If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   So, it turns out that our Presidents have all been psychopaths. Yes, even Chester A. Arthur and James K. Polk   (cnn.com) divider line 59
    More: Interesting, Leader of the Opposition, human beings, Journal of Personality, Martin Van Buren, antisocial behavior, Zachary Taylor, traits  
•       •       •

1857 clicks; posted to Politics » on 14 Sep 2012 at 8:06 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



59 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-14 06:04:20 AM  
NOT CHESTER A. ARTHUR!

/But seriously... you gotta be crazy to want to do that job.
 
2012-09-14 07:23:09 AM  
Harry Truman seemed pretty stable to me, but then again he did test nukes on Japan.
 
2012-09-14 07:33:14 AM  
The article makes a flaw in the assumption about running for office. Until the advent of modern campaigning in the 20th century, there really wasn't much candidates did and indeed in the earliest elections it wasn't even necessarily their idea to run for office. It took a few Presidents before you find one who wanted to pursue the job. Also with those presidents who became presidents because they were vice-president and the current vice-president died, you have to be careful there too. Theodore Roosevelt only became vice-president because certain people in the GOP wanted to get him out of the limelight and shut him up. And there's no better way to achieve that than by making someone vice-president. Then McKinley was assassinated and that was that. And yes Roosevelt ran for the office in 1904, but as an incumbent he just had to say he wanted to keep the job, a far different thing from saying you want the job when you don't already have it.
 
2012-09-14 08:10:36 AM  
I'm pretty sure that Jimmy Carter, while not the most effective in terms of implementing policy, was a very humane guy and not a psychopath.
 
2012-09-14 08:11:53 AM  
Why is this surprising? The job almost requires it.
 
2012-09-14 08:12:01 AM  
Oh come on, it's not like a President ever threw the whole country into war on a pretext to make up for issue he had with his father!
 
2012-09-14 08:13:54 AM  
I never realized my ex would have made a fine president.
 
2012-09-14 08:18:02 AM  

FirstNationalBastard: NOT CHESTER A. ARTHUR!

/But seriously... you gotta be crazy to want to do that job.


I live a few miles from the Chester A Authur birth place.
He was allegedly born in Quebec, but his family moved 50 miles south, citing a need for a warmer climate.
The house is very small. If you can imagine over wintering in a crowded house with no indoor plumbing with your family growing up, with no TV or IPhone or ear buds, or decent weed, or skateboards, or girls living nearby, or snack packs, or candy bars, or kool-aid, or even a farking paddle ball, and nothing outside but woods full of wild animals that would eat even your largest livestock, then perhaps there is reason to suspect he had less than adequate support when facing any sort of personal crisis.
Aww, poor widdle snofwake isn't feewing well? Well go out and do your chores and then I'll beat your ass until morale improves.
 
2012-09-14 08:18:05 AM  
I doubt it. A few of them--of course.
 
2012-09-14 08:18:38 AM  
 
2012-09-14 08:19:02 AM  
mojoimage.com
 
2012-09-14 08:22:55 AM  
All of which will be addressed in my new Presploitation flick, "William Henry Harrison: 30 Days of Pain."
 
2012-09-14 08:23:57 AM  
Chester A Arthur?

i45.tinypic.com
 
2012-09-14 08:24:47 AM  
But what about Chester Z. Arthur?
 
2012-09-14 08:38:07 AM  

vudukungfu: FirstNationalBastard: NOT CHESTER A. ARTHUR!

/But seriously... you gotta be crazy to want to do that job.

I live a few miles from the Chester A Authur birth place.
He was allegedly born in Quebec, but his family moved 50 miles south, citing a need for a warmer climate.
The house is very small. If you can imagine over wintering in a crowded house with no indoor plumbing with your family growing up, with no TV or IPhone or ear buds, or decent weed, or skateboards, or girls living nearby, or snack packs, or candy bars, or kool-aid, or even a farking paddle ball, and nothing outside but woods full of wild animals that would eat even your largest livestock, then perhaps there is reason to suspect he had less than adequate support when facing any sort of personal crisis.
Aww, poor widdle snofwake isn't feewing well? Well go out and do your chores and then I'll beat your ass until morale improves.


