Historians vote Obama better than Reagan

Political discussions
kalm
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 69139
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
I am a fan of: Eastern
A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
Location: Northern Palouse

Historians vote Obama better than Reagan

Post by kalm »

Here's Siena Research Institutes latest ranking of the presidents: http://www.siena.edu/uploadedfiles/home ... tegory.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Not much to quibble about the top 5 or the bottom 5 including GWB. But the 250 historians surveyed ranked Obama ahead of Saint Ronnie, and Reagan apologist Craig Shirley is maaaaaddddd. :rofl:

(notice the kalmunist linking to a Fox News article. Kalm cites Fox, you decide. :thumb:

Barack Obama A Better President than Reagan? No Chance
By Craig Shirley

Published July 02, 2010
| FoxNews.com

Print Email Share Comments (6) Text Size
Siena College
has just released its annual ranking of America’s 44 presidents, and I was delighted to be among the 200 historians to be asked to participate in evaluating the chief executives.

The responses are confidential but I will reveal that I ranked George Washington
as our greatest president and not Franklin Roosevelt.

The fact that FDR and other “progressive” presidents score so high surely indicates a certain level of bias in the historians chosen and surveyed. Empirical data demonstrates that FDR never solved the Great Depression and indeed, probably exacerbated it with his New Deal policies; however he does deserve all the credit for winning WW II. On the other hand, after America was attacked on December 7th, any president who had not responded just as forcefully would have been impeached.

Surely the bias of those surveyed was underscored with the nonsensical ranking of Barack Obama ahead of Ronald Reagan.

First, Obama should not have even been included. He’s only been in office for a year and a half.

Further, many have argued that sufficient time should pass before these evaluations begin and that even Bill Clinton and George W. Bush ought to be left off the list until passions have cooled and they can be judged more dispassionately.

But objectively, how does one really put Obama ahead of Reagan, who unlike FDR, solved his economic calamity in two years (and in the process, tamed the high inflation, high interest rates and created 19 million jobs in the private sector) and, oh by way, won the Cold War. Reagan critics in academia argue that Mikhail Gorbachev and Reagan concluded the Cold War.

Ridiculous.

Communism gained ground against every American president from 1917 until 1980. Until Reagan put the neck of Soviet communism under the heel of his cowboy boot and crushed the life out of it, no Soviet leader ever willing surrendered power. Gorbachev ran up a threadbare white bed sheet. But don’t ask me and don’t ask some of the historians surveyed by Siena about the Cold War.

Ask Gorbachev. He’ll tell you that Reagan won the Cold War.

What do we really know about Obama? We don’t know his grades from college or law school, his SAT scores but we do know he rarely quotes great men of the past and seems to begin every sentence with a possessive pronoun.

Reagan, on the other hand, quoted Churchill, Cicero, Paine, Jefferson, Diocletian (!!!) and spoke from a parish perspective, using “us” and “we” and “ours.” Obama says “my government” Reagan said, “your government.”

Maybe it’s a sign of the “YouTube” generation, but from the standpoint of history, Obama seems to see the presidency as about himself while Reagan and previous presidents saw the office as about the American people and the Constitution.

In The Federalist Papers, Jay, Hamilton and Madison hammered away at the point, over and over, that the two most vital criteria for the presidency were character and experience.

Obama, while lacking experience, nonetheless strikes me as a man of good character even if he is a bit self-absorbed; however, many if not most of the 44 presidents have been men of good character. That’s not enough to rank him high on the list. It also must be about real accomplishments and a complete measure of the man and his life.

The great movie director Frederico Fellini said that one must “live spherically.” By this he meant that people should live their lives in many directions.

Reagan was a student of the world, of the culture, of history and of people. He was a class president and an athlete and a radio broadcaster and a husband and a father and a Christian and a rancher and a union president and a successful movie star and a successful television host and a carpenter and a horseman and a writer and a lecturer and a commentator and a governor.

All before he became president. And only after two successful terms and two of the biggest landslides in American history did he decide to write an autobiography.

Obama has written two autobiographies (though rumors have been rampant over the years that he wrote neither) even before he ran for president. What we do know about Obama is that he, like many of his generation, is mostly developed in the study of himself. He is America’s first “Facebook” president.

