The Best President Vs. The Worst

Were we directed from Washington when to sow, and when to reap, we should soon want bread.

– Thomas Jefferson

“We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK”

– Barack Obama

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

94 Responses to The Best President Vs. The Worst

  1. BallBounces says:

    Is this the same Barack Obama who bailed out GM and dines in sumptuous splendour at the White House?

  2. _Jim says:

    Can I just say it – that oft-repeated one-word put-down from That 70’s Show?



  3. darrylb says:

    Jimmy Carter was a terrible president, but has done some good things after until lately.
    His comment regarding Israel was ignorant and foolish.
    Yes, it is unfortunate that there were undeserved deaths in Gaza, but there really were no other options.
    Jordan and other Middle East countries have shown more support for Israel that the US. (and Europe)
    Can we survive another two years- I am all for Ben Carson! A genuine self made, brilliant, and thoughtful person.

  4. philjourdan says:

    I applaud your choice of the best. He has always been my favorite as well.

  5. darrylb says:

    Of the five freedoms guaranteed in the first amendment of the Bill of Rights, Jefferson considered the Freedom of the Press to be the most important.
    Some in the news media are now trying to prevent all but the climate alarmist orthodoxy from getting into the media. — As in the LA times.

  6. geran says:

    We can debate the “best”, but there is no debate about the “worst”.

    No President before has ever wanted to take this country backwards!


    • pesce9991 says:

      Actually there is a debate about who was the worst. Was it Tricky Dick or Dubyu?

      • mjc says:

        There jury is still out…the Georgia peanut farmer, the Texas ‘Party Boss’, the do-nothing from PA or the current resident of the closest golf course (he’s still got 2 yrs to work hard for that bottom rung).

        • pesce9991 says:

          How conveniently you forgot the many Bush forays on the golf course including the oft replayed one where, after talking about the Iraq situation he turned to the course and said ‘now watch me make this shot’…….

        • philjourdan says:

          No one forgot the few. Except you. Boosh did not play golf while an ambassador died.

        • mjc says:

          Didn’t forget about them…Barry is spending about six times as much time as Bush did playing golf (about 150 to 20-some).

        • pesce9991 says:

          It seems so irksome to right wingers when they see Obama on the golf course again! This, of course, (pun intended) has no bearing on any presidents’ stature as a Commander-in-Chief. But just for fun, it’s true that Obama is on the golf course much more often than Bush, who curtailed his appearances after the Iraq war began.

          But the real kicker is which of the two spent more on vacation time? Here Bush wins in a landslide. Bush spent an entire years worth of vacation time pursuing leisure compared to about 92 days so far for Obama!

        • philjourdan says:

          You are right. Their golf game has nothing to do with their term. However, Benghanzi, Fast and Furious, Obamacare, Obamacare Rollout, Keeping doctors, keeping plans, taxes on the middle class, the IRS spying, the NSA spying, the TSA groping, Egypt, Syria, Russia, Ukraine, Jobs, economic growth.

          Those all do. And for Obama, those are all bad.

          Try reading the news. Maybe you can even catch a glimpse of Obama playing at doing his job.

        • mjc says:

          Again…that’s not quite all there is to it.

          Bush while spending vastly more time…at his own property…continued to work there…and host foreign dignitaries. (Besides, I have it on good authority, that when he did spend time there, he usually had a good BBQ…for the troops/Secret Service involved in the security detail.)

        • Obama promised to give up vacations and leisure if elected. Progressives love it when he lies to them, because they have no self-respect.

        • philjourdan says:

          His supporters are the Johns – except the hooker is running away with their wallets.

        • _Jim says:

          The little f*cked one show up quoting Al “Twana Barwley” Sharpton on facts?

          Rich, I say, rich …

        • pesce9991 says:

          Here Jim, no Sharpton, no Tawana Brawley, no excuses from you, just facts from the White House record keeper, Mark Knoller:

          Washington – By The Numbers: Obama’s and Bush’s Presidential Vacations
          Published on: August 11, 2013 09:59 AM
          By: AP

          Congress has left on a five-week break. The Supreme Court reopens in October. Now it’s President Barack Obama’s turn.
          On Saturday, Obama begins a nine-day vacation on Martha’s Vineyard, Mass., where he spent summer vacation in each of the first three years of his presidency. He skipped his annual Vineyard vacation during last year’s re-election campaign.
          Here’s a numerical look at vacation time taken by Obama and his predecessor, George W. Bush, according to CBS News White House reporter Mark Knoller, who tracks presidential travel. The numbers do not include visits to the Camp David presidential retreat in Maryland.