WHAR BIRF CERTIFICAT ARTHUR WHAR
 
2012-09-14 08:39:25 AM  
No one can accuse Coolidge of megalomania. There is barely any evidence the man ever existed
 
2012-09-14 08:40:03 AM  
Also an indicator for business success:

One in 25 business leaders may be a psychopath, study finds

Which explains a great deal about candidate Romney (is one of his sons named Smirk?).

I think it's rather telling that, in addition to the base condition, three out of the five repub presidents over the past fifty years have suffered pretty blatantly from psychological issues. Nixon had an obvious case of paranoia, in retrospect Romney was actively suffering from Alzheimers Disease during the last few years of his presidency, and of course George W. Bush is clinically retarded.Democratic presidents are more prone to satyriasis.
 
2012-09-14 08:43:30 AM  

jake_lex:
WHAR BIRF CERTIFICAT ARTHUR WHAR


It's in a vault in the Sherbrooke courthouse, downstairs, next to metro, just past the post office, take a left by the guy peeing himself, and then through the rusty old door behind the nice lady that sells estate jewelry.
 
2012-09-14 08:43:59 AM  

Lost Thought 00: No one can accuse Coolidge of megalomania. There is barely any evidence the man ever existed


At a function of some sort, some lady supposedly walked up to Coolidge and said "I have a bet with a friend that I can't get you to say more than two words".
Coolidge replied:"You lose."
 
2012-09-14 08:45:03 AM  

vudukungfu: jake_lex:
WHAR BIRF CERTIFICAT ARTHUR WHAR

It's in a vault in the Sherbrooke courthouse, downstairs, next to metro, just past the post office, take a left by the guy peeing himself, and then through the rusty old door behind the nice lady that sells estate jewelry.


You forgot the "Beware of Leopard" sign.
 
2012-09-14 08:45:16 AM  
VAN BUREN
 
2012-09-14 08:49:44 AM  

Rev. Skarekroe: But what about Chester Z. Arthur?


I hate every Chet I see. From Chester A to Chester Z.

/more coffee is what I need...
 
2012-09-14 08:54:45 AM  
Chester A. Arthur was successful?
 
2012-09-14 08:55:26 AM  
Chester A. Arthur sad :(
 
2012-09-14 08:56:51 AM  

EngineerBoy: I also believe that no sane person could actually handle the job of President, nor would we want a sane person in the job. We need someone in that job who can, literally, have the weight of the world resting on their shoulders without cracking. That's too much responsibility for one sane person. We need a megalomaniac in that job...someone with unjustifiable confidence in their own grand abilities. Someone with the ability to make command decisions impacting billions of lives without second guessing themselves nor showing any skepticism about their own decisions. The world is just too big and the issues too complex for one sane person to handle.

But we need one person as President. A committee would be paralyzed by the issues and forces involved - besides, that's what Congress is for. We need one person to not pass the buck, to make the hard decisions, and to take their lumps. We also need to know, going in, that they are crazy, and accept it as an operating assumption. We'll all be happier that way.


Back in the mid-60s, there was an article (I think in New Yorker) suggesting a triumvirate presidency. The author suggested Lyndon Johnson as the guy to put in charge of domestic policy, Kennedy for foreign affairs, and Eisenhower to act as ceremonial head of state. I've always thought it was an interesting idea -- provided you could find three competent people to fill those jobs all at the same time.
 
2012-09-14 08:57:13 AM  
And near the end of the article, just to make the whole article pointless: shadings of potential pathology are found in everyone.

/so as a leader of people you need to be an extrovert and also want to be large and in charge? Who woulda thunk it?
 
2012-09-14 08:57:56 AM  

mksmith: I've always thought it was an interesting idea -- provided you could find three competent people to fill those jobs all at the same time.


lol, like we can find even one.
 
2012-09-14 08:58:39 AM  
"There is a tragic flaw in our precious Constitution, and I don't know what can be done to fix it. This is it: only nut cases want to be President." -- Kurt Vonnegut
 
2012-09-14 08:59:14 AM  
Technical journal piece (subscription required).

Also looks like the ones they're talking about are mostly "good" not "great" presidents, from the abstract.
 