Having worked for Reagan and written two books on the man, one might expect that I ranked Reagan high and they would be right to presume that. But I let empirical data be my guide and not political bias.

On the other hand, if one were to ask the recently deceased liberal historian John Patrick Diggins, he rated Reagan in the category of “great” presidents, along with Washington, Lincoln and FDR. His criteria, as should ours be, being that each of these men freed many peoples. Another liberal historian, James MacGregor Burns, put Reagan in the category of near great presidents.

Despite what the historians surveyed by Siena believe---along with renowned historian and former Beatle Paul McCartney----the jury is not only out on Obama, it is grossly premature to rank him ahead of Reagan as it was for them to rank the small bore and impeached Bill Clinton ahead of the big ideas of Reagan.

But the elitists have always been out of touch. Which is why the Founders put their faith in the American people and why, in survey after survey of the citizenry, Reagan is ranked in the great category.

As he should be.

Craig Shirley is the president of Shirley & Banister Public Affairs and the author of two books on Ronald Reagan, including the newly released "Rendezvous With Destiny: Ronald Reagan and the Campaign That Changed America" (Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 2009). He is now working on a political biography of Newt Gingrich.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/07/ ... ack-obama/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Image
Image
Image
Baldy
Level4
Level4
Posts: 9921
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 8:38 pm
I am a fan of: Georgia Southern

Re: Historians vote Obama better than Reagan

Post by Baldy »

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

The rankings are hilarious until you realize that the people who do the actual rankings are educating the future leaders of this country.

:cry:
User avatar
CID1990
Level5
Level5
Posts: 25486
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:40 am
I am a fan of: Pie
A.K.A.: CID 1990
Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร

Re: Historians vote Obama better than Reagan

Post by CID1990 »

These things are inherently political.

Besides, it should not come as a surprise that when you survey a bunch of sequestered and tenured college professors about anything, the results will be based less in reality and more in the Land of Oz.
"You however, are an insufferable ankle biting mental chihuahua..." - Clizzoris
User avatar
CitadelGrad
Level4
Level4
Posts: 5210
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2007 5:19 pm
I am a fan of: Jack Kerouac
A.K.A.: El Cid
Location: St. Louis

Re: Historians vote Obama better than Reagan

Post by CitadelGrad »

I noticed that under the "Luck" heading, Reagan ranked 5th. What exactly does luck mean and why do these profs think Reagan was so lucky?

FDR ranked #1 in the handling of economic affairs. Funny, I thought that a prez who inherited a depression that lasted 9 years after his inauguration might have scored just a wee bit lower.
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

- Thomas Jefferson, in letter to William S. Smith, 1787

Image
houndawg
Level5
Level5
Posts: 25096
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:14 pm
I am a fan of: SIU
A.K.A.: houndawg
Location: Egypt

Re: Historians vote Obama better than Reagan

Post by houndawg »

kalm wrote:Here's Siena Research Institutes latest ranking of the presidents: http://www.siena.edu/uploadedfiles/home ... tegory.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Not much to quibble about the top 5 or the bottom 5 including GWB. But the 250 historians surveyed ranked Obama ahead of Saint Ronnie, and Reagan apologist Craig Shirley is maaaaaddddd. :rofl:

(notice the kalmunist linking to a Fox News article. Kalm cites Fox, you decide. :thumb:
Barack Obama A Better President than Reagan? No Chance
By Craig Shirley

Published July 02, 2010
| FoxNews.com



Reagan, on the other hand, quoted Churchill, Cicero, Paine, Jefferson, Diocletian (!!!) and spoke from a parish perspective, using “us” and “we” and “ours.”

Reagan was a student of the world, of the culture, of history and of people. He was a class president and an athlete and a radio broadcaster and a husband and a father and a Christian and a rancher and a union president and a successful movie star and a successful television host and a carpenter and a horseman and a writer and a lecturer and a commentator and a governor.

All before he became president. And only after two successful terms and two of the biggest landslides in American history did he decide to write an autobiography.

Having worked for Reagan and written two books on the man, one might expect that I ranked Reagan high and they would be right to presume that. But I let empirical data be my guide and not political bias.


