Controversial Quotes of Beloved Historical Figures

He was... among the best presidents this country has seen for the 238 years of its existence.

+1

He was pretty good, especially if you look at who came after him

There has been a fair amount written about this issue, and it seems pretty clear by now that he was only taking that position because it was political suicide at the time for someone with national ambitions to promote gay marriage. This was back when the Democrats still commanded the lion's share of white union voters with more conservative social views. Obama's advisors assured him he needed them to get the victories he wanted, so he claimed to be against gay marriage. It wasn't until 2012, when Obama's popularity nearly assured him of a second term *and* polls showed that a majority of Americans supported gay marriage that Obama finally publicly supported it.

Ok, but I personally think not. For me, God created the man and the woman for they couple each other.

They aren't homophobic, they're hommophobical!

Do you think we should standardize people and what do they think? I am not homophobic, I do not think that being gay is the right attitude. Because of other people, do I have to start liking it? It's not because I like oranges, and you don't, that I have to force you to eat a box. This takes away the sense of a democracy. You may think it is correct, but it does not mean that I have to find it.

Right, say I don't like oranges and you do, you are not going to force me to eat oranges. In that same vein, say I'm a homosexual man and you are a heterosexual man; I'm not going to force you to marry a man. I, personally, am of the opinion that people should be allowed to love and marry anyone, regardless of sex/gender. It doesn't mean I am going to force you to do that, it just means that everyone should have the freedom to choose for themselves.

MG, no one is forcing you to think a certain way or to be homosexual. You can think and do whatever you want, but if you "do not think that being gay is the right attitude," then we can certainly think you are homophobic, because, well...that's pretty homophobic.

I personally believe in man-to-woman relationships, rather than man-to-man or woman-to-woman, but I have nothing against gays. In fact, I know and am friends with several gays, I just don't believe it is what I should do.

Also worth mentioning that Joe Biden actually jumped the gun on this! He basically forced Obama to make a public statement supporting gay marriage after he made a (from what I can tell, sincere, not politically calculated) statement supporting gay marriage.

MG from many of your other comments I know that you have a much more narrow and inflexible view of what it means to a Christian or a Protestant than most Americans do, especially Obama, who was born in the liberal and diverse US state of Hawaii to an African atheist father and an American mother he describes as "spiritual but skeptical of organized religion," lived overseas in Indonesia after his mother was re-married to a Muslim Indonesian man, returned at age 10 to America to be raised by his maternal grandparents who were non-practicing Methodists and Baptists from conservative Kansas, grew up to attend prestigious, liberal, highly international universities Harvard and Columbia, and then finally became a self-identified Christian in his 20s while working as a community organizer in Chicago. I'm sure his opinions on religious matters are highly nuanced. I'm also sure that at the time he made this quote he was neither homophobic nor of the mind that civil unions went against god.

I feel like this quote was pulled out of context a bit because I think what Obama was trying to say was that he personally didn't recommend being Gay, but that he would protect their people's rights. Not that he doesn't support LGBTQ+ rights altogether.

MG, regardless of religion Obama was an excellent president altogether.

above: I meant to write "what it means to be* a Christian"...

Well, I actually have to say I'm not a fan of what he did to some other countries, like with military strikes and all, as a non-interventionist.

Obama saved the Auto Industry, and to someone in Metro Detroit where almost everyone works in the Auto Industry, whether it be technology or Manufacturing, that alone makes him an amazing president. Yes, he did have his downsides, but he was a great president, ranked 11th out of 45th by Historians.

And Regarding the Quote, as the Political Landscape changed, Obama's position changed too.

Oh, I certainly think he was an amazing president...definitely within the top 10.

Obama was an excellent president who faced an intractable but completely undeserved opposition from the rival political party in the US, and the shamelessly partisan media outlets beholden to them, for 8 years. There was almost no legitimate controversy during his presidency. Only ginned-up faux outrage. These are the biggest Obama scandals:

1. he once wore a tan suit to a press conference

2. he once had dijon mustard on a hot dog

3. he once neglected to wear a flag pin on his lapel

4. he signed the ACA, which was basically Republican Bob Dole's healthcare plan from the 90s, and helped a few million Americans get health insurance.

5. during his presidency the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya was attacked and a few people died. Though literally dozens of independent investigations and more than 30 Congressional hearings repeatedly found no fault or wrong doing on the part of Obama or the State Department. But Fox News *would not* stop talking about it...

