no, i was talking about how it's turned into another right vs. left pissing contest, with the usual suspects.
I was thinking we should keep with the theme of the thread, only using presidents from before Nixon. Anything more recent and I'd say there hasn't been enough history to truly judge and it's also too partisan for most people.
Plus, I think that was essentially the point of the thread, although I'm not sure.
For me, I like Polk. He was a one term president because he accomplished everything he wanted to accomplish in his first term. He didn't run a second time because he was done. Good for him.
As for worst, I really don't know. A lot of presidents have done some terrible things, but I guess that's not how I would judge the worst.
I was thinking we should keep with the theme of the thread, only using presidents from before Nixon. Anything more recent and I'd say there hasn't been enough history to truly judge and it's also too partisan for most people.
Plus, I think that was essentially the point of the thread, although I'm not sure.
For me, I like Polk. He was a one term president because he accomplished everything he wanted to accomplish in his first term. He didn't run a second time because he was done. Good for him.
As for worst, I really don't know. A lot of presidents have done some terrible things, but I guess that's not how I would judge the worst.
exactly. i don't think you can judge a president 'til at least a generation later. take our president bush for example, i don't consider myself a fan, but some of the things the administration is doing and plans to do with regards to deploying the milatary are interesting. he may be thought of as a genius some day.
Wasn't Ronald Wilson Reagan in charge during the Iran-Contra scandal? People lost their lives for political expedience, blowjobs in the White House be damned. Either Reagan knew (inconceivable that he didn't) and his foreign affairs policy was self-serving, immoral and arrogant, or he didn't and he was incompetent.
Either way, his administration had no business training and funding the Contras. Terrorists are not OK, even if you agree with their aims and they're killing other people.
Ronald Reagan was an actor. He was the man who didn't realise the mic was on before a nationwide broadcast and announced "My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes."
A fool. A laughing stock.
He blighted my childhood. I remember when he refused to ratify the SALT treaty on arms limitation even though Gorbachev's cabinet OK'd it. I was really frightened of nuclear war breaking out every minute of every day. I'm not being melodramatic, I was a kid.
You can argue about Reagan's economic policy amongst yourselves; I don't just think he was one of the worst presidents America ever had, he's one of the people in this world I hate the most.
I disagree on Contra. We were fighting communism. Reagan didn't even know about it until the end.
Reagan was making a joke on the Russia thing. Of course, the press went ballistic, just like the time he made a funny face during an interview. The man had a sense of humor. God forbid.
On Gorbachev: Reagan had to walk away from some very good deals Gorby offered. He wasn't willing to give up SDI, whihc is what Gorby offered. Soem say one of Reagan's strengths was being able to walk away froma good deal for a better one.
As far as you hating him...that is exceptionally strong. Few people feel the same way...even those that disagreed with him.
That's the precise deadlock I'm talking about. I think they should be tried as any normal suspected criminal would. They are not, because SDW and his government consider them prisoners of war. Yet, for some dark reason, that doesn't give them the rights war prisoners/criminals should get. What'll it be?
That is completely wrong. You are entitled to your opinion, but it is horrendusly misguided. They are not part of a uniformed army from a nation-state. They do not qualify for the protections of the Geneva convention. As far as trying them, I couldn't disagree more. These peopel must be hunted and killed. Period. Our justice system wasn't meant to deal with this.
hassan:
Quote:
To rebut one of SDW's points on Ronald Wilson Reagan, the man didn't 'win' the Cold War at all. Glasnost and Perestroika - Gorbachev's policies of openness and restructuring - lost it for the Soviet Union. That's where the deadlock was broken. Reagan did nothing to make the world a safer place; he ratcheted up the tension and spent billions on arms. Gorbachev lost it. Reagan didn't win it. We're incredibly fortunate we didn't have two decades of Andropov.
There it is! Derisive liberal quotes around the word "won"! It's like you have a playbook of this stuff.