Craig Shirley is the president of Shirley & Banister Public Affairs and the author of two books on Ronald Reagan, including the newly released "Rendezvous With Destiny: Ronald Reagan and the Campaign That Changed America" (Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 2009). He is now working on a political biography of Newt Gingrich.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/07/ ... ack-obama/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Reagan quoted Diocletian(!!!)? Well, that settles it. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


I guess Shirley considers Iran-Contra and policy-decisions-by-astrologer to be political bias and not empirical data.
You matter. Unless you multiply yourself by c squared. Then you energy.


"I really love America. I just don't know how to get there anymore."John Prine
User avatar
Col Hogan
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 12230
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 9:29 am
I am a fan of: William & Mary
Location: Republic of Texas

Re: Historians vote Obama better than Reagan

Post by Col Hogan »

And this just in...

The same group has rated Tyreke Evans as the best NBA player ever, over Michael Jordon, Jerry West, and John Havlicek...

:coffee:
“Tolerance and Apathy are the last virtues of a dying society.” Aristotle

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
Baldy
Level4
Level4
Posts: 9921
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 8:38 pm
I am a fan of: Georgia Southern

Re: Historians vote Obama better than Reagan

Post by Baldy »

CitadelGrad wrote:I noticed that under the "Luck" heading, Reagan ranked 5th. What exactly does luck mean and why do these profs think Reagan was so lucky?

FDR ranked #1 in the handling of economic affairs. Funny, I thought that a prez who inherited a depression that lasted 9 years after his inauguration might have scored just a wee bit lower.
These are the same people who ranked Wilson 8th in the way he "handled the economy". I guess their economic acumen isn't developed enough to know we were in a depression of his making during the last year and a half of his presidency. :roll:
OL FU
Level3
Level3
Posts: 4336
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 12:25 pm
I am a fan of: Furman
Location: Greenville SC

Re: Historians vote Obama better than Reagan

Post by OL FU »

CitadelGrad wrote: FDR ranked #1 in the handling of economic affairs. Funny, I thought that a prez who inherited a depression that lasted 9 years after his inauguration might have scored just a wee bit lower.

That comment in and of itself discredits this ranking. I realize historians love FDR and I realize that some economist do to, but FDR's confiscatory tax rates, continued promotion of trade barriers, increasing support of strengthening unions and promoting their wage increases in a deflationary period kept us in the depression as much as anything.

Maybe that is why they like Obama, if he had his way we would have the same policies (except maybe for trade)
OL FU
Level3
Level3
Posts: 4336
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 12:25 pm
I am a fan of: Furman
Location: Greenville SC

Re: Historians vote Obama better than Reagan

Post by OL FU »

Now to the real issue, why would they even put a current president on the list. he has been president for less than 2 years. While we can debate his leadership and policies, from a historical perspective they are at least 10 years to soon and more likely 20 years :?

and T Roosevelt number 2 :? I can see a high ranking but number 2. I guess if the rankings are done without taking into consideration overal historical signifigance maybe. Not that he wasn't historically significant but not compared to a Washington or Lincoln. If you don't take into consideration the historical issues faced how can you really compare presidents. For example, comparisons of Clinton and Obama are touch to make. The issues they faced or are facing aren't comparable.
kalm
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 69139
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
I am a fan of: Eastern
A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
Location: Northern Palouse

Re: Historians vote Obama better than Reagan

Post by kalm »

C'mon ladies, these are just opinions, you can undo the wad in your panties. :lol:

My guess is that 100 years from now, Obama will at best rank somewhere near the middle, but he could also end up with in the cellar with GWB depending on how things go. Reagan will continue to slide as historians and economists recognize that his policies, which were for the most part mirrored by each president after, led to monopoly capitalism and a massive transfer of wealth upwards at the expense of the middle class.