6. Obama and his wife went on a date in New York once.

7. He bowed when he met the king of Saudi Arabia

8. He once took a selfie in the Oval Office using a selfie stick

9. There was a photo of him taken in the Oval Office where we was not wearing a suit jacket.

10. He once went out biking and wore a helmet that some people thought was dorky.

11. He wore "mom jeans"

12. He once saluted a US Marine while exiting an aircraft with a cup of coffee in his hand.

I am literally not making up any of this stuff...

Perhaps the one legitimately controversial thing he did, which the Republicans actually loved for the most part but he did get a lot of flak from Democrats and Libertarians... that would be his extensive use of targeted drone strikes. US drones killed over 4,000 people in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia in these 8 years. Around 10% were untargeted civilians.

Bonus faux-controversy: during the Obama admin, there was an outbreak of Ebola virus in West Africa. Despite the administration's best efforts to help contain and combat the virus in Africa and keep it from American shores, ultimately 11 people in the US were treated for ebola and 2 of them died. There was outrage when it was revealed a doctor had flown from West Africa to New York City. One orange failed businessman and game show host tweeted that if it was found even a single case of the virus was let into the country, then "Obama should apologize to the American people & resign!"....

some years later the same failed businessman presided over a pandemic that killed at least 600,000 Americans, but was just super put-out that the media wouldn't talk about what a fantastic job he did handling it. and he still hasn't resigned though he was voted out of office 7 months ago.

Tbh some of the above "controversies" are downright silly. Now let's see the list of the Failed Businessman's controversies, and how much longer Kal can make it than the other one.

Every key on my keyboard would break before I got to the end of it. And QM would be mad at me, too. Pass.

Exactly the point.

Didn't Obama also take some flak for chewing gum at public events as a way to deter his need for cigarettes? I know it can be considered rude to chew gum in public, but from the reports, people were definitely blowing it out of proportion. Virtually anything the guy did was deemed as reprehensible.

michael: only by the networks and commentators that had pre-determined they would hate everything he ever did to try and keep their listeners angry. But they were always so obviously reaching. If anything I think Obama probably could rightfully be called the *least* scandalous president in the history of the country. Carter had the Iran hostage crisis, and having the audacity to tell Americans maybe they shouldn't be so materialistic. Reagan had Iran-Contra, Savings & Loan, HUD grant rigging, to name a few. Bush Sr raised taxes after running on a promise not to, vomited on the PM of Japan, and Clarence Thomas. Clinton had Lewinski, Starr, Whitewater, impeachment. Bush Jr. had Katrina, Mission Accomplished/protracted double occupation of Iraq/Afghanistan, Abu Graib, Harriet Meiers, etc. Trump had.... five every day. Obama... basically nothing real. No corruption. No incompetence. No gaffes. Just mustard and flag pins.

Really a hero... especially when compared to "Severely Conservative" people like Mitt Romney.

I wasn’t saying that he was bad. I just didn’t know exactly.

There are literally thousands, LITERALLY thousands of things 45 did that were worse than those Obama things listed (and there are a few more legitimate criticisms/controversies of Obama too), but it's just an unspeakable difference.

Speaking from strictly an indocentric view of American Presidents, I would agree that Obama was one of the better American presidents. The title for the worst would probably go to Nixon.

Nixon is generally ranked above Garfield, Taylor, Hoover, Tyler, Fillmore, Harding, Andrew Johnson, Pierce, WH Harrison, Buchanan, and Trump... roughly in that order. He's sometimes ranked as high as around 23rd overall putting him right in the middle of the pack. He was forced to resign in disgrace, and was openly corrupt and a criminal, but there are some (one) presidents who beat him in those latter two categories, without exaggeration, by at least a thousand percent. And while the same can't be said about those (that) other presidents, at least Nixon was a patriot who loved his country and sought the presidency out of a desire to serve. He actually did several good things during his administration, too. And was far more competent than most of the presidents usually ranked lower than him in polls. But he is pretty much only remembered for the ignominious way that it ended.

I think it's a joke.

Probably is, but still...

Yes, he does.

I wonder what you think connotation v. literal meaning means.

Would you really like to see every human exactly the same? I certainly don't, the idea disgusts me.

He's not saying that every human would be the same. He's saying that in this hypothetical world, the probability of hereditary diseases and potentially harmful mutations would be significantly reduced.

When I think about the wonderful variety in human beings I think of the way that we have different personalities, interests, talents, and abilities. The huge variety in skin tones, eye colors, and physical dimensions. I think of the different ways that we experience love, and joy, and humor.

