61% of Historians Rate the Bush Presidency...

[SPC]

>61% of historians are morons. How is Bush the worst when the predecessors of him who've taken similar actions (Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, Johnson), are the best?

[SPC]

I think anybody even rating Clinton's presidency the worst is a moron because enough time hasn't passed.

No, they would be morons because Clinton presided over unprecedented peace and prosperity.

I'm sure Vince Foster, the Branch Davidians, and 500,000 dead Iraqis love the "peace" Bill Clinton gave us.  

>61% of historians are morons. How is Bush the worst when the predecessors of him who've taken similar actions (Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, Johnson), are the best?

Because they were all more effective than Bush. They're not ranking him poorly on expansion of powers alone.

Effective in what? Reducing liberty?

[SPC]

I think anybody even rating Clinton's presidency the worst is a moron because enough time hasn't passed.

No, they would be morons because Clinton presided over unprecedented peace and prosperity.

I'm sure Vince Foster, the Branch Davidians, and 500,000 dead Iraqis love the "peace" Bill Clinton gave us.  

>61% of historians are morons. How is Bush the worst when the predecessors of him who've taken similar actions (Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, Johnson), are the best?

Because they were all more effective than Bush. They're not ranking him poorly on expansion of powers alone.

Effective in what? Reducing liberty?

If you consider Social Security, Social Reform, the Abolishment of Slavery, the Equal Rights Amendment and the League of Nations to be reductions in freedoms then yes. Not that they are and if they were then those reductions in freedom should have happened.

Of all of those, only the third one could be considered an advancement for liberty. Social security is based on the principle that you don't control your own retirement, and the government must protect you from yourself. Social reform is too vague to consider either way. Slavery was abolished at the expense of the right to self-government, and took 600,000 unnecessary deaths to accomplish. The Equal Rights Amendment was based on the idea that the government knows how to hire employees better than you do. The League of Nations was another step toward world governance and inspired the anti-American United Nations.

[SPC]

I've always said Harding's was the worst.

Haha. Topping Harding would be pretty hard, one might say.

Wasn't he the one who said the following?:

"I am not fit for this office and never should have been here."

At least he was honest.

[SPC]

I think anybody even rating Clinton's presidency the worst is a moron because enough time hasn't passed.

No, they would be morons because Clinton presided over unprecedented peace and prosperity.

I'm sure Vince Foster, the Branch Davidians, and 500,000 dead Iraqis love the "peace" Bill Clinton gave us. 

>61% of historians are morons. How is Bush the worst when the predecessors of him who've taken similar actions (Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, Johnson), are the best?

Because they were all more effective than Bush. They're not ranking him poorly on expansion of powers alone.

Effective in what? Reducing liberty?

If you consider Social Security, Social Reform, the Abolishment of Slavery, the Equal Rights Amendment and the League of Nations to be reductions in freedoms then yes. Not that they are and if they were then those reductions in freedom should have happened.

Of all of those, only the third one could be considered an advancement for liberty. Social security is based on the principle that you don't control your own retirement, and the government must protect you from yourself. Social reform is too vague to consider either way. Slavery was abolished at the expense of the right to self-government, and took 600,000 unnecessary deaths to accomplish. The Equal Rights Amendment was based on the idea that the government knows how to hire employees better than you do. The League of Nations was another step toward world governance and inspired the anti-American United Nations.

Ever heard of 'positive liberty' as opposed to 'negative liberty'?

Andrew Napolitano tears apart the positivists in his book A Nation of Sheep. Liberty means that you are free to do what you want so long as you don't unjustly coerce others into doing something they do not want.

[SPC]

I think anybody even rating Clinton's presidency the worst is a moron because enough time hasn't passed.

No, they would be morons because Clinton presided over unprecedented peace and prosperity.

I'm sure Vince Foster, the Branch Davidians, and 500,000 dead Iraqis love the "peace" Bill Clinton gave us. 

>61% of historians are morons. How is Bush the worst when the predecessors of him who've taken similar actions (Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, Johnson), are the best?

Because they were all more effective than Bush. They're not ranking him poorly on expansion of powers alone.

Effective in what? Reducing liberty?

If you consider Social Security, Social Reform, the Abolishment of Slavery, the Equal Rights Amendment and the League of Nations to be reductions in freedoms then yes. Not that they are and if they were then those reductions in freedom should have happened.

Of all of those, only the third one could be considered an advancement for liberty. Social security is based on the principle that you don't control your own retirement, and the government must protect you from yourself. Social reform is too vague to consider either way. Slavery was abolished at the expense of the right to self-government, and took 600,000 unnecessary deaths to accomplish. The Equal Rights Amendment was based on the idea that the government knows how to hire employees better than you do. The League of Nations was another step toward world governance and inspired the anti-American United Nations.

Ever heard of 'positive liberty' as opposed to 'negative liberty'?

Andrew Napolitano tears apart the positivists in his book A Nation of Sheep. Liberty means that you are free to do what you want so long as you don't unjustly coerce others into doing something they do not want.

To you it may mean that but to someone else liberty may mean that they are free from want or free from harm. Just because you may disagree with their conception of liberty does not make their interpretation of liberty 'wrong' anymore than their disagreement with yours makes yours so. It's a contested term and I don't think there is any definition that is more 'true' than another.

Very well, so long as they don't force their conception of liberty upon me by making me take part in Social Security.