Poll: FDR # 1 President

[JimH52]

Obama no. 15...hummm 18 months in? kinda like the Nobel nod; nice suite, correct pigmentation, clean & articulate, ideologically stuck in a 60's Berkeley time warp, nuke free world, nothing achieved....but its all in front of him!!!

Yeah, he would really have to screw up to drop to, let's say W's level. You know, invade a country on false pretrense, totally screw the economy by handing the rich a tax cut during two wars, or step on Consitutional rights. Maybe if he did a couple of those things, he would drop to W's level...

he did not hand the rich a tax cut.....

Oh yes he did...

Connect the Dots, Folks: Bush Tax Cuts for Rich

And it began the mess that we are in now.

 

[rightwinger]

I have a great idea....Let's take a poll using members of Cato and the Ayn Rand Institute, and see how the results shake out!

Its an open mesage board.....I suggest you also post a FoxNews poll and we can compare it to polls of noted historians.

 

[Trajan]

I have a great idea....Let's take a poll using members of Cato and the Ayn Rand Institute, and see how the results shake out!

Heratic...!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Oddball]

Oh yes he did...

Connect the Dots, Folks: Bush Tax Cuts for Rich

And it began the mess that we are in now.

We are a nonprofit, progressive, independent and *chortle* nonpartisan organization.

'nuf said.

 

[Trajan]

Yeah, he would really have to screw up to drop to, let's say W's level. You know, invade a country on false pretrense, totally screw the economy by handing the rich a tax cut during two wars, or step on Consitutional rights. Maybe if he did a couple of those things, he would drop to W's level...

he did not hand the rich a tax cut.....

Oh yes he did...

Connect the Dots, Folks: Bush Tax Cuts for Rich

And it began the mess that we are in now.

tongue in cheek, wasted, by I......

 

[Oddball]

I have a great idea....Let's take a poll using members of Cato and the Ayn Rand Institute, and see how the results shake out!

Its an open mesage board.....I suggest you also post a FoxNews poll and we can compare it to polls of noted historians.

Sure, even more open than the pool of career libs used for the lame poll cited in the lame OP.

 

[Big Fitz]

And the best part! His war on poverty has wasted over 2 trillion dollars to date and poverty rates today are the SAME as they were in the 1960's!

Um...That number is closer to $8 trillion, but what's a trillion or two amongst socialistic useful idiots.

Oops... my bad. I learned accounting from Timmy Geithner.

 

[rightwinger]

Big Fits wrote: "And the best part! His war on poverty has wasted over 2 trillion dollars to date and poverty rates today are the SAME as they were in the 1960's! But at least they're even more dependent on the race baiting groups that claim kinship to Dr. King, while retaining NONE of the same philosophy. Content of character? Pah! what's that get me? I gots ta git PAYED!"

In fact: "How has poverty changed over time? ~~ In the late 1950s, the poverty rate for all Americans was 22.4 percent, or 39.5 million individuals. These numbers declined steadily throughout the 1960s, reaching a low of 11.1 percent, or 22.9 million individuals, in 1973. Over the next decade, the poverty rate fluctuated between 11.1 and 12.6 percent, but it began to rise steadily again in 1980. By 1983, the number of poor individuals had risen to 35.3 million individuals, or 15.2 percent. // For the next ten years, the poverty rate remained above 12.8 percent, increasing to 15.1 percent, or 39.3 million individuals, by 1993. The rate declined for the remainder of the decade, to 11.3 percent by 2000. From 2000 to 2004 it rose each year to 12.7 in 2004. // Since the late 1960s, the poverty rate for people over 65 has fallen dramatically. The poverty rate for children has historically been somewhat higher than the overall poverty rate. The poverty rate for people in households headed by single women is significantly higher than the overall poverty rate."