It would be interesting to have a similar poll of 250 economists. I'll bet FDR falls much less than many of you think. :nod:
Image
Image
Image
User avatar
SuperHornet
SuperHornet
SuperHornet
Posts: 20857
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 7:24 pm
I am a fan of: Sac State
Location: Twentynine Palms, CA

Re: Historians vote Obama better than Reagan

Post by SuperHornet »

Obama even being eligible for this poll (given that he hasn't even completed his first term yet) is akin to Kagan being up for SCOTUS and that bogus prize he won before he's even done anything. I'm surprised they didn't completely drown in the Kool-Aid and name Obama #1.
Image

SuperHornet's Athletics Hall of Fame includes Jacksonville State kicker Ashley Martin, the first girl to score in a Division I football game. She kicked 3 PATs in a 2001 game for J-State.
OL FU
Level3
Level3
Posts: 4336
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 12:25 pm
I am a fan of: Furman
Location: Greenville SC

Re: Historians vote Obama better than Reagan

Post by OL FU »

kalm wrote:C'mon ladies, these are just opinions, you can undo the wad in your panties. :lol:

My guess is that 100 years from now, Obama will at best rank somewhere near the middle, but he could also end up with in the cellar with GWB depending on how things go. Reagan will continue to slide as historians and economists recognize that his policies, which were for the most part mirrored by each president after, led to monopoly capitalism and a massive transfer of wealth upwards at the expense of the middle class.

It would be interesting to have a similar poll of 250 economists. I'll bet FDR falls much less than many of you think. :nod:
It wouldn't surprise me at all if FDR didn't fall much judged by economist. But let's be real, economics is now and has been through out history as much a poly sci discipline as a scientific study. There is reason that most liberals are Keynesians and most Conservatives aren't. And it has little to do with having political views based on economic theories and facts and a hell of a lot more to do with having economic views that fit a persons politics. :nod:
Last edited by OL FU on Sat Jul 03, 2010 10:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
kalm
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 69139
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
I am a fan of: Eastern
A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
Location: Northern Palouse

Re: Historians vote Obama better than Reagan

Post by kalm »

OL FU wrote:
kalm wrote:C'mon ladies, these are just opinions, you can undo the wad in your panties. :lol:

My guess is that 100 years from now, Obama will at best rank somewhere near the middle, but he could also end up with in the cellar with GWB depending on how things go. Reagan will continue to slide as historians and economists recognize that his policies, which were for the most part mirrored by each president after, led to monopoly capitalism and a massive transfer of wealth upwards at the expense of the middle class.

It would be interesting to have a similar poll of 250 economists. I'll bet FDR falls much less than many of you think. :nod:
It wouldn't surprise me at all if FDR didn't fall much judged by economist. But let's be real, economics is now and has been through out history as much a poly sci discipline as a scientific study. There is reason that most liberals are Keynesians and most Conservatives aren't. And it has little to do with having political views based on economic theories and facats and a hell of a lot more to do with having economic views that fit a persons politics. :nod:
Absolutely. :thumb:
Image
Image
Image
OL FU
Level3
Level3
Posts: 4336
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 12:25 pm
I am a fan of: Furman
Location: Greenville SC

Re: Historians vote Obama better than Reagan

Post by OL FU »

kalm wrote:
OL FU wrote:
It wouldn't surprise me at all if FDR didn't fall much judged by economist. But let's be real, economics is now and has been through out history as much a poly sci discipline as a scientific study. There is reason that most liberals are Keynesians and most Conservatives aren't. And it has little to do with having political views based on economic theories and facats and a hell of a lot more to do with having economic views that fit a persons politics. :nod:
Absolutely. :thumb:
Thanks, so let's put politics aside as much as possible :D and look at the facts related to FDR. We had 8 years of depression prior to WWII under FDR. FDR did spend money in order to stimulate the economy but the depression, while not getting worse, didn't get any better (actually it did get better then worse again). He did create some programs that help provide confidence in the banks :thumb: He did strengthen labor unions which in my opinion from a political point of view was a good thing during that time, but a horrible thing from an economic point of view by artificially increasing wages during a deflationary period. We will call that one a break even. Hoover is blamed for the depression for three main reasons(the fed tightening monetary supply also gets some blame but to a large degree that is outside of presidential powers) (1) cutting government spending, imposing trade barriers and signicantly increasing taxes to cover the deficits. Roosevelt eliminated one of those (reduction of government spending), let one stay the same (trade barriers) and significantly worsened the other one (raised taxes to a top marginal rate to 90% - please find one mainstream economist that thinks that is a good idea presently). So considering that Roosevelt, maintained two of Hoover's three big errors and considering the fact that the depression continued with unemployment rates between 15 and 25% how could anyone rate his performance #1 in economic issues. The only way is if you agree with his political agenda and apparently most historians do.