When Clutch thinks about this I guess he thinks of multiple sclerosis, down's syndrome, and whatever made our last president the way he is.

I understand some people feeling threatened by designer babies. They imagine everyone selecting against things like...dwarfism... and vitiligo... and maybe Asperger's... and there are people now who have those things who are beautiful, productive, and valuable members of society in their own way. I mean with Asperger's it seems like a very high percentage of the most brilliant and creative people in history may have been on the spectrum.

These people who feel threatened might think that by choosing to not give your children these traits you are in a way attacking or negating the value of the people alive who already have them. Or like Clutch said making everyone "the same" which to me feels like a large overstatement but I can see how eliminating certain things would at least potentially reduce some variety in the species which could... potentially... be nice to have? I guess. I mean if we got rid of all the stupid people who would we have left to serve in Congress? And there would be no Forrest Gump. Personally I might miss super petite women... as I can see everyone opting to be within a certain average height range or slightly taller. I always loved small girls but for some reason everyone seems to want to have tall children. As a giant myself I know that's not always all its cracked up to be.

but... ultimately... in the end... I don't think that my fetish for small girls or the enjoyment that someone else got from looking at artwork produced by someone with schizophrenia really justifies allowing humans to be born with serious life-quality-reducing defects when we have the power to stop that. And in terms of what would be best for society... I do like variety... but... could we at least just make everyone a little bit smarter? Pretty please? Give me 5 or 10 IQ points? And no cogenital diseases? And maybe cure cancer? I'd be fine leaving the rest as is if you give me that much.

I can understand the diseases and conditions like sickle cell being removed, but the idea of adding IQ points and strong eyesight, while removing baldness and obesity seems a bit unnecessary. I believe that life is meant to give us challenges, and while harmful conditions and serious diseases would be great to remove, if you get too far then you start to get into the Utopian type of society. I'm not trying to use a slippery slope here, but even just off of the things you mentioned I can get these vibes.

The hair loss may have just been a joke. I know Kal is sarcastic, but you can ask him. As for some of the other things, I don't know if reduced obesity or increasing eyesight would make that hypothetical society vastly more utopian than ours.

If those things are too utopian, then the lines between innovation, education, and obsessiveness start to get blurry. Is the education of good health and wellness much different from reducing the chances of obesity? Is laser eye surgery that far from strong eyesight? Asking questions like those may suggest we're closer to utopia than most think. Obviously, it would still be a vast distance away, but with the way people are, innovation moves us towards ideas like this anyway.

I would not consider genetic modification to be a "back door" form of eugenics. It may have the some justification, but eugenics is specifically referring to forcibly preventing people from having and/or raising children in the first place. At least that's how I've heard it used. Genetically modifying the child that is had is a very different thing, and "fixing" kids with disabilities is very different from euthanizing or kidnapping them.

I'm not sure whether I agree with you or not, but I don't think what you're talking about would qualify as eugenics.

Eugenics was the idea that the species could be improved, to the benefit of everyone, by encouraging traits thought desirable to be reproduced more and discouraging the reproduction of traits thought undesirable. Basically just through guided artificial selection... which as Roosevelt pointed out humans have been doing for thousands of years when it comes to agriculture and animal husbandry - selecting the best crops and animals to breed or replant. Of course, when you start talking about people like livestock, this is going to rub some the wrong way. But for a while, anyway, the idea was enormously popular especially in the US.

Forced or involuntary sterilizations and euthanization of undesirables were examples of this idea, or similar ones, taken too far. The core idea behind eugenics is to propagate desirable genes while eliminating undesirable ones. How exactly you do this is secondary.

I'm also aware that my own take on this may be biased by the fact that I don't, personally, particularly care about having children. For other people who see this is more important, anyone even so much as suggesting that they should or should not have kids, or have more or fewer, this would be an enormous and unwelcome intrusion. Might also evoke horror stories from one-child-policy China. And in the real world it may be that any serious attempt to follow the idea of eugenics through to a logical conclusion will end up awful. My ideas might be overly utopian and unrealistic.

aside: why would the baldness thing be a joke? Seems too vain or frivolous? I'm sure there are quite a few men (and women, I've known some) who feel that baldness has had a significant negative impact on their lives. It's not killing anyone... but it could significantly impact your self-esteem, job and romance prospects, et cetera. Seems like a worthy thing to root out, if you had the option. Don't see the benefit to keeping it around... superior aerodynamics?