          —14: Number of vacation trips taken by Obama since he took office in January 2009.

          —92: Number of days, all or in part, Obama has spent on vacation.

          —57: Number of vacation trips taken by Bush at this same point in his presidency.

          —50: Number of visits Bush made to his ranch in Crawford, Texas.

          —323: Number of days, all or in part, Bush spent at the ranch.

          —7: Number of trips Bush made to his family’s compound in Kennebunkport, Maine.

          —26: Number of days, all or in part, Bush spent in Maine.

          Now we’ll see how you deal with the facts.

        • philjourdan says:

          The fact you omit is that crawford was his version of the Western Whitehouse. In other words, he was not on vacation. He was working.

          Obama does not work, so it does not matter where he is.

          next time check your facts before you tout them. Then you will not be embarrassed by them.

      • Latitude says:

        Actually there is a debate about who was the worst. Was it Tricky Dick or Dubyu?
        who cares….you idiot liberals act like no one complained when they were president

        Obama is president now….people are complaining about the idiot that’s president now
        So what if someone in the past was better or worse……

      • philjourdan says:

        Neither were impeached. You lose. Especially with Obama at 38%.

  7. pesce9991 says:

    I am amused by some comments here. Let me begin with the post itself.
    Thomas Jefferson’s quote uses the key word ‘directed’. “Were we directed by Washington”. Obama’s quote isn’t a directive, rather a qualified suggestion. The qualification he used: “… and expect that other countries are going to say OK”

    He is appealing for Americans to consider how they live and if we so choose, to look for ways we can conserve.

    Ti darrylb, the press is making the wise decision. They saw the folly of giving Orly Taitz such airplay for her crackpot theories as well. That’s why they don’t cover debates between Neil de Grasse Tyson and the local flat earther.

    As for taking the country backwards, I thought that’s what the Republican platform was about.

    • geran says:

      Fish says: “As for taking the country backwards, I thought that’s what the Republican platform was about.”

      The key phrase is “…I thought…”, Fish does not think, he only regurgitates Democratic rhetoric and propaganda.

    • Bill P. says:

      “A qualified suggestion?” You REALLY think that Washington D.C. – never mind Obama himself – is in the business of making “qualified suggestions” these days?

      You’re going to take a general statement of Obama’s, which represents the entire philosophy of his regime since 2009, embodied in tens of thousands of pages of onerous new regulations and the literal take-down of the entire coal and petroleum industries, and pass it off as a “qualified suggestion?”

      Obama may be a feckless community organizer with no administrative skills whatsoever, but NO ONE can say that he hasn’t done exactly what he’s threatened to do in statements such as this. People like you make me despair of either intelligent analysis OR honesty on the part of Obama’s fellow-travelers.

    • darrylb says:

      p-9991 the local flat earther???? Are you so arrogant that you want to eliminate discussion on causes of climate change. Have you studied and done the analysis of the coupled general circulation models which have been completely wrong compared to observations. (I am not familiar with Tyson and Taitz)
      Check out Climate etc the blog of Dr. Judith Curry, head of the Climate Department at Georgia to see what she posted today on this very subject today.
      It begins with the quote of John Stuart Mills “He who knows only his side of the case, knows little of that”
      Al Gore advised against getting into a debate with a skeptic knowing the alarmist would lose the debate when it came to fact.
      Also, five years ago I bought into the AGW hypothesis, before my daughter, who has degrees in environmental science and biology challenged me to prove it.
      Funny what one learns when trying to objectively prove someone wrong
      When looking at the info from the IPCC, I do not follow the homogenized final results, I read at least the abstract of the studies leading to the results.

      • pesce9991 says:

        I’ve read some about Dr Judith Curry and her articles and I can say she seems to be the kind of critic that Climate Scientists ought to pay attention to. Although her thinking deviates from what the IPCC believes it is within the realm of reason.

        Unlike most of the commenters here she believes in global warming. She does not deny it. Next she acknowledges the role that humans play in global warming (.AGW). She does not deny it. But she is strongly critical of what she sees as exaggerated claims made by the scientists, and the corruption of money as has been emphasized here. She does not agree with the extent of AGW not the existence of it.

        I can admire a Dr Judith Miller for her skepticism and search for the truth.

