What don't you like about Obama, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, LBJ, FDR, etc.

Posted by: Barthélemy Barbancourt

Tagged in: Untagged 

Here is your chance to vent about the current and past Democratic presidents.

I despise Barry O'Dumbfuck for his arrogance and ignorance. The man couldn't run a Dairy Queen, let alone the USA. The people that worship this moron are truly stupid people.

Bill Clinton is a narcissistic scumbag that ruined more than a few women's lives. Monica Lewinsky was a sex toy to him, her life will never be normal thanks to this pervert. Kathleen Wiley, Juanita Broderick, Jennifer Flowers and a host of other women were abused and molested by this man. The fact that people don't boo him off the stage is a sorry statement on our society.

Jimmy Carter is an anti-semitic asshole and a fucking moron. His Presidency has been compared to James Buchanan's in levels of failure. Carter has been portrayed as being a far better man than he is by sympathetic liberals in the press.

LBJ used the death of Kennedy to past Civil Rights Legislation (a good thing) and the Great Society welfare state ( a very bad thing). Personally, LBJ was reportedly a complete asshole.

JFK is a spoiled rich kid whose weakness led to the Cuban Missle Crisis. Had he not been assassinated,  his Presidency would have been mediocre at best.

Truman dropped the big one and integrated the military. Both were the right thing to do.

FDR was a socialist and made the Great Depression worse. He did lead the nation through WWII, but his abuses of the Constitution have hurt our country immensely. FDR started Social Security, but his original law isn't what is breaking us now, it is the goodies adding by idiot politicians over the years that are killing us.

Comments (19)add comment
I can't
written by Nobody , October 04, 2011

Argue too much here. Truman did a few good things but also started the "housing act" which gave us negro removal, er urban renewal.

FDR didn't lead us through WWII, he got out of the way. He was a socialist dictator like all the rest of his day.

jk noreen
You left out the Father of Progressivism--Woodrow
written by jokin , October 04, 2011

When you mentioned Truman and his desegregating the military, I felt obligated to respond. Especially with the other thread in play concerning racism and Janeane and Woody getting along so swimingly in the pool that Woodrow Wilson peed in originally.

As bad as FDR was, as the best-known Imperial, Statist/Socialist President, Wilson's Imperial Presidency set the example for FDR, who BTW, served as Wilson's Undersecretary of the Navy. A Navy, which further by the way- had been fully DESEGREGATED since the Civil War by the Repubs- until Wilson and Roosevelt implemented full Re-Segregation (Gotta keep those Darkies away from the Master Race, don't you know)!
Bet you didn't know that!?! (FDR ran as VP candidate in 1920 on the platform that Wilson had not gone far enough in the quest for one-world rule and was fully on-board with the Dems Southern Strategy of suppressing the Black Vote. Being stricken with polio in 1921 softened his views on race, he became a soft bigot of low expectations and advantageous exploiter of racial politics when it better served his purposes as President. The old Roosevelt reemrged in 1942, reminding for all eternity what depths Democrats will stoop to in stomping on the Constitution- Roosevelt himself coined the term "concentration camps", which were crelly used against law-abiding Japanese-Americans for the duration of the war, leaving them with nothing, just like the Jews in Europe. Roosevelt curiously was a part to that crime, as well, as he had documented direct knowledge of the situation and repeatedly turned down the opportunity to diminish the impact of the Holocaust.

Roosevelt's forefather, Woodrow Wilson, was the embodiment of the worst possible choice to lead the country:

1) He was an Accidental President, much like Clinton, only being elected because of a broad split in the Republican Party, and as such, lacked an electoral mandate, not that that stopped him.
2) He was only the 2nd Democrat elected President since James Buchanan in 1856 (the Jimmy Carter of the 19th Century, anyone see a pattern here?) and all the pent-up desires of the Progressives built up since the Civil War were going to be unleashed by a Party so long out of power.
3) He was a certifiable Southern racist, fully captured in his numerous white-supremacist writings and policies, which ultimately inspired the resurrection of the KKK.
4) He was a Princeton egghead, the nexus where Progressive-Socialist dreams and Fascist-One-World Government fantasies are first woven (people forget that before Hitler tarnished the term, fascism was "the next big thing" in political ideology in the early 20th Century)
5) He worshipped the State and despised the Declaration of Independence and the tenets of individual liberty and limited government set forth in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Let's see, where do we start with the damage he did? Federal Reserve Act, 16th Amendment, 17th Amendment, Espionage Act, Executive Order 2594 (which created the Committee on Public Information, a government censorship body that inspired Lenin and Mao, and whose spirit continues to today with Obama's strong-arming tactics to control the media informtion flow), the imposition of "War Socialism" (quoting Wilson) at the outset of US entry into WWI (Wilson totally ignoring the campaign pledge he had made to remain out of the war just months before) and the League of Nations, the forerunner of the most corrupt and dangerous beaureacracy the world will ever know- the UN.