2012-09-14 09:06:34 AM  
Who's being naive now, Kay?

www.gonemovies.com
 
2012-09-14 09:27:51 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: Harry Truman seemed pretty stable to me, but then again he did test nukes on Japan.


And let us not forget the land war in Asia he got us into. Remember Korea? That bloodfest has not ended yet, it is just stalemated
 
2012-09-14 09:43:09 AM  
You can diagnose anyone with a mental illness if you try hard enough.

It's the same method used to find any of Mitt Romney's redeeming qualities.
 
2012-09-14 09:52:24 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: Harry Truman seemed pretty stable to me, but then again he did test nukes on Japan.


Operation Olympic, the invasion of Kyūshū, was to begin on "X-Day", which was scheduled for November 1, 1945. The combined Allied naval armada would have been the largest ever assembled, including 42 aircraft carriers, 24 battleships, and 400 destroyers and destroyer escorts. Fourteen US divisions were scheduled to take part in the initial landings. Using Okinawa as a staging base, the objective would have been to seize the southern portion of Kyūshū. This area would then be used as a further staging point to attack Honshū in Operation Coronet.

Casualty estimates were based on the experience of the preceding campaigns, drawing different lessons:

In a letter sent to Gen. Curtis LeMay from Gen. Lauris Norstad, when LeMay assumed command of the B-29 force on Guam, Norstad told LeMay that if an invasion took place, it would cost the US "half a million" dead.[41]

In a study done by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in April, the figures of 7.45 casualties/1,000 man-days and 1.78 fatalities/1,000 man-days were developed. This implied that a 90-day Olympic campaign would cost 456,000 casualties, including 109,000 dead or missing. If Coronet took another 90 days, the combined cost would be 1,200,000 casualties, with 267,000 fatalities.[42]

A study done by Adm. Nimitz's staff in May estimated 49,000 U.S casualties in the first 30 days, including 5,000 at sea.[43] A study done by General MacArthur's staff in June estimated 23,000 US casualties in the first 30 days and 125,000 after 120 days.[44] When these figures were questioned by General Marshall, MacArthur submitted a revised estimate of 105,000, in part by deducting wounded men able to return to duty.[45]

In a conference with President Truman on June 18, Marshall, taking the Battle of Luzon as the best model for Olympic, thought the Americans would suffer 31,000 casualties in the first 30 days (and ultimately 20% of Japanese casualties, which implied a total of 70,000 casualties).[46] Adm. Leahy, more impressed by the Battle of Okinawa, thought the American forces would suffer a 35% casualty rate (implying an ultimate toll of 268,000).[47] Admiral King thought that casualties in the first 30 days would fall between Luzon and Okinawa, i.e., between 31,000 and 41,000.[47] Of these estimates, only Nimitz's included losses of the forces at sea, though kamikazes had inflicted 1.78 fatalities per kamikaze pilot in the Battle of Okinawa,[48] and troop transports off Kyūshū would have been much more exposed.

A study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated that conquering Japan would cost 1.7-4 million American casualties, including 400,000-800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities. The key assumption was large-scale participation by civilians in the defense of Japan.[1]


www.operationolympic.com

Yeah, it was just a "test." Nuking Japan probably saved Japanese lives.
 
2012-09-14 09:56:03 AM  

canyoneer: Yeah, it was just a "test." Nuking Japan probably saved Japanese lives.


And they didn't even send a thank you note.
 
2012-09-14 09:58:58 AM  
You will shut your whore mouth before speaking ill of Americas greatest president James K. Polk.
 
2012-09-14 10:01:12 AM  

canyoneer: Yeah, it was just a "test." Nuking Japan probably saved Japanese lives.


What saving Japanese lives looks like
libertyontour.com

Psychopath.
 
2012-09-14 10:11:08 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: And they didn't even send a thank you note.


Well, they started it.

Seriously: This idea that nuking Japan was some sort of test or demonstration to the Russians (and was therefore totally unjustified militarily) has gained a lot of traction in certain quarters. But the Imperial Council still voted against surrender after the bombing of Nagasaki (the second atomic bombing). They were eventually overruled by the Emperor. You should read up on the planned Japanese defense of Kyushu and Honshu. Without the atomic bombings and previous and subsequent merciless firebombings, it's not at all clear that the Japanese were ready to surrender, nor that they would have done so. That's all historical revisionism. If an invasion had been necessary, millions of Japanese civilians would have been killed, in addition to the likely hundreds of thousands of American soldiers, sailors, and marines.
 