And more from: The University of Michigan, The Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy
National Poverty Center | University of Michigan

Anyone who saw this nations poverty in the 30s, 40s and 50s would never question whether the war on poverty worked. LBJ established a safety net that keeps certain sections of our nation from living in third world conditions. If you saw the news reports during LBJs crusade you would see Americans living without running water, without electricity, without access to nutritious food.
Try to compare that to today. LBJ managed a great accomplishment with his social programs....Viet Nam wrecked him

 

[rightwinger]

I have a great idea....Let's take a poll using members of Cato and the Ayn Rand Institute, and see how the results shake out!

Its an open mesage board.....I suggest you also post a FoxNews poll and we can compare it to polls of noted historians.

Sure, even more open than the pool of career libs used for the lame poll cited in the lame OP.

Same old song isn't it dude??

All those educated Scientists and historians have it in for you. All those "elite" educated folks have it in for the conservative agenda

 

[Oddball]

Big Fits wrote: "And the best part! His war on poverty has wasted over 2 trillion dollars to date and poverty rates today are the SAME as they were in the 1960's! But at least they're even more dependent on the race baiting groups that claim kinship to Dr. King, while retaining NONE of the same philosophy. Content of character? Pah! what's that get me? I gots ta git PAYED!"

In fact: "How has poverty changed over time? ~~ In the late 1950s, the poverty rate for all Americans was 22.4 percent, or 39.5 million individuals. These numbers declined steadily throughout the 1960s, reaching a low of 11.1 percent, or 22.9 million individuals, in 1973. Over the next decade, the poverty rate fluctuated between 11.1 and 12.6 percent, but it began to rise steadily again in 1980. By 1983, the number of poor individuals had risen to 35.3 million individuals, or 15.2 percent. // For the next ten years, the poverty rate remained above 12.8 percent, increasing to 15.1 percent, or 39.3 million individuals, by 1993. The rate declined for the remainder of the decade, to 11.3 percent by 2000. From 2000 to 2004 it rose each year to 12.7 in 2004. // Since the late 1960s, the poverty rate for people over 65 has fallen dramatically. The poverty rate for children has historically been somewhat higher than the overall poverty rate. The poverty rate for people in households headed by single women is significantly higher than the overall poverty rate."

And more from: The University of Michigan, The Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy
National Poverty Center | University of Michigan

Anyone who saw this nations poverty in the 30s, 40s and 50s would never question whether the war on poverty worked. LBJ established a safety net that keeps certain sections of our nation from living in third world conditions. If you saw the news reports during LBJs crusade you would see Americans living without running water, without electricity, without access to nutritious food.
Try to compare that to today. LBJ managed a great accomplishment with his social programs....Viet Nam wrecked him

That post hoc ergo propter hoc dog don't hunt, Sparky.

And of course the media showed us soup kitchen America...If it bleeds it leads was their motto way back then, too.

 

[Oddball]

Its an open mesage board.....I suggest you also post a FoxNews poll and we can compare it to polls of noted historians.

Sure, even more open than the pool of career libs used for the lame poll cited in the lame OP.

Same old song isn't it dude??

All those educated Scientists and historians have it in for you. All those "elite" educated folks have it in for the conservative agenda

They don't have it in for anyone but themselves and their echo chamber.

Then again, I'm not the one invoking logical fallacy after logical fallacy to prop up the fallacy that progressive Fabian socialism is any kind of success.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Big Fits wrote: "And the best part! His war on poverty has wasted over 2 trillion dollars to date and poverty rates today are the SAME as they were in the 1960's! But at least they're even more dependent on the race baiting groups that claim kinship to Dr. King, while retaining NONE of the same philosophy. Content of character? Pah! what's that get me? I gots ta git PAYED!"

In fact: "How has poverty changed over time? ~~ In the late 1950s, the poverty rate for all Americans was 22.4 percent, or 39.5 million individuals. These numbers declined steadily throughout the 1960s, reaching a low of 11.1 percent, or 22.9 million individuals, in 1973. Over the next decade, the poverty rate fluctuated between 11.1 and 12.6 percent, but it began to rise steadily again in 1980. By 1983, the number of poor individuals had risen to 35.3 million individuals, or 15.2 percent. // For the next ten years, the poverty rate remained above 12.8 percent, increasing to 15.1 percent, or 39.3 million individuals, by 1993. The rate declined for the remainder of the decade, to 11.3 percent by 2000. From 2000 to 2004 it rose each year to 12.7 in 2004. // Since the late 1960s, the poverty rate for people over 65 has fallen dramatically. The poverty rate for children has historically been somewhat higher than the overall poverty rate. The poverty rate for people in households headed by single women is significantly higher than the overall poverty rate."

