T1B

You couldn't find anything more current than 2014? I did.

The passage of time has a way of altering public perception. I'm guessing that if Americans were polled during or immediately after the Civil War, Lincoln wouldn't have fared too well. Now he's considered the greatest. Not saying Obama will ever be considered by the public, historians, or other academics as the best ever, but he's already in the Top 10 (and beats out Reagan) in the one Goobs posted that you dismissed. Granted, historians and academics are going to lean left, but Quinnipiac took the same poll of public opinion that you linked, only this one was taken less than a year ago, and guess who topped the list then? And it wasn't even close. Such polls should be expected to rank current and recent Presidents near the top of unfavorable lists, because most people tend to dislike politicians in general, and they associate those who currently hold or recently held the office with everything that is wrong with the country while waxing nostalgic about the "good old days" (especially straight white males, who've historically made the rules and are most threatened by changes to the status quo).

Of course, all such polls should be taken with a grain of salt. While the poll I linked shows respondents ranking Obama 2nd-worst behind Trump, it also ranks him 2nd-best behind Reagan. 21% ranked him the worst, while 24% ranked him the best. 41% ranked Trump the worst, while only 7% ranked him the best.

Few people, if any, are completely objective. I try to be, but I'll never get there. With that disclaimer, it's hard for me to imagine that 30+ years from now, Trump will be considered by the public or by historians as an above-average President. Unless things change drastically in the next two years (or six if he's reelected), he will be hangin' out with the likes of Buchanan and Harding on Presidential favorability lists. My guess is that Obama will be somewhere in the middle.

Interesting article here. Reminds me of what a lot of critics currently say about a community organizer from Illinois. Also tragically funny how being assassinated improves public opinion.

The illustrious Honest Old Abe has continued during the last week to make a fool of himself and to mortify and shame the intelligent people of this great nation. His speeches have demonstrated the fact that although originally a Herculean rail splitter and more lately a whimsical story teller and side splitter, he is no more capable of becoming a statesman, nay, even a moderate one, than the braying ass can become a noble lion. People now marvel how it came to pass that Mr. Lincoln should have been selected as the representative man of any party. His weak, wishy-washy, namby-pamby efforts, imbecile in matter, disgusting in manner, have made us the laughing stock of the whole world. The European powers will despise us because we have no better material out of which to make a President. The truth is, Lincoln is only a moderate lawyer and in the larger cities of the Union could pass for no more than a facetious pettifogger. Take him from his vocation and he loses even these small characteristics and indulges in simple twaddle which would disgrace a well bred school boy.

Papa Willie wrote:that Obama was one of our greatest Presidents.
http://time.com/2949984/barack-obama-po ... SEwjUaOGho

Smackie Chan wrote:(especially straight white males, who've historically made the rules and are most threatened by changes to the status quo)

Do you actually buy this line of thinking? Just on the surface of it there is the assertion that all those dead white guys were straight. And you know this how? For all you know, they were on the down low pretending to be straight. Or maybe they knew that they were gay, but understood how destructive it would be to society if it were legitimized.

Maybe, just maybe, they actually had a clue about the value of freedom coupled with personal responsibility to themselves, their families, and the community around them. They understood that it wasn’t white straight men who benefited from the structure and rules they formed, but everybody. The idiocy that if only a few women and some fags and trannies and a couple of blacks and Indians and Japanese had gotten in on the founding of the United States how much better things would be now! Alas, the opportunity missed!

Rooster wrote:

Smackie Chan wrote:(especially straight white males, who've historically made the rules and are most threatened by changes to the status quo)

Do you actually buy this line of thinking?

There's little to no doubt about it.

Just on the surface of it there is the assertion that all those dead white guys were straight. And you know this how?

I don't, but if we look at it statistically, most of the estimates I've seen are that 10-15% of the general population is gay. If that's anywhere near the proportion of lawmakers historically, they'd still be far outnumbered by straight men. And while I can't ascertain it, I'm pretty sure there's never been a time in our history when gay lawmakers, closeted or not, outnumbered straights. And as you said...

For all you know, they were on the down low pretending to be straight.