        • pesce9991 says:

          err, I mea.n Curry

        • mjc says:

          I’m sorry to disappoint you, yet again, but I think there are a lot more folks here who believe in a dynamic, ever changing climate than believe in ‘climate change’ or ‘global warming’. Both of those terms are defined by the IPCC to basically mean whatever the IPCC decides they mean, at the moment. So, yes, I will deny both, fervently. Calling a turd a rose does not make it a rose and I will deny that it is a rose, no matter how many ‘learned’ ‘scientists’ say that it is a rose.

        • gofer says:

          Its not belief in warming that is the issue, but CAGW. Everybody believes in warming and cooling. It all depends on the time period. Right now there has been no warming for nearly 18 years. That’s why surface temp discussion has been replaced with other indicators such as, most recently, fish.

        • philjourdan says:

          Who is Dr. Judith Miller?

          And if you agree with Dr. Curry, that makes you a skeptic. Skeptics are denying nothing except the C in CAGW.

          But strangely, I have never seen a comment posted by either of your bi-polar personalities on any of the threads I have visited.

        • pesce9991 says:

          You are seething with anger, philly. 😉

        • philjourdan says:

          I guess you answered the question about adult conversation. And the answer is no.

          Do you often have delusions of clairvoyance?

        • pesce9991 says:

          Like a moth to a flame, philly. You can’t resist trying to have the last word. That’s OK though. The moth is drawn in but can’t control the flame so he is enraged by it. (that is called analogy, phil, not ad hominem).
          To find good examples of ad hominems just read your posts to me. They seeth with them. Again, watch that rage within. 🙂

        • philjourdan says:

          And more petty childishness. Last word? Given the level of your discourse, I have had the only words in this back and forth.

          Now go play with your moth and leave the flames to your mommy.

        • _Jim says:

          Re: the Judith Miller gaffe; fish-kabob would seem to be a long-time New Yawk Times Kool-Aid drin… -er- reader … Miller left the NYT back in 2005 …

        • Re: Judith Miller …

          Heh. I thought so, too. Now, let’s see how deep this goes and what he thinks of Harpo’s brother Karl.

    • gofer says:

      Takes gall for a man who lives like a king to tell Americans to conserve. Think Hollywood and mansion-dwelling leftists will lead by example?

    • Gail Combs says:

      You forgot the blasted Food Safety Modernization Act, slid into law during the lame duck session.

      And just in case you do not understand what that means this is from a lawyer who specializes in Commerce Clause cases.

      Trojan Horse Law: The Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009
      … Section 406 of the bill reads as follows: “PRESUMPTION. In any action to enforce the requirements of the food safety law, the connection with interstate commerce required for jurisdiction shall be presumed to exist.”

      Lori Robertson of, who is not a lawyer (she has a B.A. in advertising), claims the bill doesn’t apply to “that tomato plant in your backyard.” As a lawyer, I am skeptical of this claim (I co-represented the prevailing defendant in the last successful constitutional challenge to federal regulation under the interstate commerce clause, United States v. Morrison (2000), one of only two cases in 70 years in which a challenge was successful). Congress’s power under the Constitution’s Commerce Clause is almost unlimited in the eyes of the courts, and thus can reach the “tomato plant in your backyard.”…

      The misbegotten reinterpretation of the “Commerce Clause” that now allows the Feds to stick their nose up our rumps is thanks to FDR.

      …After President Roosevelt threatened to pack the Court to dilute the influence of the uncooperative “nine old men,” a majority of the justices took to the most expansive definition of the commerce clause like a drunk to drink. The Court blessed the secretary of agriculture’s power to set minimum prices for milk sold intrastate . “The marketing of intrastate milk,” wrote the Court in the 1942 Wrightwood Dairy case, “which competes with that shipped interstate would tend seriously to break down price regulation of the latter.” Yes, so? What was the Court’s point? Only that nothing — especially not liberty — should be permitted to get in the way of the national government’s power to regulate the economy.

      As hard as it may be to notice, Wrightwood Dairy still preserved something of a distinction: the intrastate sale of milk obviously entailed an act of commerce. Did that mean the commerce clause barred the national government from regulating noncommercial activities? Not for long.

      Enter Roscoe Filburn, an Ohio dairy and poultry farmer, who raised a small quantity of winter wheat — some to sell, some to feed his livestock, and some to consume. In 1940, under authority of the Agricultural Adjustment Act, the central government told Mr. Filburn that for the next year he would be limited to planting 11 acres of wheat and harvesting 20 bushels per acre. He harvested 12 acres over his allotment for consumption on his own property. When the government fined him, Mr. Filburn refused to pay.