written by Nobody , October 04, 2011

My undergrad is in history and I have to call you on a few points. Teddy Roosevelt was the first "Progressive". His Bullmoose party is what split the republican vote and put Woodrow in office. You can call collectivism anything you want, it cycles around every few generations. Men who love freedom throw it out every once in a while, but it always comes back. Walter Duranty of the NYT sent glowing reports of how well Stalins 5 year plans and collective farms were doing. FDR thought they were peachy.

Andnow we have O'dipshit, same song different verse. But a good post, none the less.

jk noreen
You outrank me, Nobody, I was a History minor...
written by jokin , October 04, 2011

I agree that Roosevelt was the first Progressive in office as President. However, trust-busting, conservation and a more generally activistic presidency to gain more immediate national advantage were the main attributes to his time in office. He vehemently opposed Woodrow Wilson and many of the key points in Wilson's brand of Progressivism in both the 1912 and 1916 presidential campaigns. Roosevelt held forth his greatest "Progressive ideals" as eliminating corruption in business and politics and limiting the "unholy alliance" between the two, and was the impetus in him challenging Taft as a Bull Mooser in 1912. Needless to say, Wilson was heavily in on the "unholy alliance". Teddy was definitely an "America Firster", while Woodrow was a One-Worlder. On the racial issue, Roosevelt was the first person to entertain an African-American at the White House, Booker T Washington. He hired numerous blacks personally, and in his administration, again at great political peril and he generally championed civil rights in an era in which it was politically disadvantageous to do so. Woodrow immediately upon obtaining office, segregated the entire Washington DC bureaucracy and was a typical-of-the-day Progressive/Socialist bigot. Woodrow and Teddy did, however, share a similar enthusiasm for Eugenics.

No need to salute
written by Nobody , October 04, 2011

Trust-busting had it's drawbacks. J.D. Rockefeller took the price of kerosene from 40 cents a gallon down to about 25, and for that they broke up Standard Oil. TR was also the one that said the US govmint owned the spectrum and all land that was not surveyed and platted. TR's White ship tour of the world was to show everybody who was in charge.

Blowing up Mt. Rushmore is a dream of mine.

jk noreen
Points taken
written by jokin , October 04, 2011

Agree on Mt Rushmore. Especially since they went Disneyworld-Black Hills. Can they take down Crazy Horse at the same time they plant the charges in Jefferson's nostrils?

The fleet tour was in response to the Imperial Powers challenging around the edges of the Monroe Doctrine and I guess my libertarian senses don't get too riled up, given the time period in which it happened, as we were emerging as the #1 industrialized nation in the world that didn't have a realistic shot at trying to remain Swizterland or Sweden in a multi-superpower world with vast competing interests and a legit chance at the others tipping the balance of power against us. Agree on the trust-busting, there's no such thing as a permanent natural monopoly, there was a somewhat understandable lack of foresight during this era, as all the good economists were already dead.

Steve Anderson
written by sanders , October 04, 2011

Thanks, Gentlemen, for the history lesson. I was aware of some of this, but some is eye-opening.

You're welcome
written by Nobody , October 05, 2011

Sanders, But history is THE one subject that anyone with a library card/internet hook up can become an expert. I guess you need a bit of memory too.

The trick is to see patterns and repetitions, to see what is human nature and that which is not. Then one may hold current events at "arms length" and see what the real deal is.

I have become engaged with the "tipping point" into written history. Those things that blink-on that we take for granted, like the claw hammer and nails, who would have though it?

Join me
written by Nobody , October 05, 2011

in my "lets just blow uo Mt. Rushmore" movement. To illustrate; (in no particular order)

Thomas Jefferson; A great american to be sure, a framer. BUT when he didn't throw John Jay in chains he lost me.

George washington: Dittos, BUT "Avoid forgien entanglements" Can't be done any more. (I may give him a pass, mabey you could 200 years ago)

TR; No way.

Abe: Gimme a break, 150 journalists in jail? The Civil War?

Blow it up.