From a legislative standpoint, what's the difference between someone who's straight and someone who's pretending to be straight if part of their pretending is to advocate and vote for "straight" causes (if there really are such things). Gay rights activism is relatively new compared to the age of the country; for most of our history, gays were closeted because they believed (probably rightfully so) that it was in their best interest not to come out. To the best of my knowledge (which admittedly may not be very complete), there weren't many Federal laws that expressly allowed for discrimination based on sexual orientation, with military service being an exception. There just weren't any that expressly forbade it, which is why its practice existed. Much of gay rights activism is targeted toward enactment of laws expressly forbidding the type of discrimination that was tacitly allowed because there were no such laws before.

Or maybe they knew that they were gay, but understood how destructive it would be to society if it were legitimized.

Maybe, but unlikely. Sure, there have certainly been those self-loathers who felt that their orientation was abnormal, perverted, disgusting...call it what you want. But it's likely they felt that way because of the societal norms at the time, and wouldn't have felt that way if society was more accepting of them, as it is now. Obviously, not everyone (including you, apparently) accepts them as equals, but a far greater proportion of the American population does today than was the case 100, 50, even 20 years ago.

Maybe, just maybe, they actually had a clue about the value of freedom coupled with personal responsibility to themselves, their families, and the community around them. They understood that it wasn’t white straight men who benefited from the structure and rules they formed, but everybody.

Wow. Clueless much?

The idiocy that if only a few women and some fags and trannies and a couple of blacks and Indians and Japanese had gotten in on the founding of the United States how much better things would be now! Alas, the opportunity missed!

The Founding Fathers were land-owning white guys from England who were predominantly, if not completely, straight and Protestant. Women, Catholics, Jews, Asians, Indians, blacks, Latinos, gays...pretty much everyone who wasn't a land-owning white man and didn't descend from England didn't have the same rights and privileges as they did. If those groups you mentioned had been represented among the FFs, of course we would be further along in efforts toward equality and non-discrimination than we are today, much to your chagrin, I'm sure. But they weren't, and times were different then. Discrimination and racial/sexual supremacy were accepted as moral givens, so the FFs naturally established a country that would benefit themselves. They can't be faulted for it; it's the way things were then. They aren't so now, and despite your protestations and hand-wringing over it, we aren't going back to what I'm sure you would consider the good ol' days. Guess you'll just have to deal with it.

Your premise is that if only there had been such and such or this rather than that then things really would have been wonderful. What it ignores is as nations and cultures go, Americana is superior to anything else in the past or present. That you are even advocating this says that I am correct.

Of course we didn’t get everything right. In fact I’d say that there were few things that we got right to the extent they were perfect right out of the box. But compared to everywhere else? Hands down, this is the place to be. And yeah, those dead straight white guys made it happen.

Smackie Chan wrote:The Founding Fathers were land-owning white guys from England who were predominantly, if not completely, straight and Protestant.

Wait... what?

I'd strongly suggest cracking a book sometime. They actually provided some of those books back in grade school.

The Founding Fathers were predominantly from Virginia and Massachusetts. While some were Protestant, many were Deist, and a large chunk of atheist/agnostic.

And who lit the fire that sparked the Revolution, anyway? Maybe one of the few English Founders (who based on percentage of the population who bought his work, is the best-selling American author of all time)? Wrote than Common Sense dealio. And after the war, he wrote a series of books that debunked the Bible (sorry Pops -- he was right). Hardly a "Protestant" (although he was one of the few English Founders).

A rare tard-post from the Smackster.

Dinsdale wrote:
The Founding Fathers were predominantly from Virginia and Massachusetts. While some were Protestant, many were Deist, and a large chunk of atheist/agnostic.

I think Smackie was referring to the FF being structurally Protestant...

Rip off another hit and stop being such a pedant.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael wrote:
I think Smackie was referring to the FF being structurally Protestant...

Which would also be incorrect. If you want to make a case that they were structurally Anglican, I'd listen. I don't think any of the Founders were German, which is where the Protestants of the time came from.

Although technically, Anglicanism was part of the Reformation, and marginally "Protestant."

Rooster wrote:Your premise is that if only there had been such and such or this rather than that then things reallywould have been wonderful.

