Birther Nonsense: Still?

sabs · Post by **sabs** » Tue Jun 05, 2012 10:12 pm

Taft was corrupt as all hell.
How do you have a bottom 10 without Grant. The President who presided over the South Reconstruction. Taking an already bad situation, and making sure it stayed fucking terrible for 100 years.

Nixon is terrible for 3 things:
1) Escalation of Vietnam
2) War on Drugs
3) Watergate

Theodore Roosevelt? what?

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Tue Jun 05, 2012 10:36 pm

sabs wrote:Taft was corrupt as all hell.

I consider stuff like that first world problems. If the corruption leads to significant numbers of people dying, being impoverished, or derailing something that was leading to something good -- sure, count it. But I don't consider any piddling crap like the Credit Mobiler or the Teapot Dome scandal anywhere as bad as the CIA adventures various Presidents authorized or allowed. Since no one seems to include THAT stuff in their rankings of Presidents I don't see a reason to include garden-variety overclass corruption. They're the useless fucks who read The Jungle back in the day and thought that the FDA meant everything was okay now.

sabs wrote:The President who presided over the South Reconstruction. Taking an already bad situation, and making sure it stayed fucking terrible for 100 years.

No argument here. Though I personally feel that the reason why Reconstruction failed was more because of Johnson's dicking around in the first couple of years while the Southern leadership retrenched and the economic hardship/do-nothingness that made myopic, greedy-ass citizens abandon their idealism. He hovers near the bottom ten. But blaming the failure of Reconstruction on just Grant or even mainly Grant is a bit harsh.

sabs wrote:Theodore Roosevelt? what?

Philippines War and especially the aftermath. Also a racist imperialist. McKinley definitely deserves a bottom spot, too. If my list went up to 12 Grant and McKinley would be in that list. I'm even sympathetic to the idea of swapping McKinley and Roosevelt, but, the majority of atrocities fell on Teddy's shoulders.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Wed Jun 06, 2012 1:18 am

Question: why does the Internet love Roosevelt so much? I can only assume it's not related to his policies. I had to check to make sure he was the one I was thinking of ("Big moustache, teddy bear was named after him") as that's basically all I know of him, my knowledge of dead presidents being very limited.

Meikle641 · Post by **Meikle641** » Wed Jun 06, 2012 1:37 am

Roosevelt was a huge badass, that's why.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Wed Jun 06, 2012 2:21 am

Koumei wrote:Question: why does the Internet love Roosevelt so much?

Because if you're cool enough people will overlook your atrocities, especially if they were aimed at brown uncool people. Duh. Why do you think that Krelian or Sephiroth have so many fans?

sabs · Post by **sabs** » Wed Jun 06, 2012 3:21 am

I don't get that. Theodore was no more of a racist than everyone else at the time. Americans in the 19th century, have an almost British level of White Man Superiority. I don't see how Theodore is any more racist than any of the other presidents before him, or after him for a long time.

Hadanelith · Post by **Hadanelith** » Wed Jun 06, 2012 3:57 am

I will admit my grasp on the history of the time is shaky, but what puts JFK on your list? I'd think NASA and avoiding the end of the world would put him on the good side of the equation. What did I miss?

Chamomile · Post by **Chamomile** » Wed Jun 06, 2012 4:15 am

I'd guess Bay of Pigs. Authorized an invasion of Cuba because rawr at communism, which ended in disaster.

deaddmwalking · Post by **deaddmwalking** » Wed Jun 06, 2012 4:58 am

It seems Lago's criteria about a 'good president' and a 'bad president' is how many people in other countries died as a result of the president's decisions. Further, he seems to place more emphasis on deaths caused by military action, particularly 'imperialism'.

From that point of view, I'm surprised McKinley doesn't make the list (Spanish American War) and that Zachary Taylor is on the list but James Polk is not (Mexican American War).

But it comes down to opinion, and those can't be right or wrong - but they can be poorly informed, illogical, and inconsistent.

No president acts in a vacuum. There are political realities and concessions that have to be made to opposition parties and disagreeable elements within a president's own party. For that reason, Lago seems willing to strip a president of credit for any good that was achieved during their term but leave them as solely responsible for the evil that may have been done.

So, if it comes down to opinion, I think that just about every president comes out as a net positive, at least compared to the world at large. Sure, the US has done a lot of stupid crap and involved themselves in the internal affairs of other countries to a larger than should be permissible degree, particularly in Latin America.

But considering that the United States spends more on 'defense' than the combined totals of the next 15 biggest spenders and 5x more than China, most of the world doesn't feel particularly threatened by a powerful US military. The US has supported the Pax Americana and the rule of law throughout the world - how many lives has that saved? How many people have been lifted out of poverty by trade supported by the freedom of international waters?

I'll freely admit that the US has often fallen short of professed ideals. Still, I will assert that the US from its inception has had a net positive impact on most people in the world.

But as an American, even if other people in the world disagree (rightly or wrongly, doesn't matter) Americans are focused first and foremost on their internal affairs, so it doesn't really matter, does it? Love us or hate us, Americans trust that the rest of the world cares more about us than we do about them.