      Wickard v. Filburn got to the Supreme Court, and in 1942, the justices unanimously ruled against the farmer. The government claimed that if Mr. Filburn grew wheat for his own use, he would not be buying it — and that affected interstate commerce. It also argued that if the price of wheat rose, which is what the government wanted, Mr. Filburn might be tempted to sell his surplus wheat in the interstate market, thwarting the government’s objective. The Supreme Court bought it.

      The Court’s opinion must be quoted to be believed:

      [The wheat] supplies a need of the man who grew it which would otherwise be reflected by purchases in the open market. Home-grown wheat in this sense competes with wheat in commerce.

      As Epstein commented, “Could anyone say with a straight face that the consumption of home-grown wheat is ‘commerce among the several states?’” For good measure, the Court justified the obvious sacrifice of Mr. Filburn’s freedom and interests to the unnamed farmers being protected:

      It is of the essence of regulation that it lays a restraining hand on the self-interest of the regulated and that advantages from the regulation commonly fall to others.

      • Brian H says:

        Given that standard, what would NOT qualify as interstate commerce? Every local transaction might sub for some hypothetical instate one.

        • Gail Combs says:

          That was the intent. Where the Constitution said the federal government was to keep their noses out of the business of the states or the individual, that interpretation lets the US government dictate what you eat, what you wear, what you buy and when you take a ….

          Most of the intrusive legislation is based on that blasted Supreme Court decision.

    • philjourdan says:

      Ti darrylb,

      Writing Polynesian now?

  8. pesce9991 says:

    Oh,and another thing, as Columbo used to say, the Obama quote left out these words:

    “Wherever I have the legal authorities to make progress on behalf of middle-class Americans … I’m going to seize those opportunities.”

    • geran says:

      If Fish actually believes Obama is making “progress on behalf of the middle-class Americans”, then Fish probably also believes in AGW….

      • philjourdan says:

        And if you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan. And “no new taxes on anyone making less than $250k per year!” (other than the $1.5 trillion in taxes that came with Obamacare).

    • Shazaam says:

      Yep, the laughingstock-in-chief was the absolute best the Democratic party had to offer.

      I do hope they are proud of their choice.

      Keep voting in the guys who promise you goodies and you get what you deserve:

      Personally, I wouldn’t piss on him if he were on fire. (’cause even if he were on fire, you’d end-up in Gitmo, that water-boarding vacation resort he hasn’t closed yet)

    • Bill P. says:

      And he has, in spades (or is that racist?)

      I see lists of “broken promises” on Obama’s part, and dismiss them out of hand.

      Compared to the promises he’s KEPT, they are harmless musings.

      He indeed “fundamentally transformed America” and we may never recover.

      • pesce9991 says:

        Washington, Lincoln, LBJ and Obama to name a few have “fundamentally changed the face of America and we have never recovered.” And most Americans, the ones who are grateful to be an American, are glad for that.

        • _Jim says:

          Says the fawked one …

        • darwin says:

          Only LBJ and Obama took freedoms away. Democrats, liberals, progressives, Marxists, communists, socialists … whatever you call yourself … your entire ideology is anti-liberty.

        • pesce9991 says:

          And just what liberties have been taken from you Darwin? (excluding deficating on the streets)

        • philjourdan says:

          Habeas Corpus, Privacy, Speech, Religion, etc.

          You really are ignorant! It is not just pretend for you?

        • _Jim says:

          “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.” uh-oh …

        • philjourdan says:

          38% approval – your pathetic list needs some work. None of the others even come close to Obama’s tanking rating.

          LBJ was a one hit wonder (he was also responsible for 55k American deaths in a useless war).

          YOu have a lot to learn.

        • pesce9991 says:

          I’m glad you and John Kerry, and millions of liberals agree on the Vietnam war.

          Try facts for a change, philly. You chose (of course) the lowest outlier poll for President Obama. Yes his popularity is tanking but RCP has it at 41.1% (the average of about 7 polls).

          Obama has not yet reached LBJ’s low poll of 35%. And of course back in Washington’s day and Lincoln’s as well There were no polls.

          So check your facts before displaying your ignorance especially in a post where you tell me I have a lot to learn.