Thank you very much.
User avatar
Pwns
Level4
Level4
Posts: 7344
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 10:38 pm
I am a fan of: Georgia Friggin' Southern
A.K.A.: FCS_pwns_FBS (AGS)

Re: Historians vote Obama better than Reagan

Post by Pwns »

Lincoln #1 in his ability to compromise? Really? After starting a war on a legal secession that killed more Americans than any other war? And arresting members of the Maryland congress and jailing reporters and suspending Habeas Corpus?

:rofl: :rofl:

Between that and having a crook like LBJ who is responsible for a lot of the problems with the economy in the 1970s, this list has little credibility.
Celebrate Diversity.*
*of appearance only. Restrictions apply.
Baldy
Level4
Level4
Posts: 9921
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 8:38 pm
I am a fan of: Georgia Southern

Re: Historians vote Obama better than Reagan

Post by Baldy »

kalm wrote:C'mon ladies, these are just opinions, you can undo the wad in your panties. :lol:

My guess is that 100 years from now, Obama will at best rank somewhere near the middle, but he could also end up with in the cellar with GWB depending on how things go. Reagan will continue to slide as historians and economists recognize that his policies, which were for the most part mirrored by each president after, led to monopoly capitalism and a massive transfer of wealth upwards at the expense of the middle class.

It would be interesting to have a similar poll of 250 economists. I'll bet FDR falls much less than many of you think. :nod:
:rofl:

That's hilarious, especially when you consider what's going on right now in Europe with the rejection of Roosevelt era Keynesian style entitlement economic policies. If they would have listened to Ronald Reagan 25 years ago, they might not be in the mess they're in right about now. What's sad for us is that while Europe is now starting to steer away from those ill advised policies, Obama has pointed us toward that cliff and has pushed the accelerator to the floor. :ohno:
User avatar
mainejeff
Level4
Level4
Posts: 5395
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 10:43 am
I am a fan of: Maine
A.K.A.: mainejeff

Re: Historians vote Obama better than Reagan

Post by mainejeff »

Who cares? The guy isn't even halfway through his Presidency........why would anyone even include him in any type of ranking system before his term is done????

Just another media driven non-story on a newsless holiday weekend. :roll:

:coffee:
Go Black Bears!
Ivytalk
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 26827
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 6:22 pm
I am a fan of: Salisbury University
Location: Republic of Western Sussex

Re: Historians vote Obama better than Reagan

Post by Ivytalk »

mainejeff wrote:Who cares? The guy isn't even halfway through his Presidency........why would anyone even include him in any type of ranking system before his term is done????

Just another media driven non-story on a newsless holiday weekend. :roll:

:coffee:
Omigawd, I actually agree with mainejeff! :shock:

Well put, Clyde... :coffee: :coffee:
“I’m tired and done.” — 89Hen 3/27/22.
kalm
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 69139
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
I am a fan of: Eastern
A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
Location: Northern Palouse

Re: Historians vote Obama better than Reagan

Post by kalm »

Baldy wrote:
kalm wrote:C'mon ladies, these are just opinions, you can undo the wad in your panties. :lol:

My guess is that 100 years from now, Obama will at best rank somewhere near the middle, but he could also end up with in the cellar with GWB depending on how things go. Reagan will continue to slide as historians and economists recognize that his policies, which were for the most part mirrored by each president after, led to monopoly capitalism and a massive transfer of wealth upwards at the expense of the middle class.

It would be interesting to have a similar poll of 250 economists. I'll bet FDR falls much less than many of you think. :nod:
:rofl:

That's hilarious, especially when you consider what's going on right now in Europe with the rejection of Roosevelt era Keynesian style entitlement economic policies. If they would have listened to Ronald Reagan 25 years ago, they might not be in the mess they're in right about now. What's sad for us is that while Europe is now starting to steer away from those ill advised policies, Obama has pointed us toward that cliff and has pushed the accelerator to the floor. :ohno:
Yes, they would be much better now if they had cut taxes on the rich, raised payroll taxes on the middle class, slashed tarriffs, and spent, spent, spent.