When you put it that way, I guess it makes sense. But as I said, you can be sarcastic/joking, so my interpretation of that line was more of a guess than anything. Also, I didn't think of the positives you mentioned, probably cause I'm only eighteen and not balding. Balding older Michael is looking at me with shame.

As someone who was half-bald by 18 I can attest that it's not fun to feel like a grandpa who sneaked in among young people. Although I might have felt like that anyway.

The vast majority of the problems faced by our species are not the fault of intrinsic deficiencies within the human genome, at least not at the most relevant level of analysis. Evolution has done a pretty good job of adapting us to conditions that we would have faced a sufficiently long amount of time ago, and changes in our society such as the invention of electric light have led to conditions that we are not adapted for. The first "improvement" any proponent of eugenics should want to make would be the reduction of our optimal sleeping hours from 8 hours (this could easily be an underestimate in my opinion) to 6 hours or thereabouts. But instead you are talking about multiple sclerosis and Down's syndrome, which as far as I know are not evolutionarily beneficial anyway, and conditions such as male pattern baldness which only cause problems due to arbitrary social perceptions.

Also, your suggestion that forced sterilisation and "euthanasia" are examples of the idea taken to extremes, and also that the principles of your version of eugenics are basically the same as those of agriculture, are contradictions. These two things are vital components of breeding programmes in animal agriculture, and the second also in plant agriculture if destroying a plant can be said to be euthanasia.

I don't think they're necessarily vital. You could have a program, for instance, that sought to encourage people to get tested and follow certain guidelines through education making it totally voluntary. Most plants don't respond well to education. You could do something with tax credits or penalties. Issue reproduction licenses to parents that had taken parenting courses. Incentivize those with healthier genes to take such courses, or to donate sperm. Outlaw from sperm donation certain people with various congenital defects (I think they probably already do this, and they also select for people with higher IQs, better educations, that are taller, etc... or they allow their customers to select based on this... eugenics in play at sperm banks on a smaller scale already). Voluntary sterilizations with informed consent. etc.

But I don't think this will ever happen on a large scale (again). Especially since genetic modification is probably much easier.

and what have you got against sleep? You think being awake is better? Isn't that an arbitrary perception? The perception of baldness may be (somewhat) arbitrary, but the effect it will have on your life is not.

I don't think Kalba is promoting the killing of low-IQ individuals. I think they're promoting the use of genetic modification to make IQs higher. This could very well still have ethical implications, but it's not rapture.

Yes I know, I was making a comparison suggesting that the results of people with a low IQ being magically removed would be similar to the result of genetic modification to increase IQ combined with a population reduction.

I was partially joking about Congress. I'm sure the average IQ there is above 100. Though certain individual members (Gohmert, Green) undoubtedly bring down the average. But picking on Congress as a whole is usually something that is a surefire way to bring people together in this country as they are pretty well universally hated. It was a laugh/applause line...

I disagree that the world would be worse if everyone had higher IQs. I know that being ignorant, irrational, ill-informed, etc is not necessarily the same thing as being unintelligent. But there is some correlation. And I can think of all sorts of problems caused by mass stupidity, greater than my routine annoyance at having to deal with these people.

How do you think it would be worse? Fewer people satisfied with menial jobs? I really can't think of how it would be worse.

My view: Most politicians are narcissists with loads of knowledge, but no knowledge of how to use and apply it (wisdom). They have trouble taking in social cues, and I doubt they would have a large IQ.

A lot of people with high IQs.... and though I don't have hard data in front of me I'd guess even the large majority of people with extremely high IQs... struggle with social cues. I think politicians are actually the exact opposite... often kind of dumb (far from all. but perhaps a plurality) when it comes to abstract reasoning and some other aspects of intelligence frequently associated with high IQ... but most of them have very high social intelligence... exhibited in their ability to give compelling or charismatic speeches, win debates, shake hands and make phone calls to convince people to vote for them or contribute money to their campaigns, figure out what to say that lines up with what people want to hear, win elections, work with their colleagues to get legislation passed (or block it), and look decent on camera. And while a handful of politicians are brilliant, most of them aren't, and yet those that aren't I think would still be described as "good with people"

It would make no real difference to humanity if people were "bred" to be physically or intellectually superior to what we are now, because our main issue is human nature itself. That can't be bred away.

Lincoln's signing of the Emancipation did align with his opinion. There is some disagreement regarding whether he believed African Americans were equal to white Americans, but there is universal consensus that he believed they deserved to be free. Thinking a race is inferior is not the same as thinking they should be enslaved.