Barthélemy Barbancourt
written by Barthélemy Barbancourt , October 06, 2011

TR is the only one to have lived in anything close to our modern times.

It took weeks for messages to cross the Atlantic, staying out of Europe's business was easy. Staying out of the affairs of The "Palestinians", Pakistanis and Egyptians is still good advice today.

Jefferson himself would admit that he wasn't perfect, but he did charter our nation.

Lincoln won the Civil war and kept America together. Another President that worried over his decisions. Far from perfect, but far superior to the man the served prior to him.

TR has not aged well. The Progressivism that swept the world in his time has been shown to be lacking. TR can't be blamed for being a man of his time, but we can use that to disqualify him from greatness.

I always remember that during my short 45 years some things have changed radically. The "N" word was far more common in the 70's. Homosexuality was still a mental illness to be treated when I was born. Given this background, I try hard not to judge actions 100 or 200 years ago with my 2011 sensibilities.

If you were born into a wealthy family with slaves in 1720, you would not have been likely be pushing to free them in 1776.

JW of Minnesota
written by JW of Minnesota , October 06, 2011

The Civil War is interesting. As a young person growing up in the North, my past views were very pro-North.

Reading a lot of since then, the views fluctuate. Right now, I learned enough to say I can't make up my mind. Either side was both right and wrong, and committed their own horrible acts.

written by Nobody , October 06, 2011

Being of southern stock, my view is that membership in the union was voluntary. On the slavery issue, it could have been ended a generation earlier if the British way had been followed. The UK paid thier slave holders for the "property". The plantation model was no longer profitable by mid 19th century.

Barthélemy Barbancourt
Lincoln was right and wrong
written by Barthélemy Barbancourt , October 06, 2011

I think the south was right, membership was voluntary. But a split USA would have been a weaker nation. Lincoln held the union together by force.

I could be wrong, the Union and the Confederacy could have had a unique symbiotic relationship that fostered creativity in both nations, but they started off with war and that was not a good sign.

America is unique in that we went to war over slavery. Most nations were able to end it peacefully. This says something about our nation, although I'm not sure it's a good thing.

jk noreen
Back to Woodrow
written by jokin , October 06, 2011

What a fascinating thread!

"TR has not aged well. The Progressivism that swept the world in his time has been shown to be lacking. TR can't be blamed for being a man of his time, but we can use that to disqualify him from greatness."

"Lincoln was right and wrong"

"Abe: Gimme a break, 150 journalists in jail? The Civil War?"

TR was another accidental President and America's first adrenaline junkie. As if Destiny herself was calling, he ignored his lack of personal electoral mandate, but off the American entry into Imperialism with the results of the Spanish-American War, he embodied the spirit of an America that was in the midst of transformation from quaint forgotten backwater to undisputed superpower. His success at fomenting a revolution in Columbia to get the vital Panama Canal built epitomizes the dangers in the necessity of a powerful Presidency leading to an all-powerful Federal government. His championing of Conservation and setting aside untold land to be held by the Federal Government ends up in the Government and the Courts destroying personal property rights, as in the grevious miscarriage of justice in the case of Kelo vs. New London. He was the first President to get directly involved in "peacekeeping" (he brokered the Russo-Japanese War peace settlement), laying the foundation for the American role in global, not just regional affairs, and ever-increasing webs of international intrigue that causes most of the world to have their love-hate reltionship with us, and ultimately helps bankrupting us morally and financially.

Deeper reading into the real Lincoln presidency in college caused me to challenge everything the Establishment delivers in its everyday narrative of US history. Knowing every Constitution-bending and ruthless war-time action he oversaw makes one wonder how abolitionist John Brown is to this day still regarded as a radical scoundrel and Lincoln a patron saint.

Woodrow Wilson was a walking paradox, although a Southerner, studied Lincoln's actions in the Civil War and concluded that Lincoln had failed as a President during wartime, but not for the reasons you would think--- in Wilson's mind, Lincoln failed by not exerting MORE authoritarian control and restrictions of liberty, which he quickly instituted after entering the Great War against the Central Powers. The activist presidencies of Lincoln and Roosevelt were precursory motivational guides for Woodrow to pursue the implementation of his idealistic wish-list with a deadly combination of a holy man's zeal (his father was a Presbyterian minister) and tenured egghead's ivory tower hubris (President of Princeton), there was no doubt in his mind that he was always right and his Ivy League cache and oratorical skills laid the foundwork for the Ivy League/Wall Street cabal to acclerate the centralization of power that now imperils the future existence of the country. Wilson's presidency is a model for the modern President, for Nixon and both Bushs, as well as every Democrat ever since.