        • philjourdan says:

          For all your rambling incoherent words, you did nothing to contest my facts. So why should I check them? Apparently you agree with them, although like a typical liberal, you have to use ad hominems against the messenger when you cannot refute the facts.

          I take it you are not too quick on the uptake? Why should I recheck something that does not appear to be in contention? Perhaps your limited knowledge of the English language is again playing havoc with your poorly worded post and you have no clue what you said?

          Your demand would indicate you do not. And the name is Phil. If you are incapable of a rational discussion without a childish name game, then that would explain your incoherent ramblings as well.

        • _Jim says:

          Lyndon Johnson – pursued a federally-funded “Model Cities Program”, one participant was Detroit (besides Newark NJ, Camden etc.) …

          … MAJOR FAIL …

          Model Cities Pgm

          Detroit – “THE KILLING OF A CITY
          The making and entrenchment of a “senseless-killing neighborhood.”


        • mjc says:

          In 1966, new legislation led to the more than 150 five-year-long, Model Cities…

          The program ended in 1974.

          That in and of itself should be a big enough clue that it was ‘epic fail’ and was so from the start.

    • philjourdan says:

      Make progress? In reducing it? That is ALL he has done.

      And of course you remember the famous “if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor”. Only a fool believes a liar.

    • Jl says:

      Since when did he care about “legal authority”?

  9. u.k.(us) says:

    That was a good one, Steven.

  10. Bob Knows says:

    Odumbo has big ears but he can’t fly.

  11. Sorry to disagree, but Washington was the best President. Now, back to debating the climate…

    • philjourdan says:

      AH, but we can have a friendly and lively debate on that issue! Assuredly Washington is one of the greatest. But I put Jefferson a bit ahead of him.

    • Shazaam says:

      My personal favorite is William Henry Harrison.

      He died before inflicting any harm on the country. As a president, that was an accomplishment no other president can match.

      • methylamine says:

        Best. Comment. Here.

        I alternately grimace, laugh, or groan when I see ex-presidents getting together. How many other people see just a bunch of well-dressed Mafia dons gathering to gloat? They’re violent criminal sociopaths; thieves, brigands, liars, and (often) rapists.

        Respect for the office? What the hell for–do I genuflect for muggers?

  12. Gail Combs says:

    “As for taking the country backwards, I thought that’s what the Republican platform was about.”

    Well that depends on your definition of “Backwards” now doesn’t it?

    The Luddites who want to Reduce CO2 by 83% That means taking the country back to the 1700s .

    The Constitutionalists want to take us back to when the Constitution wasn’t considered as nothing but toilet paper.

    The Marxists want to take us back to feudalism.
    “The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his ‘natural superiors,’ and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, callous ‘cash payment.’ It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervor, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom—Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.

    The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honored and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage laborers.

    The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation.” ― Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto

  13. methylamine says:

    You can’t quote Jefferson. He was a racist. And had slaves.
    So every thought, every utterance of his is invalidated.

    And he was white. And now dead.

    Like the Unix clock, history started 1970-1-1 12:00:00 and there was no “Before Time”. Forget the Renaissance; what’s that? Go back to sleep America, your government is in control.

  14. Gail Combs says:

    pesce9991 says:

    And just what liberties have been taken from you Darwin? (excluding deficating on the streets)
    Now here I thought that was a liberal trait. Projecting traits again are we?
    Tea Party vs Occupy Wall Street in Pictures

  15. pesce9991 says:

    Phil: “Habeas Corpus, Privacy, Speech, Religion, etc”.

    No phil, I asked Darwin what has affected him. I don’t mind you taking the question for yourself but at least understand the question. Unless, of course, you’re implying that you personally have experienced the above>

    • philjourdan says:

      So he is not entitled to those rights? Since when? You asked for a list. I gave you a list. The list was not limited to any single person. Ergo the list applies to everyone.

      Nice to see you dropped your juvenile persona and got the name right this time.

      • pesce9991 says:

        Feigning ignorance isn’t a pretty trait, phil. Yes, I dropped the diminutive after realizing it was such an issue with you. 😉

        • philjourdan says:

          I feigned no ignorance. I asked you questions. For the children among us, you can determine when there is a question by the presence of the Question Mark (?).

          You dropped the childish name games when you got called out on the childishness of it. It is apparent from your juvenile insults that you do not care about anyone but yourself.

  16. pesce9991 says:

    Only facts that have been verified, big Jim.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s