That's not my premise at all, and I'm not sure how you interpreted what I wrote as meaning that. Let's review, shall we?

I wrote:most people tend to dislike politicians in general, and they associate those who currently hold or recently held the office with everything that is wrong with the country while waxing nostalgic about the "good old days" (especially straight white males, who've historically made the rules and are most threatened by changes to the status quo).

Name a group of Americans that is more likely to pine for the way things used to be than straight white males (not counting Indians pre-colonization). Take your time.

What it ignores...

Since "it" is a premise I didn't make, what you wrote afterward is moot. But I'll humor you anyway.

as nations and cultures go, Americana is superior to anything else in the past or present.

While there is considerable subjectivity in that statement, there is also ample objective evidence that you may be and probably are right. But I never argued otherwise. Far more people want to move here from other countries than there are Americans who want to leave. We are a military, economic, and cultural superpower. Like you, I kinda dig being a straight white male American, and never stated otherwise.

That you are even advocating this says that I am correct.

What, exactly, was I advocating? Please point out my advocacy statements.

compared to everywhere else? Hands down, this is the place to be.

That's purely subjective. I happen to like living here, as it appears you do. But I could also live elsewhere and be just as happy, perhaps more so. The only foreign country I've lived in is the Philippines, and while I liked it there, I'd rather live here. I haven't spent enough time abroad to say definitively that this country is the best to live in for everybody. That's a matter of taste, values, and other subjective factors that aren't uniform or true for everyone.

those dead straight white guys made it happen.

Yes, and they did an outstanding job. If your point is that white guys were the only ones who could've made it happen, I would even agree with you on that given the context of history. I thinks it's safe to say that if the Chinese or Africans or Arabs had colonized this land rather than the English, the culture, economy, and form of government would certainly be different and likely not as favorable to whites of European descent. But let's say, for sake of argument, there was a large area of resource-rich land today that was ripe for American colonization and the starting of a new country. I have no doubt that a group of diverse Founding Parents, comprised of men, women, gays, straights, and various ethnicities and religions would do a better job than a group comprised only of straight white males. You probably disagree, and it's something that will never be able to be proven, at least not in our lifetime.

Dinsdale wrote:The Founding Fathers were predominantly from Virginia and Massachusetts. While some were Protestant, many were Deist, and a large chunk of atheist/agnostic.

I should have said, "The Founding Fathers were land-owning white guys, most of whose ancestors were from England," and left the religion part out completely. I tried to make the point by taking an ill-advised shortcut that while the country was largely founded on Christian values (the deism/atheism/agnosticism of many of the FFs notwithstanding), not all Christians (like Catholics) were treated as equals. Patrick Henry, for one, was rather opposed to Catholics being able to own firearms.

But I'll take the hit for what I wrote as being incorrect, since it was, although it was only tangential to the primary point about opinion polls being taken today.

Smackie Chan wrote:the country was largely founded on Judaist values

FTFY

But leave it to the Christians to take credit for shit they didn't write (don't get me started on the New Testament).

Smackie Chan wrote:

Rooster wrote:Your premise is that if only there had been such and such or this rather than that then things reallywould have been wonderful.

That's not my premise at all, and I'm not sure how you interpreted what I wrote as meaning that. Let's review, shall we?

I wrote:most people tend to dislike politicians in general, and they associate those who currently hold or recently held the office with everything that is wrong with the country while waxing nostalgic about the "good old days" (especially straight white males, who've historically made the rules and are most threatened by changes to the status quo).

Name a group of Americans that is more likely to pine for the way things used to be than straight white males (not counting Indians pre-colonization). Take your time.

Nearly everybody older than 35. What with the societal changes that have occurred since the ‘50’s, most people associate that time period as the golden age of home ownership, polite discourse in public spaces, good music, readily available work with good wages, Pax Americana, good education, and rising health, finances, and scientific discovery.

While that may all be viewing history through rose tinted glasses, the 1950s are considered to be the high water mark for those things I mentioned. Myth though it may be, especially when compared to the sheer higher standard of living of today, there is a sense that everybody knew their place in this world.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:

That was me when I was about 4 years old. Remember it like yesterday. I still fukking hate goats.