And more from: The University of Michigan, The Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy
National Poverty Center | University of Michigan

Anyone who saw this nations poverty in the 30s, 40s and 50s would never question whether the war on poverty worked. LBJ established a safety net that keeps certain sections of our nation from living in third world conditions. If you saw the news reports during LBJs crusade you would see Americans living without running water, without electricity, without access to nutritious food.
Try to compare that to today. LBJ managed a great accomplishment with his social programs....Viet Nam wrecked him

That post hoc ergo propter hoc dog don't hunt, Sparky.

And of course the media showed us soup kitchen America...If it bleeds it leads was their motto way back then, too.

And, in other words, Dud, you got nuthin. Noted.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sure, even more open than the pool of career libs used for the lame poll cited in the lame OP.

Same old song isn't it dude??

All those educated Scientists and historians have it in for you. All those "elite" educated folks have it in for the conservative agenda

They don't have it in for anyone but themselves and their echo chamber.

Then again, I'm not the one invoking logical fallacy after logical fallacy to prop up the fallacy that progressive Fabian socialism is any kind of success.

You are right: you are offering nuthin.

 

[Trajan]

Big Fits wrote: "And the best part! His war on poverty has wasted over 2 trillion dollars to date and poverty rates today are the SAME as they were in the 1960's! But at least they're even more dependent on the race baiting groups that claim kinship to Dr. King, while retaining NONE of the same philosophy. Content of character? Pah! what's that get me? I gots ta git PAYED!"

In fact: "How has poverty changed over time? ~~ In the late 1950s, the poverty rate for all Americans was 22.4 percent, or 39.5 million individuals. These numbers declined steadily throughout the 1960s, reaching a low of 11.1 percent, or 22.9 million individuals, in 1973. Over the next decade, the poverty rate fluctuated between 11.1 and 12.6 percent, but it began to rise steadily again in 1980. By 1983, the number of poor individuals had risen to 35.3 million individuals, or 15.2 percent. // For the next ten years, the poverty rate remained above 12.8 percent, increasing to 15.1 percent, or 39.3 million individuals, by 1993. The rate declined for the remainder of the decade, to 11.3 percent by 2000. From 2000 to 2004 it rose each year to 12.7 in 2004. // Since the late 1960s, the poverty rate for people over 65 has fallen dramatically. The poverty rate for children has historically been somewhat higher than the overall poverty rate. The poverty rate for people in households headed by single women is significantly higher than the overall poverty rate."

And more from: The University of Michigan, The Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy
National Poverty Center | University of Michigan

Anyone who saw this nations poverty in the 30s, 40s and 50s would never question whether the war on poverty worked. LBJ established a safety net that keeps certain sections of our nation from living in third world conditions. If you saw the news reports during LBJs crusade you would see Americans living without running water, without electricity, without access to nutritious food.
Try to compare that to today. LBJ managed a great accomplishment with his social programs....Viet Nam wrecked him

no , I am sorry but thats not a genuine characterization of the issue. the question to ask is, what WAS poverty in the 20, 30's...then, what was poverty in the 50's and where were the poor going pre-1960 and where did they end up or how did they end up and what we ended up with.

The war on poverty had a chance, but, the academics and intellectuals took over and well, here we are with an underclass you trace directly back. Califano admitted as much.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Big Fits wrote: "And the best part! His war on poverty has wasted over 2 trillion dollars to date and poverty rates today are the SAME as they were in the 1960's! But at least they're even more dependent on the race baiting groups that claim kinship to Dr. King, while retaining NONE of the same philosophy. Content of character? Pah! what's that get me? I gots ta git PAYED!"

