HNN Poll: 61% of Historians Rate the Bush Presidency Worst

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, you do, Kindergarten, Elementary, and Primary.

Now give us a list of conservative historians.

You are, without doubt, The Clown Prince Lamo here, but to reward you for managing to get out at least one relevent sentence (sort of like a three year old managing to say "Da-Da") I will respond, and am STILL waiting for your list of conservative historians currently-employed at major american universities.

Here's a few - not every one still alive. Note that since conservatives are blacklisted from the academy, in order to make a living some also do literary criticism or commentary on contemporary events.

Roger Kimball
John Lukacs
Stephen Hayward
Bruce Bartlett
Larry P. Arnn
Mark A Kalthoff
Gertrude Himmelfarb
Klaus Hildebrand

I knew you could do it. Which conservative historians are blacklisted from the academy? Surely, you have evidence that dozens, scores, nay hundreds are blacklisted. Give us the names and the schools.

 

[Patrick2]

Yes, you do, Kindergarten, Elementary, and Primary.

Now give us a list of conservative historians.

You are, without doubt, The Clown Prince Lamo here, but to reward you for managing to get out at least one relevent sentence (sort of like a three year old managing to say "Da-Da") I will respond, and am STILL waiting for your list of conservative historians currently-employed at major american universities.

Here's a few - not every one still alive. Note that since conservatives are blacklisted from the academy, in order to make a living some also do literary criticism or commentary on contemporary events.

Roger Kimball
John Lukacs
Stephen Hayward
Bruce Bartlett
Larry P. Arnn
Mark A Kalthoff
Gertrude Himmelfarb
Klaus Hildebrand

I knew you could do it. Which conservative historians are blacklisted from the academy? Surely, you have evidence that dozens, scores, nay hundreds are blacklisted. Give us the names and the schools.

Lessee - Captain Onepost demands a list of conservative historians, and I give it to him, and then he changes the question to what's the blacklist.

Okaayyyyyyyyy - to tutor you on THAT, read this - Horowitz has written extensively on this subject, as I'm guessing just about everyone but you knows:

The Campus Blacklist (David Horowitz Alert!)

No more tutoring for you today, Sparky.

(WATCH, next Sparky will change the topic AGAIN! )

 

[JakeStarkey]

David Horowitz, the flat-earth reactionary wack? For the fun of it, I will post his web site, and allow folks to see what Patrick is playing with; FrontPage Magazine

OK, now post us a list, a real black list.

 

[rightwinger]

David Horowitz, the flat-earth reactionary wack? For the fun of it, I will post his web site, and allow folks to see what Patrick is playing with; FrontPage Magazine

OK, now post us a list, a real black list.

Poor Patrick has been banned

God have mercy on his soul

 

[SFC Ollie]

David Horowitz, the flat-earth reactionary wack? For the fun of it, I will post his web site, and allow folks to see what Patrick is playing with; FrontPage Magazine

OK, now post us a list, a real black list.

Poor Patrick has been banned

God have mercy on his soul

Hmm, I didn't expect that, and i was having fun beating him up on another thread......

 

[MoistTrout]

You folks are proving that a little of your knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Lincoln, in April 1865, was the darling of the North and the West. His death opened the door to Johnson's inanity and inept handling of Reconstruction, and northern and western fury at the damnable South, which led to the awful portions of radical republican construction.

Kennedy was trying to shore up southern votes because he finally got going on his civil rights program. The left, though, has always had problems that it was a commie who killed Kennedy, a pragmatic cold warrior centrist president. The left will have to live with that as you guys have to live with your stupid comments.

You can be wrong all you like, but don't be insulting when you do it.

That is exactly what you are projecting, MoistTrout. Follow your own advice.

There are some problems with that Jake, largely because that response didn't make much sense. But let's just go with it.

First, I didn't insult you, however I can if you want to get into one of those low brow pissing matches.

Second, and most important, I'm not wrong. However I will admit that when it pertains to window dressing you aren't either.

President Kennedy barely dipped his toe into civil rights and he wasn't particularly happy about doing it. I think he genuinely cared about civil rights about as much as President Obama genuinely cares about providing health care, which is slightly less than the girl at the corner store genuinely cares if you have a nice day.

It was about votes. It was about trying to cancel out a very close and controversial election in 1960, the Bay of Pigs, the meeting with Khrushchev that led to the building of the Berlin Wall and various other negatives about the administration. If there were no significant advantages to gaining votes, Kennedy wouldn't have been there for civil rights, it would have been something else in the window.

Now, you can continue to think that because he had a D next to his name he was only concerned with doing what was good and right when he wasn't banging Marilyn Monroe on the side. I choose to see reality. Call me stupid if you like, I will simply call you naive.

