000-05:00Bartleby's answer is correct, true, Lemming, but I...Bartleby's answer is correct, true, Lemming, but I think you should fail those students who try to make such a comparion.<BR/><BR/>Lincoln had a grand goal to achieve - keeping the union intact. Bush has no such goal. He DID have one, the WOT, but that seems to have disappeared, and is not really as grand a goal as Lincoln's. Terrorism will not destroy the country. Secessionists would have effectively divided this country in half and taken some key American assets in the south with it.<BR/><BR/>Lincoln was a great president because he flouted the law for a good cause. Bush is a bad president because he's invented a good cause to flout the law.<BR/><BR/>As far as Grant, remember:<BR/>Ulysses Simpson Grant<BR/>would scream and rave and rant<BR/>While drinking whiskey<BR/>Although risky<BR/>'Cause he'd spill it on his pantsGreghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03834707557489271349noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7851614.post-1128619128219981052005-10-06T12:18:00.000-05:002005-10-06T12:18:00.000-05:00Bartleby's answer is dead on correct and reasonabl...Bartleby's answer is dead on correct and reasonably common. It's also one that many of my students who support Bush have made as proof that GWB is one of our greatest presidents.lemminghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06767103318863906140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7851614.post-1128614425840014772005-10-06T11:00:00.000-05:002005-10-06T11:00:00.000-05:00I agree with Rachel. Especially when Daddy has so...I agree with Rachel. Especially when Daddy has some grudges still on the table, as in why didn't I get Saddam out while I still could? I knew from when he first made it in office that GWB was gonna' try to go into Iraq to finish Daddy's business. WMD's just sounds so much nicer.Swankettehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10158025132950627086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7851614.post-1128609769063676472005-10-06T09:42:00.000-05:002005-10-06T09:42:00.000-05:00Oooh! Oooh! I have a response to Bartleby!Every ...Oooh! Oooh! I have a response to Bartleby!<BR/><BR/>Every point you make is 100% correct. And it is for those very reasons I think that Lincoln is one of the best Presidents we ever had.<BR/><BR/>Huh? Hang on, I'll explain:<BR/><BR/>My Dad has been very sick and is still in hospital. The doctors discovered that he was fighting a massive infection that may have been brought on by an allergic reaction to a medication. The treatment for that reaction is to administer massive amounts of steroids. But this treatment could end up killing him. So the decision was made to leave him "sicker longer" so that he could make a better recovery. That appears to have been the right course of action, as Dad is getting ready to be moved out of the ICU after almost a month.<BR/><BR/>Ok, what Lincoln did was bad. I deplore it. But he did preserve the Union. He let the country be "sicker longer" in order to save it. Seems to have worked.<BR/><BR/>Unfortunately, his assassination scuttled <I>his</I> plan for Reconstruction which would have treated the South with dignity and honor. I constantly tell my Southern relatives that the assassintion of Lincoln did more damage to the South than Sherman's March to the Sea.<BR/><BR/>This may not satisfy you, Bartleby. But I never pass up a chance to connect events historical and current.tommyspoonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11032797715527900678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7851614.post-1128595402813207212005-10-06T05:43:00.000-05:002005-10-06T05:43:00.000-05:00[Golf Clap]Well done, Lemming! But I'm afraid I'm...[Golf Clap]<BR/><BR/>Well done, Lemming! But I'm afraid I'm siding with TRP on his critique of your criterion. <BR/><BR/>We may have to wait 50 years to see how this argument is decided. I'll be 87 then, and plan on hanging around! Meet me in Gambier and we'll continue this debate...tommyspoonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11032797715527900678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7851614.post-1128573111589760712005-10-05T23:31:00.000-05:002005-10-05T23:31:00.000-05:00I hereby nominate Mr. Lincoln as worst president e...I hereby nominate Mr. Lincoln as worst president ever, by any reasonable criterion. He utterly destroyed the Constitution, as well as the United States as a confederation of sovereign states. He had state legislators arrested and imprisoned for the crime of voting "wrong." In short, he was a corrupt and despicable tyrant.<BR/><BR/><B>That</B> should be a popular answer ...Jim Wetzelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07358539074647113747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7851614.post-1128567536170771132005-10-05T21:58:00.000-05:002005-10-05T21:58:00.000-05:00Marvelous post, Lemming.I disagree with this point...Marvelous post, Lemming.<BR/><BR/>I disagree with this point:<BR/><BR/>"I would posit that the distinction of 'worst' should go to the leader who sits idly by while Rome burns. The current administration, though comfortably reclined in their rocking chairs at times, also takes action."<BR/><BR/>Bad metaphor department:<BR/><BR/>Nero fiddles while Rome burns.<BR/><BR/>Bush, in an effort to save Rome, knocks over a lamp, and burns Rome, Naples, and Florence. Then, it turns out Rome wasn't burning after all...actually, someone was smoking a pipe.<BR/><BR/>I'll take Nero every time. I give no points for effort when the effort harms us.<BR/><BR/>In short, can you justify that your criterion is better than mine?<BR/><BR/>(I love this stuff...)TeacherRefPoethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10087147646389275919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7851614.post-1128541016619898572005-10-05T14:36:00.000-05:002005-10-05T14:36:00.000-05:00Hee Hee!Great post, Lemming, given my knowledge of...Hee Hee!<BR/><BR/>Great post, Lemming, given my knowledge of 19th century Presidential history. It's hard for me to rank any of the recent Presidents as best or worst. It seems as though the country has become over the past fifty years so strong and safe as to mitigate the effect of any one President. We may "win" or "lose" the war in Iraq, but is it going to change the fundamental nature of this country? No. We now are pretty comfortable with the cyclical booms and busts that the country goes through, and that really isn't solely attributable to a president (Clinton didn't cause the dot-com boom, and Bush didn't cause its demise).Hughhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03907968286877753686noreply@blogger.com