Rooster wrote:Nearly everybody older than 35...everybody knew their place in this world.

You nailed it there, dude. Blacks knew their place was at the back of the bus and the "Coloreds Only" restrooms, women knew theirs was barefoot & pregnant in the kitchen, and gays knew theirs was in the closet. I'm certain that if you asked them, they all would agree with you that those were the best of times.

Rooster is a straight-up whack job. Holy shit.

Goober McTuber wrote:Rooster is a straight-up whack job. Holy shit.

He's your typical Trump supporter.

Smackie Chan wrote:

Rooster wrote:Nearly everybody older than 35...everybody knew their place in this world.

You nailed it there, dude. Blacks knew their place was at the back of the bus and the "Coloreds Only" restrooms, women knew theirs was barefoot & pregnant in the kitchen, and gays knew theirs was in the closet. I'm certain that if you asked them, they all would agree with you that those were the best of times.

Bait examined and swallowed, hook, line, and sinker. There was a reason I chose that specific wording and, naturally, you three Social Justice Warriors looking to be offended took it that way rather than in the context of the post. You guys are the T1B equivalent of the black radio host immediately accusing the black guest of white privilege when he disagreed with her. So, thanks! You three continue to prove our point over and over and over.

Smackie Chan wrote:

Rooster wrote:Nearly everybody older than 35...everybody knew their place in this world.

You nailed it there, dude. Blacks knew their place was at the back of the bus and the "Coloreds Only" restrooms, women knew theirs was barefoot & pregnant in the kitchen, and gays knew theirs was in the closet. I'm certain that if you asked them, they all would agree with you that those were the best of times.

People should do what they are good at.

Women should take care of children, be homemakers, and comfort their man in the evening. Blacks should sing and dance. They should run and jump in sports arenas for our amusement. Faggots should stay down and quiet. They should be bashed if they come out.

White men should lay back at night and have their dick sucked after a long day at the office.

Rooster wrote:There was a reason I chose that specific wording and, naturally, you three Social Justice Warriors looking to be offended took it that way rather than in the context of the post.

Why would I be offended? I'm not a member of any of those groups, and I have thick enough skin that even if I were, I wouldn't be offended. The "specific" wording you used was "everybody." What's the context of the post that was overlooked or misconstrued? That members of those groups are subhuman and therefore aren't part of "everybody"?

You three continue to prove our point over and over and over.

You have a frog in your pocket? Whose point were you trying to prove other than your own? And your math skills are about what I would expect from you as well. You said "nearly everyone over 35." Those who are 36 - 58 weren't even around in the '50s. The only point that was proven is that you are a complete idiot, and you need no help from anyone to prove that.

Dinsdale wrote:

Shlomart Ben Yisrael wrote:
I think Smackie was referring to the FF being structurally Protestant...

Which would also be incorrect. If you want to make a case that they were structurally Anglican, I'd listen. I don't think any of the Founders were German, which is where the Protestants of the time came from.

Although technically, Anglicanism was part of the Reformation, and marginally "Protestant."

Those New England Calvinists might have disagreed with you.

Dinsdale wrote:But leave it to the Christians to take credit for shit they didn't write (don't get me started on the New Testament).

We've seen in the past that you know very little about the Bible.

People should do what they are good at.

I like to dissect girls. Did you know I’m utterly insane?

Smackie Chan wrote:

Rooster wrote:Nearly everybody older than 35...everybody knew their place in this world.

You nailed it there, dude. Blacks knew their place was at the back of the bus and the "Coloreds Only" restrooms, women knew theirs was barefoot & pregnant in the kitchen, and gays knew theirs was in the closet. I'm certain that if you asked them, they all would agree with you that those were the best of times.

It isn't very often I disagree with you. Hell, this could be the first time, but I think Rooster pretty well nailed it.

