Barack Obama is among best presidents ever

[chuck]

In my opening post, I linked an article that I disagreed with. I posted it wondering if anyone could justify the contention of the 238 leading presidential scholars or if others were as surprised by their contention as I was. Of course, I didn't defend or try to rationalize the article.

This morning I found an article showing the other side of the coin. If nothing else, the headline is as definitive as that of the OP. This assessment has my sympathy and I will address any concerns, weaknesses, or criticisms of the article. I will not respond to generalizations or labels such as "silly" unless the poster is willing to address and explain what he or she thinks is "silly." Yes, I know it's biased. "Biased" means that it points to arguments, evidence, views, etc. that shed a favorable light on the point being made often at the expense of giving no weight to similar items that are detrimental to that point. It does not mean that it is wrong or in error. Just stating that it is biased is not a valid argument to invalidate the article, just a reason to question it... and that questioning is a good thing.

The Dumbest President...EVER! - By Stuart Schwartz

FTA:

Barack Obama is the dumbest president...EVER.

That is a reasonable conclusion once you've assessed the first nineteen months of his presidency and compared it to the definition of intelligence put together by researchers in the field. Although the mainstream media have spent the last two years proclaiming Obama "super-smart" or, as Newsweek put it, "sort of God" in stature and brilliance, the 44th president of the United States is poised to surpass our 15th president, James Buchanan. Jr., as the White House occupant who has made the dumbest moves while in office. With two years left, he is on the fast track to last.

One of the many links provided in the above article goes to this propaganda video. I have to admit, I'm sympathetic to its message and thought I'd share it as well.
http://dailyradar.com/beltwayblips/v...ll-timeline-1/

[DuncanONeil]

Actually anybody that jumps on this article using the argument of bias is themselves fairly stupid. The article is an opinion piece! As such there is bound to be a bias. Then the governing aspect would be is the article a rant, or reasoned?

In my opening post, I linked an article that I disagreed with. I posted it wondering if anyone could justify the contention of the 238 leading presidential scholars or if others were as surprised by their contention as I was. Of course, I didn't defend or try to rationalize the article.

This morning I found an article showing the other side of the coin. If nothing else, the headline is as definitive as that of the OP. This assessment has my sympathy and I will address any concerns, weaknesses, or criticisms of the article. I will not respond to generalizations or labels such as "silly" unless the poster is willing to address and explain what he or she thinks is "silly." Yes, I know it's biased. "Biased" means that it points to arguments, evidence, views, etc. that shed a favorable light on the point being made often at the expense of giving no weight to similar items that are detrimental to that point. It does not mean that it is wrong or in error. Just stating that it is biased is not a valid argument to invalidate the article, just a reason to question it... and that questioning is a good thing.

The Dumbest President...EVER! - By Stuart Schwartz

FTA:

One of the many links provided in the above article goes to this propaganda video. I have to admit, I'm sympathetic to its message and thought I'd share it as well.
http://dailyradar.com/beltwayblips/v...ll-timeline-1/