Have you noticed that countries like GB and Iceland who most closely followed supply side economics have suffered the most? You can claim Greece but they cooked their books with Goldman's help to get into the EU. Meanwhile, you don't hear much about the democratic socialists up in Scandinavia. :coffee:
Image
Image
Image
Baldy
Level4
Level4
Posts: 9921
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 8:38 pm
I am a fan of: Georgia Southern

Re: Historians vote Obama better than Reagan

Post by Baldy »

kalm wrote: Yes, they would be much better now if they had cut taxes on the rich, raised payroll taxes on the middle class, slashed tarriffs, and spent, spent, spent.

Have you noticed that countries like GB and Iceland who most closely followed supply side economics have suffered the most? You can claim Greece but they cooked their books with Goldman's help to get into the EU. Meanwhile, you don't hear much about the democratic socialists up in Scandinavia. :coffee:
Yes they would be much better if they would have cut taxes for everyone. The Euros raise taxes all the time, Great Britain just raised their VAT, again. Slashing tariffs would mean more trade and more trade is what you need in an economic meltdown. Ummm, in case you didn't know, Europe's spending is what got them in this trouble. For a reference, just look at what Obama is doing over here right now. :roll:

Great Britain and Iceland have suffered the most? :rofl:
Hello 20%+ unemployment SOCIALIST Spain. You also can't forget France and of course Greece. For this example, it doesn't really matter if Goldman Sachs cooked the books for Greece or not, (I wonder how many of the GS employees responsible for that are now working in the Obama Administration? :shock: ) it only proves that their Keynesian policies had them in much worse shape than they were admitting.

Even the small homogeneous microeconomies of the Scandinavian countries pretty much mirrors what s going on around the globe.
Finland's GDP shrunk by -7.9% (2009)
Sweden's GDP retracted -4.6% (2009)
Denmark -4.3% (2009)
Norway, where oil makes up about 20% of it's GDP fell by -1.1% (2009)

For comparison, the US' economy retracted by -2.4% in 2009.

:coffee:
clenz
Moderator Team
Moderator Team
Posts: 21211
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 4:30 pm

Re: Historians vote Obama better than Reagan

Post by clenz »

Baldy wrote::rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

The rankings are hilarious until you realize that the people who do the actual rankings are educating the future leaders of this country.

:cry:
This is the reason I switched from my history education/political science double major 3 days into it. I was taking 5 classes, all 5 had big projects/papers due at the end. Not a big deal there. However, when three of my five professors assign papers over how GWB was the worst president in history and how Obama will be able to lead America to it's greatest point in history (keep in mind this was before Obama was actually elected at the start of the Fall Semester of 2008). One of my poli sci classes was to study how media influences peoples beliefs, which I thought was a duh/great idea. However, we were to only study people like Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh and Fox News and how, as the professor put it, "Evil upper class white men who are for suppression of those who aren't like them are ruining the country". When I asked why we wouldn't also be studying people like Olbermann and the other CNN and MSNBC personalities as well, I was told that there was zero bias in anything they said, and that everything that they spewed was nearly 100% accurate.


I walked out of that classroom that Wednesday morning, walked into my advisors office told him I was leaving the major/college and to fill out my release.
HI54UNI
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 12394
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 9:39 pm
I am a fan of: Firing Mark Farley
A.K.A.: Bikinis for JSO
Location: The Panther State

Re: Historians vote Obama better than Reagan

Post by HI54UNI »

clenz wrote:
Baldy wrote::rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

The rankings are hilarious until you realize that the people who do the actual rankings are educating the future leaders of this country.

:cry:
This is the reason I switched from my history education/political science double major 3 days into it. I was taking 5 classes, all 5 had big projects/papers due at the end. Not a big deal there. However, when three of my five professors assign papers over how GWB was the worst president in history and how Obama will be able to lead America to it's greatest point in history (keep in mind this was before Obama was actually elected at the start of the Fall Semester of 2008). One of my poli sci classes was to study how media influences peoples beliefs, which I thought was a duh/great idea. However, we were to only study people like Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh and Fox News and how, as the professor put it, "Evil upper class white men who are for suppression of those who aren't like them are ruining the country". When I asked why we wouldn't also be studying people like Olbermann and the other CNN and MSNBC personalities as well, I was told that there was zero bias in anything they said, and that everything that they spewed was nearly 100% accurate.