In fact: "How has poverty changed over time? ~~ In the late 1950s, the poverty rate for all Americans was 22.4 percent, or 39.5 million individuals. These numbers declined steadily throughout the 1960s, reaching a low of 11.1 percent, or 22.9 million individuals, in 1973. Over the next decade, the poverty rate fluctuated between 11.1 and 12.6 percent, but it began to rise steadily again in 1980. By 1983, the number of poor individuals had risen to 35.3 million individuals, or 15.2 percent. // For the next ten years, the poverty rate remained above 12.8 percent, increasing to 15.1 percent, or 39.3 million individuals, by 1993. The rate declined for the remainder of the decade, to 11.3 percent by 2000. From 2000 to 2004 it rose each year to 12.7 in 2004. // Since the late 1960s, the poverty rate for people over 65 has fallen dramatically. The poverty rate for children has historically been somewhat higher than the overall poverty rate. The poverty rate for people in households headed by single women is significantly higher than the overall poverty rate."

And more from: The University of Michigan, The Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy
National Poverty Center | University of Michigan

Anyone who saw this nations poverty in the 30s, 40s and 50s would never question whether the war on poverty worked. LBJ established a safety net that keeps certain sections of our nation from living in third world conditions. If you saw the news reports during LBJs crusade you would see Americans living without running water, without electricity, without access to nutritious food.
Try to compare that to today. LBJ managed a great accomplishment with his social programs....Viet Nam wrecked him

no , I am sorry but thats not a genuine characterization of the issue. the question to ask is, what WAS poverty in the 20, 30's...then, what was poverty in the 50's and where were the poor going pre-1960 and where did they end up or how did they end up and what we ended up with.

The war on poverty had a chance, but, the academics and intellectuals took over and well, here we are with an underclass you trace directly back. Califano admitted as much.

Actually it's an excellent characterization of the issue, and you got nuthin. Noted.

 

[Woyzeck]

I was always a Teddy fan myself. The man continues to define badass to this day.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If TR were president today, Dude and daveman and Mr. F and others here would give a collective "Eek!!!" and go hide under the bed.

 

[Oddball]

TR was the prototype neocon....No wonder you like him.

 

[Oddball]

Anyone who saw this nations poverty in the 30s, 40s and 50s would never question whether the war on poverty worked. LBJ established a safety net that keeps certain sections of our nation from living in third world conditions. If you saw the news reports during LBJs crusade you would see Americans living without running water, without electricity, without access to nutritious food.
Try to compare that to today. LBJ managed a great accomplishment with his social programs....Viet Nam wrecked him

That post hoc ergo propter hoc dog don't hunt, Sparky.

And of course the media showed us soup kitchen America...If it bleeds it leads was their motto way back then, too.

And, in other words, Dud, you got nuthin. Noted.

What I pointed out is that you and leftwinger got nothin', besides common logical fallacies that any high school debate club member can pick out.

Here, I'll even help y'all along in that area: Logical Fallacies and the Art of Debate

 

[Trajan]

Anyone who saw this nations poverty in the 30s, 40s and 50s would never question whether the war on poverty worked. LBJ established a safety net that keeps certain sections of our nation from living in third world conditions. If you saw the news reports during LBJs crusade you would see Americans living without running water, without electricity, without access to nutritious food.
Try to compare that to today. LBJ managed a great accomplishment with his social programs....Viet Nam wrecked him

no , I am sorry but thats not a genuine characterization of the issue. the question to ask is, what WAS poverty in the 20, 30's...then, what was poverty in the 50's and where were the poor going pre-1960 and where did they end up or how did they end up and what we ended up with.

The war on poverty had a chance, but, the academics and intellectuals took over and well, here we are with an underclass you trace directly back. Califano admitted as much.

Actually it's an excellent characterization of the issue, and you got nuthin. Noted.

I am sorry was that a comment on the quote?....there be nuthin der'....