Chamomile · Post by **Chamomile** » Wed Jun 06, 2012 5:10 am

I find it hard to reconcile slavery and genocide with the image of American history I wish I could have. That seems like too much net bad to just be wiped away. America has done real good for the world, and that shouldn't be forgotten, but it's hard to find a system of slavery more brutal nor a (contemporary) act of genocide so successful.

We've done pretty okay for the past century, though. There's been screwups and sometimes there's incredible loss of life because of them, but that's just sort of the way the world is. That's terrible and we should always work to make things closer to how they should be rather than how they are, but that doesn't mean we should be blind to how the world actually is, particularly when we're judging others.

Hadanelith · Post by **Hadanelith** » Wed Jun 06, 2012 5:39 am

Bay of Pigs slipped my mind, but that one was kinda dropped into his lap - Eisenhower did most of the heavy lifting on that operation, and Kennedy just let it go, more or less as previously Presidentially approved, based on the intel that the CIA gave him. It's not like he'd had a whole lot of time to evaluate that info - it was only 3 months into his presidency. I wouldn't cut him slack if it was much further into his term, but the whole Bay of Pigs fiasco was not really his operation. Besides, if it's death toll that's important, that little blunder was small potatoes.

Starmaker · Post by **Starmaker** » Wed Jun 06, 2012 6:11 am

Koumei wrote:Question: why does the Internet love Roosevelt so much?

O.o
News at 11: biggest Putin fan questions Roosevelt internet craze

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Wed Jun 06, 2012 6:59 am

To be fair, I'd hate Putin if he was running my country. That he's happening to other people means I can just enjoy the publicity stunts. And in his case I am actually aware of these publicity stunts. I don't recall Roosevelt going around hunting tigers and trolling Angela Merkel with dogs he knows she's afraid of lately.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Wed Jun 06, 2012 7:08 am

Um... Someone else want to list off all the crap that Roosevelt kept as pets?

Lets see....

He was once shot in the chest on the way to give a speech. Fortunately for him, his eyeglass case and the folded speech were in the path of the bullet. Since he wasn't coughing blood afterwards, he figured he was fine*, and delivered the hour-and-a-half long speech before seeking medical attention. You may be interested to know the bullet ended up lodged in his lung. The opening line of his speech was "Ladies and gentlemen, I don't know whether you fully understand that I have just been shot; but it takes more than that to kill a Bull Moose." He'd assessed his own injury by realizing that, because he wasn't bleeding from his mouth, he wasn't mortally wounded.
won the Nobel Peace Prize for overseeing negotiations between Russia and Japan to help end the Russo-Japanese War.
a Harvard graduate, read in French, German, Italian, and English, made an effort to read a book every day before breakfast, was usually able to get two or three more in by the time he went to bed, and still found time to kick copious amounts of ass. (were books shorter then!?)
led the Rough Riders as a colonel during the Spanish-American War.
was blind in one eye as a result of a boxing match. The injury prompted him to take up a safer hobby: judo. Also had asthma his entire life, which he apparently self medicated with a severe coffee habit.
"I took Panama."
refered to the Battle of San Juan Hill as "the greatest day of my life" and even begged Woodrow Wilson to allow him to form and lead a volunteer force into WWI.
He once killed a cougar. In a knife fight. (He had the knife, though it wouldn't surprise many if he taught the cougar to use a knife and then gave it the knife to fight bare handed)
crossed of the River Of Doubt, after which it was renamed The River Of Unquestionable Certainty. (and then the much less awesome Roosevelt River)
His boat was stolen once; he built another boat and hunted the thieves down. Instead of shooting them in the middle of the woods, he hauled them to town for court, going 40 hours without sleep. He read Tolstoy to keep himself awake. When he finished reading Tolstoy, Roosevelt literally forced one of the robbers to lend him a book that he had been carrying. The guy who'd tried to get away with robbing TR was now forced to "volunteer" his book for his intended victim's reading leisure. This—on top of arresting him—pretty much means that Teddy completely and utterly humiliated the robbers.
After he received letters from army cavalrymen complaining about having to ride 25 miles a day for training, in response, Teddy rode horseback for 100 miles, from sunrise to sunset, at 51 years old, effectively rescinding anyone's right to complain about anything, ever again.
During his time in the badlands he once walked into a hotel when a drunken cowboy was shooting up the bar-room with a pair of revolvers. The drunk noticed him, called him "Four eyes", and said that "Four eyes is going to treat." Theodore ignored him and sat down at the bar, but the drunk comes over to him, gun in each hand, and repeated his command. Theodore then says "Well, if I've got to, I've got to" and KO's the drunk in three punches.
Before he became president, while he was away on a hunting trip, someone hired a man named Paddock to either scare him off his land or just shoot him off it. When Teddy came back and found out that Paddock had be hired to kill him, he personally went to Paddock's house and told him "I understand you have threatened to kill me on sight. I have come over to see when you want to begin the killing.” Obviously, the threats ended then and there.
he survived a bullet wound to the chest, malaria, and asthma.
His contemporaries claimed he would have beat up the grim reaper if he hadn't been a pussy about it and snuck up him while he was sleeping.