I walked out of that classroom that Wednesday morning, walked into my advisors office told him I was leaving the major/college and to fill out my release.
Who were the profs? Wondering which of the poli sci profs are still there from my days....
If fascism ever comes to America, it will come in the name of liberalism. Ronald Reagan, 1975.

Progressivism is cancer

All my posts are satire
clenz
Moderator Team
Moderator Team
Posts: 21211
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 4:30 pm

Re: Historians vote Obama better than Reagan

Post by clenz »

HI54UNI wrote:
clenz wrote: This is the reason I switched from my history education/political science double major 3 days into it. I was taking 5 classes, all 5 had big projects/papers due at the end. Not a big deal there. However, when three of my five professors assign papers over how GWB was the worst president in history and how Obama will be able to lead America to it's greatest point in history (keep in mind this was before Obama was actually elected at the start of the Fall Semester of 2008). One of my poli sci classes was to study how media influences peoples beliefs, which I thought was a duh/great idea. However, we were to only study people like Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh and Fox News and how, as the professor put it, "Evil upper class white men who are for suppression of those who aren't like them are ruining the country". When I asked why we wouldn't also be studying people like Olbermann and the other CNN and MSNBC personalities as well, I was told that there was zero bias in anything they said, and that everything that they spewed was nearly 100% accurate.


I walked out of that classroom that Wednesday morning, walked into my advisors office told him I was leaving the major/college and to fill out my release.
Who were the profs? Wondering which of the poli sci profs are still there from my days....
One of them was older, but I don't remember his name.


The other profs are younger, fresh out of college guys who couldn't have been around for very long. Again, I don't remember their names as I was there for two classes. It was my first semester at UNI and I hadn't really paid attention to who I had for profs as I really had no choice for the first semester


I'm not normally put off by guys and earings and what not. However, when the prof is rocking three rings in one ear and Obama buttons all over his case that he carries his documents in I could tell it was time to go.

Now, I likely would have had a similar reaction had the profs been rocking McCain stickers/buttons up and down their garb and trying to get me to write a paper on how Limbaugh was extremely credible and CNN was the devil that was ruining America.
User avatar
AZGrizFan
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 59959
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 4:40 pm
I am a fan of: Sexual Chocolate
Location: Just to the right of center

Re: Historians vote Obama better than Reagan

Post by AZGrizFan »

After 18 months? WAFJ.
"Ah fuck. You are right." KYJelly, 11/6/12
"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." Barack Obama, 9/25/12
Image
User avatar
mrklean
Level3
Level3
Posts: 3794
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 11:06 am
I am a fan of: Georgia Southern Uni.
Location: Stockbridge, GA

Re: Historians vote Obama better than Reagan

Post by mrklean »

clenz wrote:
Baldy wrote::rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

The rankings are hilarious until you realize that the people who do the actual rankings are educating the future leaders of this country.

:cry:
This is the reason I switched from my history education/political science double major 3 days into it. I was taking 5 classes, all 5 had big projects/papers due at the end. Not a big deal there. However, when three of my five professors assign papers over how GWB was the worst president in history and how Obama will be able to lead America to it's greatest point in history (keep in mind this was before Obama was actually elected at the start of the Fall Semester of 2008). One of my poli sci classes was to study how media influences peoples beliefs, which I thought was a duh/great idea. However, we were to only study people like Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh and Fox News and how, as the professor put it, "Evil upper class white men who are for suppression of those who aren't like them are ruining the country". When I asked why we wouldn't also be studying people like Olbermann and the other CNN and MSNBC personalities as well, I was told that there was zero bias in anything they said, and that everything that they spewed was nearly 100% accurate.


I walked out of that classroom that Wednesday morning, walked into my advisors office told him I was leaving the major/college and to fill out my release.

Yeah right, it so fucking hard being a white man in this country........................ :rofl: :coffee:
ImageImage
FROM DA DURTY SOUTH!
Post Reply