 

[JakeStarkey]

MoistTrout, I don't care if you insult me, because I always give back harder when people are stupid that way.

I am wrong on occassion, but not on this one, as you are wrong. Kennedy pushed the Civil Rights Act. Kennedy cared far more about it after watching the assholes in the South perform their fascistic horrors. What you think Kennedy thought is not supported by the evidence, any more than what you think about BHO.

Your understanding of Kennedy, international relations, and electoral politics of the early 1960s is very, very sophomoric. Don't try it on your college professor. I know that Kennedy was a moderate cold warrior Democrat who grew to support civil rights before he died. Whether he was having MM or JK or you is immaterial. No, your opinion does not reflect the reality of the day. I don't know if you are naive, but you are wrong.

 

[MoistTrout]

MoistTrout, I don't care if you insult me, because I always give back harder when people are stupid that way.

I am wrong on occassion, but not on this one, as you are wrong. Kennedy pushed the Civil Rights Act. Kennedy cared far more about it after watching the assholes in the South perform their fascistic horrors. What you think Kennedy thought is not supported by the evidence, any more than what you think about BHO.

Your understanding of Kennedy, international relations, and electoral politics of the early 1960s is very, very sophomoric. Don't try it on your college professor. I know that Kennedy was a moderate cold warrior Democrat who grew to support civil rights before he died. Whether he was having MM or JK or you is immaterial. No, your opinion does not reflect the reality of the day. I don't know if you are naive, but you are wrong.

Ok Jake, he was a loving caring Democrat that wanted to jump into the civil rights mix and it just happened to be centered on a state with a lot of electoral votes that he barely and controversially won in 1960. It couldn't possibly be that someone finally realized the black people vote.

Your opinion is based on nothing more than what you want to believe and the talking points that try to mold Kennedy's legacy and shape them into something other than a mediocre president at best. You can keep saying I'm wrong, it doesn't make it so.

As for BO, I'll let his record speak for itself.

 

[JakeStarkey]

JFK was in Texas because he was worried southern Democrats would go with the GOP because of the impending Civil Rights Bill.

Guess what, bub? They did.

Your opinion is worthless.

 

[MoistTrout]

JFK was in Texas because he was worried southern Democrats would go with the GOP because of the impending Civil Rights Bill.

Guess what, bub? They did.

Your opinion is worthless.

Guess what bub? It doesn't matter, you couldn't find the point to something if it stuck you in the ass, and worthless describes pretty much anything that comes from your keyboard.

Anyway, thanks for the entertainment this week. I was having a tough time and I always get a kick out of people such as yourself. An "argument" that consists of nothing more than contradiction and lame attempts to discredit the other person. Everything is so just because you say it is. I was kind of tired when I was here yesterday, so I missed trying to draw the "The facts are out there if you want to find them" punt. But, oh well, I made it through the week and it's all starting to bore me now so...

 

[Patrick2]

David Horowitz, the flat-earth reactionary wack? For the fun of it, I will post his web site, and allow folks to see what Patrick is playing with; FrontPage Magazine

OK, now post us a list, a real black list.

Once again - no rebuttal no facts - nothing. Just chief WUT Sparkey's puff ball insults. It's getting tiresome crushing an intellectually disarmed man.

 

[Patrick2]

David Horowitz, the flat-earth reactionary wack? For the fun of it, I will post his web site, and allow folks to see what Patrick is playing with; FrontPage Magazine

OK, now post us a list, a real black list.

Poor Patrick has been banned

God have mercy on his soul

Hmm, I didn't expect that, and i was having fun beating him up on another thread......

You think your furiously waving the white flag is "beating up" anything but the air?

 

[editec]

Do they register by liberal or conservative?

I thought they were just registered as historians....isn't that all that matters?

C'mon - no evasion or BS - Give me your list of conservative historians at major universities.

Patrick, give us your list of conservative historians, please.

Partisan historians aren't historians...they're propagandists.

History's fuction is to discover the past and to create a narrative that helps us understand it.

If one comes at that task with an agenda (liberal conservative, what-have-you) then one is no longer truly an historian.

Of course the study of history is likely to force one to have theories ABOUT history, but the real scholars aren't wed to those POVs.

If new evidence comes to light that now warrants a change in POV, true historians will change their opinions to jibe with their new understanding of the past.

When one asks oneself who is the "BEST: or "WORST" leaders in history, then one is no longer proforming the function of an historian.

Making such qualitative judgements as best or worst, is beyond the paygrade of history.

Asking such questions is somewhat like demanding that a chemist tell you which is the best or worst element on the periodic table. A chemist would likely tell you that such a question makes no real sense.