2012-09-14 10:13:03 AM  

Epoch_Zero: Psychopath.


Ignoramus. Now post a pretty picture from Nanking in December of 1937 for balance.
 
2012-09-14 10:17:00 AM  

canyoneer: Epoch_Zero: Psychopath.

Ignoramus. Now post a pretty picture from Nanking in December of 1937 for balance.


Why? There weren't any nukes used in China.
 
2012-09-14 10:18:34 AM  

canyoneer: Philip Francis Queeg: And they didn't even send a thank you note.

Well, they started it.

Seriously: This idea that nuking Japan was some sort of test or demonstration to the Russians (and was therefore totally unjustified militarily) has gained a lot of traction in certain quarters. But the Imperial Council still voted against surrender after the bombing of Nagasaki (the second atomic bombing). They were eventually overruled by the Emperor. You should read up on the planned Japanese defense of Kyushu and Honshu. Without the atomic bombings and previous and subsequent merciless firebombings, it's not at all clear that the Japanese were ready to surrender, nor that they would have done so. That's all historical revisionism. If an invasion had been necessary, millions of Japanese civilians would have been killed, in addition to the likely hundreds of thousands of American soldiers, sailors, and marines.


Why people can't understand that the indiscriminate killing of two cities worth of civilians was a noble and laudable act really is a mystery isn't it?
 
2012-09-14 10:36:28 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Why people can't understand that the indiscriminate killing of two cities worth of civilians was a noble and laudable act really is a mystery isn't it?


You will notice I didn't say anything about nobility or laudability, just about historical revisionism.

So, are you completely ignorant about WWII, or are you just pretending to be completely ignorant about WWII? Dozens of cities were destroyed in WWII, and hundreds of thousands or millions of civilians were exterminated, in both theaters and by both sides. The real question is why you would get so specially wound-up about Hiroshima, but not mention, say, Coventry or Dresden or Nanking or Hamburg or Tokyo or even London. It was a savage mechanical slaughter on a massive scale. The atomic bombings were no worse - and caused fewer casualties - than other conventional bombings, like the firebombings of Tokyo.

And this is what the Americans were fresh from when the atomic bombs were dropped...this is what was anticipated in an invasion of Japan, but on a far, far larger scale:

kou no kaze (鋼の風)

But it's fashionable for people nowadays to sit around in their parlours sipping tea and sniffing about the mean old Americans and their atomic bombs, presumably because it makes them feel good about themselves, to be so morally superior to people making difficult decisions in extreme circumstances seventy years ago, and all of that. What a bunch of bullsh*t.
 
2012-09-14 10:36:43 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: canyoneer: Philip Francis Queeg: And they didn't even send a thank you note.

Well, they started it.

Seriously: This idea that nuking Japan was some sort of test or demonstration to the Russians (and was therefore totally unjustified militarily) has gained a lot of traction in certain quarters. But the Imperial Council still voted against surrender after the bombing of Nagasaki (the second atomic bombing). They were eventually overruled by the Emperor. You should read up on the planned Japanese defense of Kyushu and Honshu. Without the atomic bombings and previous and subsequent merciless firebombings, it's not at all clear that the Japanese were ready to surrender, nor that they would have done so. That's all historical revisionism. If an invasion had been necessary, millions of Japanese civilians would have been killed, in addition to the likely hundreds of thousands of American soldiers, sailors, and marines.

Why people can't understand that the indiscriminate killing of two cities worth of civilians was a noble and laudable act really is a mystery isn't it?


No one is saying it was the right thing, but it was, in the terms of the war, the correct thing.
Japan had no plans to surrender, even after the bombings. This was a military where suicide missions were standard.

Had the bombs not been dropped, the war in Japan could have gone on for decades, with God knows how many dead soldiers and civilians.

So, horrific as it may sound, killing half a million people with those bombs likely saved millions of lives on both sides.
 
2012-09-14 10:43:16 AM  

canyoneer: Philip Francis Queeg: Why people can't understand that the indiscriminate killing of two cities worth of civilians was a noble and laudable act really is a mystery isn't it?