written by Nobody , October 06, 2011

The real consolidation of power in DC was FDR's handywork. LBJ doubled down and Nixon followed through. The commerce clause must be re-visited.

jokin, Wilson was the first to surround himself with self-proclaimed "experts". He put Ivy Leaguers everywhere in his admin, a tradition that continues today. Totaly ruined by a stroke, his wife ran the country in the final part of his term.

jk noreen
Gotta give Edith Wilson her props...
written by jokin , October 06, 2011

"Totaly ruined by a stroke, his wife ran the country in the final part of his term."

she vetoed the Volstead Amendment.

"The real consolidation of power in DC was FDR's handywork." Yeah, I think FDR's handiwork inspired Rahm Emanuel's credo, "never let a good crisis go to waste".

Don't forget that Herbert Hoover is the "Forgotten Progressive". Despite the Narrative stating the contrary, his term in office served as an interventionist antecedent handmaiden to all that Roosevelt ultimately wrought. Remember that Hoover was the Jimmy Carter of his day, both in his presidential record and the post-presidential rehabilitation of his image. Few remember that Hoover was Secretary of Commerce for the previous 8 years, with constant meddling in State's affairs, before he became President- and he supported Smoot-Hawley. The Commerce Clause had been so weakened, that by the time Roosevelt took office it was only the Supreme Court that kept the country from permanent Stalin-like 5-year-plan Federal economic governance. Good book on the evolution of the Presidency:

The Rise of the Federal Colossus: The Growth of Federal Power from Lincoln to FDR By Peter Zavodnyik

written by Nobody , October 06, 2011

Don't tie HH to Carter. That would make FDR Regan...*Shudder*. Smoot-Hawley was one (and there were many) causes of the Depression. It sparked a tarrif war world wide. Ben Bernaki is an expert on the Depression. the other reasons were de-flation (M1 money supply decreased by 1/3) 5 El Ninios in a row (Dust Bowl) and FDR trying to "fix " it. It was socialism in it's flower. The world had become fascist and with the sucess of Italy and the Third Reich, FDR thought he had a winner.

There was a tent city in DC called "Hoover-vile" made up of mainly WW I vets That couldn't find work. Since 2/3 of the US was in ag, after 5 years of drought and no irrigation to speak of, was it a wonder?

With the green movement and corp subsidies, do you see common ground? Hmmmmm...?

Remember Little red rideing Hood? The "Woodsman" that killed the Big Bad Wolf? Who was he? He was the guy that the King ALLOWED to cut wood in the forrest. The serfs couldn't. They had to buy the wood from him. Sound familiar? GE and and turbines? ADM, ethanol? You can't have power, warmth without permission of the King.

Same song, different verse. We are hosed, either a French style revolution or one for freedom, I for one don't want to behead bakers.

JW of Minnesota
written by JW of Minnesota , October 06, 2011

okay Jokin, back to Woodrow...

My latest kick has been WWI history books. It's interesting to see historians discredit Wilson and make a mockery of him. Very different from the history books in school, where Wilson was portrayed as a savior and the 14 Points as some sort of amazing, groundbreaking thought that lead us to the great UN.

jk noreen
written by jokin , October 07, 2011

Q-Do you want to know the person who first brought douchebaggery to the Presidency and seemingly inpsired Bill Clinton to let Jamie Gorelick put up the "Chinese Wall" between the Intelligence Agencies, leading directly to the intelligence disaster of the 9/11 attacks?

•"Upon becoming President in 1913, Woodrow Wilson was shocked to discover that the Joint Army-Navy Board had developed “war plans” for certain contingencies, and immediately suspended its meetings and ordered the two services to stop planning for possible conflicts."


A-That would be our Woodrow. I can't discredit and mock this guy enough- beware most of all the true-believing zealots- their unshakeable idealism amidst the certainty of their human-despising cause has inflicted irreparable institutionalized damage to the Constitution; his political heirs have taken the Wilsonian framework and built ever-larger this Kafka-esque nightmare that is Progressivism. My experience parallels yours JW, delving more deeply into the true history of this country after I became an adult was my real awakening on what is truly at stake- Will we remain America, or continue our incessant slouching towards a rogue Amerika?- A devout Socialist, George Orwell, inspired me to truly see the Clear and Present Danger that Socialism/Progressivism/Liberalism (they stole that last one from us) represents...the time grows ever-shorter...

Write comment
You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.