One can have opinions about those elements, of course, but that is not the task of chemist, any more than imposing one's values on history is the task of history.

History is NOT a tool to to prove that one POV is right or wrong.

It is a disipline designed to give us understanding WHAT happened and pushing the job a bit further, to help us understand WHY it happened...if possible.

 

[Patrick2]

C'mon - no evasion or BS - Give me your list of conservative historians at major universities.

Patrick, give us your list of conservative historians, please.

Partisan historians aren't historians...they're propagandists.

History's fuction is to discover the past and to create a narrative that helps us understand it.

Hopelessly naive. That's what they are SUPPOSED to do. But starting a few decades ago, leftwingers undertook the task of revising history to show everything was the fault of white men and america.

If one comes at that task with an agenda (liberal conservative, what-have-you) then one is no longer truly an historian.

Welcome to the leftwing-controlled academy.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Simple. The far right wingers are not going to be able to rewrite and revise an American history that never happened that will be received by more than 5% of the population. Far left wing historians do it as well, and the history teachers point out their flaws as well.

 

[editec]

Patrick, give us your list of conservative historians, please.

Partisan historians aren't historians...they're propagandists.

History's fuction is to discover the past and to create a narrative that helps us understand it.

Hopelessly naive.

More like strictly diciplined, but I understand your POV.

That's what they are SUPPOSED to do.

Yeah exactly.

As with every other intellectual dicipline, coming at history with a presupposition of what the facts will be (or what you will acknowledge as being) is the hallmark of a propagadist or idealogue.

But starting a few decades ago, leftwingers undertook the task of revising history to show everything was the fault of white men and america.

Now who is being naive?

Starting a few decades ago? Starting from the very moment the first person decided to study history.

It is virtually impossible to study history and NOT be wrong by being incomplete. Why? Because the only compelete history is one which includes every fact of existence that every was.

If one comes at that task with an agenda (liberal conservative, what-have-you) then one is no longer truly an historian.

Welcome to the leftwing-controlled academy.

Now one wonders if your opinion is based on the fact that you don't like it when history doesn't support you POVs, or whether you know history well enough to debate truly the issue?

Well, to be honest, I don't really wonder in your case.

You've more than telegraphed your prejudices clearly enough.

I don't think you really understand the limitations of history.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Bush never got Downgraded by S&P. Obama, solidly the worst ever

 

[bill5]

It's pointless to try and rate a president so recently since his presidency. Only many years in now in hindsight will we be able to possibly form a reasonably objective opinion - and even then it's no sure thing. The view of many (most?) presidents has varied widely over time. I'm surprised so many historians fail to see that and would engage in such a silly exercise.

PS sorry but I'll pass on the "your side sucks" cat fights.

 

[Patrick2]

Partisan historians aren't historians...they're propagandists.

History's fuction is to discover the past and to create a narrative that helps us understand it.

More like strictly diciplined, but I understand your POV.





Yeah exactly.

As with every other intellectual dicipline, coming at history with a presupposition of what the facts will be (or what you will acknowledge as being) is the hallmark of a propagadist or idealogue.



Now who is being naive?

Starting a few decades ago? Starting from the very moment the first person decided to study history.

It is virtually impossible to study history and NOT be wrong by being incomplete. Why? Because the only compelete history is one which includes every fact of existence that every was.

If one comes at that task with an agenda (liberal conservative, what-have-you) then one is no longer truly an historian.

Welcome to the leftwing-controlled academy.

Now one wonders if your opinion is based on the fact that you don't like it when history doesn't support you POVs, or whether you know history well enough to debate truly the issue?

Well, to be honest, I don't really wonder in your case.

You've more than telegraphed your prejudices clearly enough.

I don't think you really understand the limitations of history.

First of all, your equivalencing of "history" with the opinions of the ex-60s hippies who populate the current history faculty is laughable.

And I can just as well say:

Now one wonders if your opinion is based on the fact that you like it when leftwing historians do support your POVs, or whether you know history well enough to debate truly the issue?

Well, to be honest, I don't really wonder in your case.

You've more than telegraphed your prejudices clearly enough.

 

[rightwinger]

Patrick, give us your list of conservative historians, please.

Partisan historians aren't historians...they're propagandists.

History's fuction is to discover the past and to create a narrative that helps us understand it.

Hopelessly naive. That's what they are SUPPOSED to do. But starting a few decades ago, leftwingers undertook the task of revising history to show everything was the fault of white men and america.

If one comes at that task with an agenda (liberal conservative, what-have-you) then one is no longer truly an historian.

Welcome to the leftwing-controlled academy.

As the right wing trumpets the value of Warren G Harding and Calvin Coolidge