You will notice I didn't say anything about nobility or laudability, just about historical revisionism.

So, are you completely ignorant about WWII, or are you just pretending to be completely ignorant about WWII? Dozens of cities were destroyed in WWII, and hundreds of thousands or millions of civilians were exterminated, in both theaters and by both sides. The real question is why you would get so specially wound-up about Hiroshima, but not mention, say, Coventry or Dresden or Nanking or Hamburg or Tokyo or even London. It was a savage mechanical slaughter on a massive scale. The atomic bombings were no worse - and caused fewer casualties - than other conventional bombings, like the firebombings of Tokyo.


I am well aware of the widespread slaughter of civilians in World War 2. I am simply not as accepting of it as you are. I condemn the indiscriminate bombings of all sides. Unlike you I do not embraced and defend such strategies.

stoli n coke: So, horrific as it may sound, killing half a million people with those bombs likely saved millions of lives on both sides.


So if slaughtering every civilian in the town you live in, including you and your family, could possibly save more lives, would that be an act you would support? Would you volunteer for that sacrifice?
 
2012-09-14 10:50:47 AM  

canyoneer: The atomic bombings were no worse - and caused fewer casualties - than other conventional bombings, like the firebombings of Tokyo.


The firebombings of Tokyo or the London Raids did not leave the sites radioactive and slowly torture to death those who were unlucky enough not to be boiled alive by the blasts. Nor did they cause generations of people to become sterile if not cause genetic abnormalities.

The military knew every single one of those things would occur. And they didn't care because they had a shiny new toy and knew the public wouldn't be outraged since they had a well-oiled propaganda machine churning out dehumanizing anti-Japanese bullshiat by the ton.

canyoneer: to be so morally superior to people making difficult decisions in extreme circumstances


Why the hell is it such a difficult decision? You can either create or not create a minuscule star atop a city. Not to mention the utter glee in which the military brass used the thing. It was clear as soon as they had it they were going to use it - because they could, not because it was necessary. "He made the tough choices" is a bullshiat deflection from the result of that choice being horrendous.

"I know how you feel son - I mean, I did just murder your mom with this here new shotgun. But think about it this way, she could have walked out in front of a semi and dragged for miles on her bare flesh just the same. It was really better this way."
 
2012-09-14 11:13:12 AM  
And I'm sure Theodoric the Great didn't really need to sack Verona in 489, because Odoacer might have been thinking about suing for peace at the time.

Anyway, I'm glad you guys have bolstered your self-esteem by taking a brave stance against an act of war that occurred long before you were born. Hopefully none of your direct ancestors, like one of mine, were in one of the 14 Army divisions preparing to embark and hit the beaches of Kyushu in Operation Olympic. If any of them were, you might not feel the need to demonstrate your humanitarian credentials so ostentatiously.
 
2012-09-14 12:42:09 PM  
"Overall, the study found, presidents tended to be more like psychopaths than the general population in their level of fearless dominance, but they didn't show a psychopathic excess of impulsive antisocial behavior."

This is why you have good handlers.

For example...
 
2012-09-14 12:46:23 PM  
No President has ever made genocide prevention a priority and no President has ever suffered politically for his indifference to its occurrence.

That politicians are psychopaths is a symptom of the problem. The cause lies with the American people.
 
2012-09-14 12:48:08 PM  

Epoch_Zero: canyoneer: Yeah, it was just a "test." Nuking Japan probably saved Japanese lives.

What saving Japanese lives looks like
[libertyontour.com image 600x304]

Psychopath.


You really need to read up on some history. Did you, for example, know that the (conventional) firebombing of Tokyo killed more people than the atomic bombings?
 
2012-09-14 01:26:38 PM  

vudukungfu: jake_lex:
WHAR BIRF CERTIFICAT ARTHUR WHAR

It's in a vault in the Sherbrooke courthouse, downstairs, next to metro, just past the post office, take a left by the guy peeing himself, and then through the rusty old door behind the nice lady that sells estate jewelry.


Behind a sign marked "Beward of the Leopard"
 
2012-09-14 02:05:30 PM  
Fark needs a Pseudoscience tag....
 
Displayed 50 of 59 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report