Maj · Post by **Maj** » Wed Jun 06, 2012 12:00 pm

I love Roosevelt for Olympic National Park (even though it was only a national monument in his hands).

name_here · Post by **name_here** » Wed Jun 06, 2012 12:11 pm

Roosevelt wasn't just a total personal badass, though he most certainly was that. He also was responsible for a number of major antitrust reforms, national parks and conservation movements being a thing, the FDA, and America gaining major international influence. Now, he did kind of fuck with South American countries in the process of doing that last one, but you have to credit him for the good things American foreign policy has done too.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Wed Jun 06, 2012 3:06 pm

name_here wrote:Rand America gaining major international influence.

As someone who lives in a country that has America's dick regularly shoved in its ear (by which I mean "As a non-American"), I can't call that a good thing, or indeed anything other than a great travesty of justice.

name_here · Post by **name_here** » Wed Jun 06, 2012 5:03 pm

So which major power do you want to screw with your country on a regular basis?

If you answered "none of them", you should probably move to a major power. It's pretty much the only way that's going to happen. Also, US participation in WWII can be indirectly attributed to expanded US political influence, which seems like something the pacific theatre has reason to consider a good thing.

fectin · Post by **fectin** » Wed Jun 06, 2012 11:13 pm

You missed Teddy giving the Smithsonian several of their collections. Also, teddy bears are named after him.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Wed Jun 06, 2012 11:32 pm

fectin wrote:You missed Teddy giving the Smithsonian several of their collections.

Honestly, I was going off of TV Tropes, since the post needed the bombast. It doesn't mention those, or his various pets which caused him to spawn the quote "Walk softly and carry a big stick"

Also, teddy bears are named after him.

Well, yes, but everyone knows that.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Thu Jun 07, 2012 7:03 am

name_here wrote:So which major power do you want to screw with your country on a regular basis?

I would literally prefer the former British Empire. Especially given they didn't dick around with my country as much, did what they could to stop America becoming the global superpower and didn't go on to, via the CIA, become the biggest force against democracy.

Though my intention is to marry into Sweden and then basically be immune to said ear-fucking. The people there aren't even really affected by anything going on in the EU crisis, so it's not like I'll be swapping America for Germany.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Thu Jun 07, 2012 7:10 am

Koumei wrote:
name_here wrote:So which major power do you want to screw with your country on a regular basis?
I would literally prefer the former British Empire. Especially given they didn't dick around with my country as much, did what they could to stop America becoming the global superpower and didn't go on to, via the CIA, become the biggest force against democracy.

They murdered 80% of the people in your country and then used your country as a dumping ground for criminals for a hundred years. That's a level of dickery that the United States has never managed to pull off on anyone. I mean, not even Cuba has been dicked over that badly by the United States.

-Username17

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:25 am

Sorry, let me adjust that: they haven't dicked around with my country nearly as much as America has... for as long as I've been around. Which is relevant for one reason:

It means I'm naturally going to be biased in this case. I also don't recall the Sovjet Union, Kingdom of Wei*, or Ancient Babylon fucking with my country since my birth. Which is a bit of an unfair hurdle for America, I admit. Although given this also makes the Nippon Empire of War and Nazi Germany "preferable to America", I can see it needing revision.

(And really, it's worth remembering that, like every other Australian who has the right to vote, and a house, and the (grudging) support of the government, I basically am British. For all effects and purposes I'm one of the murderous invaders - we really do need constant reminding of what happened, given we have more in common with the British than the actual native Australians, and rarely see said natives, so effective was the genocide.)

*Actually, an Australia run by Cao Cao wouldn't be too bad. Sure, he probably would have become afraid of people on boats after Red Cliff, but we already have a politician with that issue, and at least he ran the place so well that the leading politician/strategist of Shu wrote a chapter about how awesome he was.

Chamomile · Post by **Chamomile** » Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:35 am

Chinese people like to get wrapped up in the idea that the Han Dynasty was so amazingly awesome that everything to do with it is automatically awesome by default. And the Han Dynasty really way basically the most awesome nation the world had ever seen at the time, but that doesn't mean the guy who was distantly related to the imperial line was automagically better at government than any of his rivals. Whenever I'm reading or playing something to do with the Three Kingdoms, I like to get wrapped up in the "go Team Shu" narrative because that's fun, but looking at things objectively, I'm very nearly positive that Shu would actually be one of the worst kingdoms to actually live under, and Wei one of the best. None of them were particularly nightmarishly oppressive as near as I can tell, though. As far as I can see, the only real dick move any of them did was to pressgang hundreds of thousands of random peasants into fighting a war that mattered nothing except to the ambitions of the rulers involved, which is something all three were equally guilty of.

Dong Zhuo was messed up, though.

RobbyPants · Post by **RobbyPants** » Thu Jun 07, 2012 12:56 pm

Prak_Anima wrote:
fectin wrote:Also, teddy bears are named after him.
Well, yes, but everyone knows that.

What about the lingerie? Was that named after him?