I realize that this isn't exactly a pressing issue, but I thought I'd mention it anyway. Am I the only one who is annoyed by the convention by which Obama is considered the 44th President? The part inside of me that strives for accuracy and clarity cringes a tiny bit when someone refers to him in that way, or refers to G.W. Bush as the 43rd, or Clinton as the 42nd.

They are all off by one, because we consider Grover Cleveland both the 22nd and 24th Presidents. In my opinion, he was not - he was merely the 22nd President who served 2, non-consecutive terms. Barack Obama should be considered the 43rd President, not the 44th. If our consensus logic insists that he is the 44th, then that inanity begs the question - 'Can we name 43 other Presidents?' No, we can only name 42 others.

Anyway, I'm just trying to figure out if there is at least one other soul out there that disagrees with this silly convention?

you're right...it doesn't make any sense to consider someone two different Presidents. I've never understood why they did that. If they're going by that logic (22nd and 24th) then they should just do it by term, meaning Clinton, Reagan, Bush, etc should each have been President twice, one for each term. That makes almost as much sense.

I realize that this isn't exactly a pressing issue, but I thought I'd mention it anyway. Am I the only one who is annoyed by the convention by which Obama is considered the 44th President? The part inside of me that strives for accuracy and clarity cringes a tiny bit when someone refers to him in that way, or refers to G.W. Bush as the 43rd, or Clinton as the 42nd.

They are all off by one, because we consider Grover Cleveland both the 22nd and 24th Presidents. In my opinion, he was not - he was merely the 22nd President who served 2, non-consecutive terms. Barack Obama should be considered the 43rd President, not the 44th. If our consensus logic insists that he is the 44th, then that inanity begs the question - 'Can we name 43 other Presidents?' No, we can only name 42 others.

Anyway, I'm just trying to figure out if there is at least one other soul out there that disagrees with this silly convention?

Interesting but I don't think I'm gonna loose any sleep over it. I'd just be happy if obamie wasn't a President at all.

I just think of him as the 1st 100% black president :yay:

you're right...it doesn't make any sense to consider someone two different Presidents. I've never understood why they did that. If they're going by that logic (22nd and 24th) then they should just do it by term, meaning Clinton, Reagan, Bush, etc should each have been President twice, one for each term. That makes almost as much sense.

Yeah that's what I think. Either count each different President as one, or count each term.

Interesting but I don't think I'm gonna loose any sleep over it. I'd just be happy if obamie wasn't a President at all.

Me neither - not something that affects our life that much. It just illustrates how inane some of our societal conventions (and our collective reasoning in general) are.

You're right, Tilted - this is not a pressing issue. :lol:

You're right, Tilted - this is not a pressing issue. :lol:

Sorry. What can I say - I was a little bored. :shrug:

I had been expecting an exciting morning with the release of details of the Administration's aggregate bank plan. But alas, they decided to postpone that release so that everyone could remain focused on the stimulus package.

I just think of him as the 1st 100% black president :yay:

Do you mean the first 50% black president?

Do you mean the first 50% black president?

I know what I meant.

you're right...it doesn't make any sense to consider someone two different Presidents. I've never understood why they did that. If they're going by that logic (22nd and 24th) then they should just do it by term, meaning Clinton, Reagan, Bush, etc should each have been President twice, one for each term. That makes almost as much sense.

I guess the tradition or convention counts each time the White House keys are handed over. That didn't happen between Clinton's, Reagan's, or Bush's two terms as there was no break in the administration in those cases.

I guess the tradition or convention counts each time the White House keys are handed over. That didn't happen between Clinton's, Reagan's, or Bush's two terms as there was no break in the administration in those cases.

I doubt Hillary ever handed over the keys, they just had to change the locks :killingme

you're right...it doesn't make any sense to consider someone two different Presidents. I've never understood why they did that. .

They were not a continual administration and had different vice presidents

They were not a continual administration and had different vice presidents

Because all of the other Presidents had the same people at the helm? Bush changed a good portion of his cabinet, Nixon changed VPs...just a couple examples off the top of my head. I don't really see the difference. Stuff changes between terms or even during terms. The gap between terms is the only real difference.

And awpitt...duh!

Do you mean the first 50% black president?

This may be true but I know he is 100% Blacker than me!!:lmao: