• Secure your account

    A friendly reminder to our users, please make sure your account is safe. Make sure you update your password and have an active email address to recover or change your password.

  • Xenforo Cloud has scheduled an upgrade to XenForo version 2.2.16. This will take place on or shortly after the following date and time: Jul 05, 2024 at 05:00 PM (PT) There shouldn't be any downtime, as it's just a maintenance release. More info here

Why don't people bash Lyndon B.Johnson more?

CConn

Fountainhead of culture.
Joined
Jul 9, 2004
Messages
57,619
Reaction score
12
Points
58
Something has always confused me about the US history.

Everyone hates Vietnam.

Everyone hates Dick Nixon.

Yet Lyndon Johnson, who is was a pretty terrible President in his own right and was quoted as saying his reason for bringing us into Vietnam was the size of his penis gets almost no mention at all.

Is there any random factoid I'm unaware of?
 
His best accomplishment , imo is the 1964 civil rights act. Other than that , alot of baby boomers hated Johnson. If anything , he's kinda become the forgotten President since the 60's.

I think what's happened is that Kennedy and Nixon usually get most of the attention when talking about the 60's and 70's. He's kinda of in the league of Presidents such as Carter, Ford, Bush 41, i.e not really controversial or transformational presidents who are written and talked about for decades ala FDR, Kennedy, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, Bush 43, and probably Obama.
 
give it time. 'LBJ: Werewolf Whisperer' hasn't begun production, yet.
 
Which I kinda think is a mistake as he was much more a villain than Carter, Ford or Bush.

Although Carter really didn't have a clue either. Still pisses me off he won a peace prize for "disarming" North Korea.
 
Which I kinda think is a mistake as he was much more a villain than Carter, Ford or Bush.

Bush 1 sure, Bush 2 I would argue not.

My guess is LBJ gets alot positive karma for pushing and passing the Civil Rights act. If all he did was Vietnam he would probably be put on par with Bush 2 for a president who got us into a meaningless war
 
LBJ has a mixed record. There's a lot of good and a lot of bad.

He's the first president since Lincoln who really went to bat for minorities (well there were others, but none got as much done as he did). Not just for black Americans, he also ended a lot of racist immigration laws, most people today probably don't even remember.

He also did a lot to tackle poverty and hunger, the latter in particularly is often overlooked.

But a lot of that turned into a bureaucratic nightmare. And then there's the foreign policy...

But then I do consider Nixon to be one of the best president's, even though he was a crook.
 
But then I do consider Nixon to be one of the best president's, even though he was a crook.

It makes absolutely no sense why Nixon would get people to spy on a challenger who he was going to crush anyways
 
Nixon spied on everyone.

Hey, I'm not saying he was a great guy, but he did open up trade with China, cool the Cold War, give Americans clean water, and a cleaner Earth. And if he hadn't been caught he would have probably gotten Americans universal healthcare. He also did a lot to end segregation. He did stuff no one else could or would.

He did a lot of good for all the bad he did. Certainly more good than the last three stooges in the White House anyway. Or Kennedy.
 
He did a lot of good for all the bad he did. Certainly more good than the last three stooges in the White House anyway. Or Kennedy.

You forgot to add Ronald "I will make our defense budget bloated, while cutting taxes for rich people because somehow it will trickle down to everybody" Reagan
 
Nixon's problems were largely pathological.

Other presidents just plain suck.
 
You forgot to add Ronald "I will make our defense budget bloated, while cutting taxes for rich people because somehow it will trickle down to everybody" Reagan
Yet Regan is generally considered to be one of the best presidents of that century and won a bugger popular vote than most other presidents could ever hope for. Funny how that works.
 
Well he did ****** things, but we got something out of it. Compare to say Bush who did a lot of ****** things... and, we got nothing out of it. Except obviously ****. Which is why he may be the worst president ever. Other presidents have done bad things, even worse, but they usually have at least something good to offset it.
 
LBJ has a mixed record. There's a lot of good and a lot of bad.

He's the first president since Lincoln who really went to bat for minorities (well there were others, but none got as much done as he did). Not just for black Americans, he also ended a lot of racist immigration laws, most people today probably don't even remember.
But I wonder how much of that was just spillover from Bobby Kennedy.
 
Something has always confused me about the US history.

Everyone hates Vietnam.

Everyone hates Dick Nixon.

Yet Lyndon Johnson, who is was a pretty terrible President in his own right and was quoted as saying his reason for bringing us into Vietnam was the size of his penis gets almost no mention at all.

Is there any random factoid I'm unaware of?

there is a double stranded when it comes to republicans and democrats that's all .
 
Reagan had the fortune of being in the right place at the right time.

Though he too came up with a few good ideas (or support them, anyway). Star Wars, while crazy, did a lot of good. Gave America advanced technologies (not space lasers, but a lot of useful byproducts), and he did actually try to get rid of nukes. And then there's also the more aggressive foreign policy, and immigration reform.
 
But I wonder how much of that was just spillover from Bobby Kennedy.

You mean the ideas, or him using their deaths to sell them?

I can't really say. All I know is that LBJ got **** done. Which is more than can be said for a lot of Democrats.
 
Something has always confused me about the US history.

Everyone hates Vietnam.

Everyone hates Dick Nixon.

Yet Lyndon Johnson, who is was a pretty terrible President in his own right and was quoted as saying his reason for bringing us into Vietnam was the size of his penis gets almost no mention at all.

Is there any random factoid I'm unaware of?

Yes, many factoids, like the slew of domestic achievements you didn't mention (Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, Medicare and Medicaid). He was a terrible foreign policy President and one of the greatest domestic policy Presidents. He did more for civil rights than any President except Abraham Lincoln himself. And by the way, Richard Nixon had his good points too (opened up China for instance). Try to dig a little deeper than the lazy surface impressions that the media instills on you.
 
Yet Regan is generally considered to be one of the best presidents of that century and won a bugger popular vote than most other presidents could ever hope for. Funny how that works.

"Generally considered" by the right. I think the man was very overrated as a President. Not terrible, but definitely not one of the greats. I mainly dislike him because he made committed voters out of the Christian fundamentalists who love to legislate morality and social values, he introduced that dangerous and ultimately destructive "let's strangle the government and abolish taxes" mind-set and he intervened in a lot of Latin American countries he had no business being in. I have trouble thinking of major legislative accomplishments under him, but I can remember many scandals like Iran-Contra. A lot of folks say "well, he ended the cold war." Bullcrap. Gorbachev did. That monstrosity was already collapsing under its own weight.
 
Why'd you decide to reply like a d-bag when I was merely asking a question?
 
Why'd you decide to reply like a d-bag when I was merely asking a question?

:whatever:

How did I reply "like a d-bag"? Please enlighten me. It was a pretty silly, lazy question.
 
:whatever:

How did I reply "like a d-bag"? Please enlighten me. It was a pretty silly, lazy question.
Because you're dripping sarcasm and rolly eyes, obviously.

Plus, despite it being a "lazy and silly question", you kinda missed the real point of the question; why - if, as you said yourself - Nixon's perception so negatively, and Johnson's relatively positive. It's not about their actual accomplishments, I'm more curious about what made the public cling to certain assumptions and accusations about both men, while wholly ignoring others. That, if you ask me, is a pretty multifaceted and detailed question.

But, I will admit, I did write my post like a valley girl. It was kind of intentional. I like to have fun with things.
 
Because you're dripping sarcasm and rolly eyes, obviously.

Plus, despite it being a "lazy and silly question",

Yes, that was all after you had already called me a "d-bag." How did you expect I'd respond?


you kinda missed the real point of the question; why - if, as you said yourself - Nixon's perception so negatively, and Johnson's relatively positive.

I didn't miss it. I explained it. Johnson achieved more on a domestic front than anyone since FDR and anyone after him. Nixon isn't hated because of 'Nam so much, as he is because of Watergate and the fallout from that (fairly or unfairly).
 
You were dripping sarcasm in your first post and called me lazy.

I mean, its one thing to be a jerk, but at least cop to it.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
200,709
Messages
21,790,376
Members
45,617
Latest member
BadlyDrawnKano
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"