Other than gays most of the groups listed did have it better than the 50s, especially balcks. While there was still some ACTUAL systematic racism in place, it was being done away with. Balcks, those that moved north or west, anyway, enjoyed immense gains, economically speaking. The balck family unit in the 50s was largely intact. A balck dude in Chicago wasn't gonna be elected President, or even Mayor, but he could get a decent factory job and live the American dream. And he wasn't likely to be shot, by another balck dude, or anyone else. Compare this to today. 75% of balck kids born out of wedlock. And young balck dudes gunning one another down in droves. The bottom line is, a run of the mill high school educated balck dude's prospects in 1959 were a lot better than that same dude today.

Regarding the women being home, pregnant and barefoot, I am fairly sure there was a wide selection of quality footwear available, mostly made here at the time. And let me let you in on a little secret, a lot of women are kinda into that home and pregnant deal. By pure luck, I married one. And we had an economy at the time which allowed for it. Today we have an economy and culture that dictates that most women go to work, not because they are liberated modern women who can, but because they have to.

I am going to assume that your parents were middle class. If they weren't, just play along anyway. Your dad prolly had a normal yob and your mom likely stayed home and pumped out lil' Smackies. You lived in a modest ranch house in OC somewhere. Everyone you knew was in a similar situation.

How many of these families exist in OC today? Today, unless you have one hell of a good gig, your OL is working full time as well to help pay the 2900 dollar/month mortgage for that same ranch house you grew up in.

If you haven't read any Thomas Sowell, you should. Smartest motherfukker alive today. He was that young balck dude in the 50s. Let him tell you how he was lucky to come up when he did.

smackaholic wrote:If you haven't read any Thomas Sowell, you should. Smartest motherfukker alive today.

Never saw the guy, but I’m pretty sure he’s a beneficiary of white privilege.

L45B wrote:

smackaholic wrote:If you haven't read any Thomas Sowell, you should. Smartest motherfukker alive today.

Never saw the guy, but I’m pretty sure he’s a beneficiary of white privilege.

Nahhhh, he was just the beneficiary of about a triple helping of braincells when he was born. It's a shame he was too smart and too decent to go into politics. If he could have been elected President around the time Clinton was, I think we'd be in a much better place today.

My Mom got a PhD and worked unlike holics stupid mom who was nothing more than a porch wife and squirted out one of the dumbest posters in the board.

smackaholic wrote: It isn't very often I disagree with you. Hell, this could be the first time, but I think Rooster pretty well nailed it.

Other than gays most of the groups listed did have it better than the 50s, especially balcks. While there was still some ACTUAL systematic racism in place, it was being done away with. Balcks, those that moved north or west, anyway, enjoyed immense gains, economically speaking. The balck family unit in the 50s was largely intact. A balck dude in Chicago wasn't gonna be elected President, or even Mayor, but he could get a decent factory job and live the American dream. And he wasn't likely to be shot, by another balck dude, or anyone else. Compare this to today. 75% of balck kids born out of wedlock. And young balck dudes gunning one another down in droves. The bottom line is, a run of the mill high school educated balck dude's prospects in 1959 were a lot better than that same dude today.

Regarding the women being home, pregnant and barefoot, I am fairly sure there was a wide selection of quality footwear available, mostly made here at the time. And let me let you in on a little secret, a lot of women are kinda into that home and pregnant deal. By pure luck, I married one. And we had an economy at the time which allowed for it. Today we have an economy and culture that dictates that most women go to work, not because they are liberated modern women who can, but because they have to.

I am going to assume that your parents were middle class. If they weren't, just play along anyway. Your dad prolly had a normal yob and your mom likely stayed home and pumped out lil' Smackies. You lived in a modest ranch house in OC somewhere. Everyone you knew was in a similar situation.

How many of these families exist in OC today? Today, unless you have one hell of a good gig, your OL is working full time as well to help pay the 2900 dollar/month mortgage for that same ranch house you grew up in.

If you haven't read any Thomas Sowell, you should. Smartest motherfukker alive today. He was that young balck dude in the 50s. Let him tell you how he was lucky to come up when he did.

Yes, the riots in balck parts of Detroit, Newark and Watts in the 50s and 60s were really just balcks celebrating how well they had it.

You are one delusional piece of shit.

Kierland wrote:My Mom got a PhD...

Was her PHD in having disappointing children?

