Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cogito who wrote (52714)	11/1/2006 8:54:37 PM
From: MrLucky	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

historians are now arguing about whether Bush is the worst president among only those who've reached the second term, or among all presidents. Nice try on changing the subject. I don't do history on sitting presidents. After a couple decades, get back to me and we'll talk.

To: Cogito who wrote (52714)	11/1/2006 8:58:44 PM
From: longnshort	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

"Did you know that all over our country, historians are now arguing about whether Bush is the worst president among only those who've reached the second term, or among all presidents." no historian worth his salt is doing this. Maybe Doris Kearns Goodwin's would between her plagairizing stuff

To: Cogito who wrote (52714)	11/1/2006 9:08:04 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 90947

Did you know that all over our country, historians are now arguing about whether Bush is the worst president among only those who've reached the second term, or among all presidents. If that's there argument it doesn't reflect well on them as historians. And I don't think historians are uniquely qualified to rate current presidents. They know more about the old presidents they are ranking, but current events isn't really history. Presumably they would be educated in the areas that would help them understand current events, but then so would many non historians. Actually it far from universal among historians that Bush is either, or close to either. "All over the country" seems like a statement that's trying to imply more than it literally says. Its probably literally true. In quite a few places across the country their are historians making those type of statements, but its also true that neither statement represents anything approaching a consensus among historians.