Kierland wrote:My Mom got a PhD and worked unlike holics stupid mom who was nothing more than a porch wife and squirted out one of the dumbest posters in the board.

Yo mamas PhD was obviously not very close to anything that required comprehensible English, nor was she able to pass along any of that book learning to you.

Did you spend ALL your childhood crying, complaining and shitting your diapers ?

Screw_Michigan wrote:

smackaholic wrote: It isn't very often I disagree with you. Hell, this could be the first time, but I think Rooster pretty well nailed it.

Other than gays most of the groups listed did have it better than the 50s, especially balcks. While there was still some ACTUAL systematic racism in place, it was being done away with. Balcks, those that moved north or west, anyway, enjoyed immense gains, economically speaking. The balck family unit in the 50s was largely intact. A balck dude in Chicago wasn't gonna be elected President, or even Mayor, but he could get a decent factory job and live the American dream. And he wasn't likely to be shot, by another balck dude, or anyone else. Compare this to today. 75% of balck kids born out of wedlock. And young balck dudes gunning one another down in droves. The bottom line is, a run of the mill high school educated balck dude's prospects in 1959 were a lot better than that same dude today.

Regarding the women being home, pregnant and barefoot, I am fairly sure there was a wide selection of quality footwear available, mostly made here at the time. And let me let you in on a little secret, a lot of women are kinda into that home and pregnant deal. By pure luck, I married one. And we had an economy at the time which allowed for it. Today we have an economy and culture that dictates that most women go to work, not because they are liberated modern women who can, but because they have to.

I am going to assume that your parents were middle class. If they weren't, just play along anyway. Your dad prolly had a normal yob and your mom likely stayed home and pumped out lil' Smackies. You lived in a modest ranch house in OC somewhere. Everyone you knew was in a similar situation.

How many of these families exist in OC today? Today, unless you have one hell of a good gig, your OL is working full time as well to help pay the 2900 dollar/month mortgage for that same ranch house you grew up in.

If you haven't read any Thomas Sowell, you should. Smartest motherfukker alive today. He was that young balck dude in the 50s. Let him tell you how he was lucky to come up when he did.

Yes, the riots in balck parts of Detroit, Newark and Watts in the 50s and 60s were really just balcks celebrating how well they had it.

You are one delusional piece of shit.

The riots were at the end of the 60s. Had mostly to do with MLK getting whacked. I never said things were perfect for them. They weren't. But they were continually improving throughout the 20th century until the 70s. And a good part of the blame lays with LBJ's "great society" which told balck women they didn't need a father around. The great white father will send you a check. So now they have 40 years of essentially no improvement financially speaking, as a group.

Everything I have posted is basically right from Thomas Sowell. But, I guess he's delusional too. He has more IQ points in his morning shit than you can ever hope to have.

smackaholic wrote:Thomas Sowell

Thomas Sowell?
Why...isn't he a niiiiiiiiii....

smackaholic wrote:[
The riots were at the end of the 60s. Had mostly to do with MLK getting whacked.

The Watts riots in LA happened in 1965 and were no doubt the seminal events in starting a period of civil unrest, and that was three years before MLK was whacked. This shit had been coming on a long time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watts_riots

Dude, it's smackaholic...

He sleeps with his shoes on because he hasn't figured out that "velcro thing" yet.

Rooster wrote:

Smackie Chan wrote:

Rooster wrote:Nearly everybody older than 35...everybody knew their place in this world.

You nailed it there, dude. Blacks knew their place was at the back of the bus and the "Coloreds Only" restrooms, women knew theirs was barefoot & pregnant in the kitchen, and gays knew theirs was in the closet. I'm certain that if you asked them, they all would agree with you that those were the best of times.

Bait examined and swallowed, hook, line, and sinker. There was a reason I chose that specific wording and, naturally, you three Social Justice Warriors looking to be offended took it that way rather than in the context of the post. You guys are the T1B equivalent of the black radio host immediately accusing the black guest of white privilege when he disagreed with her. So, thanks! You three continue to prove our point over and over and over.

Nice spin, you stupid motherfucker. It's telling that the one supporter for your viewpoint is the one T1B poster dumber than you.