Reagan DID win the Cold War. Gorbachev realized that the US would not be outspent on defense. Prior to Reagan, the Soviets were negotiating from a position of strength. During Reagan, the US was. Yes, the Soviet system was far worse off than we knew. But Reagan had the guts to call a spade a spade. He told thw world that Democracy would win and that the Soviet system was evil (and it was).
Reagan fought communism and terrorism in every corner of the globe. He dealt with the Soviets from a totally new angle: The eventual victory of Democracy. Prior to him, we had our government pushing a policy of "accepting the expansion of the Soviet empire". One cannot simply say the Soviets collapsed on themselves with no influence by the US.
You should follow the discussion closer. As I have explained up to three times before this: I am all for a regular trial. The US government isn't, claiming this is a WAR (on terrorism, etc, which I DO NOT agree with). Yet they do not treat these people as prisoners of war, etc. yadayadaya. Scroll up if you're interested.
Even if 'fighting communism' were (a) remotely close to the truth of what was going on in Nicaragua in the 1980s or (b) any kind of justification for the financing of the contras (it is neither)...how can you be so blase about the fact that the contras were a para-military organization spawned by the remnants of a fascist dictatorship who used terror tactics to fight against freedom and democracy?
They are not part of a uniformed army from a nation-state. They do not qualify for the protections of the Geneva convention.
If the Guantanamo detainees do not qualify for prisoner of war status then they should be indicted for whatever crimes they are suspected of or released. The assignation of a made-up, arbitraty non-status (ie - 'enemy combatant') that the Bush admin pulled out of its collective ass is total bullshit and pisses over everything that the US is supposed to stand for. The fact that the Bush admin intends to subject these people to military tribunal is obscene.
Worst would be a long list for me because I find most of them far too Machevilian for my tastes, left or right.
I admire Washington, like Reagan (although I was just a kid and my parents are Republican so naturally . . . ), and am withholding judgment regarding GW Bush. I didn't think that much of him before he became governor of Texas. And the thing I DO like about him is that I think he is "smart" enough to let other people do their jobs. I think he is more a frontman for his staff than actually doing much himself. Know what I mean?
But if I had to pick one worst, it would be Clinton. I never could listen to a single speech that man gave because he "irritated" me so bad. I always felt like I was being manipulated.
Otherwise, yeah, I'd probably go with Jackson (I just finished a slim biography on the man), because I disagree with his Bank policy (like it matters what I think now!). And as much as historians try to cast it in a good light, his situation with his wife, well it doesn't sound all that "honorable."
Woops. Somebody is having trouble drawing within the lines. Of a sudden, all constitutions of all free nations are shit. Apparently, there are crimes that don't need judging? Also, you'll have to excuse me, but I will not accept terrorism as an act of war. War is fought between countries. As soon as Al Qaeda gets UN recognition for its countryship, I'll accept this term. And even if it WERE a legit war the US is fighting against Al Qaeda, then still there is a certain Geneva convention with which mister Bush happily wipes his rear end.
More underwhelming still, Aquafire. I never knew you were this militarist and belligerent.
We didn't know it at the time but we were at war (still are). In war you can engage the enemy at any time without warning. Check your GC.
Dealing with bin laden et. al. like they were common criminals is the stupidest thing you could do.
Deregulation can and does work. I'm in PA, and we have electric choice. We're fine now.
off topic, but: then send some PA rep's to CA (both of them -- California and Canada), 'cause they don't have two clues between the two of 'em on how to do it right. we never got to rolling blackouts in toronto, but i found it nearly impossible to get a straight answer from anyone as to what exactly i was paying from month to month towards the end. in many cases, i don't think even they knew what was happening with the cash flow, but figured that the average person would simply get a headache and pay whatever was requested for basic utilities. and we (well, i) did.
and on an even less-related topic i pseudo-brought-up, never, ever privatize the postal system. canada post has to be the utter laughing stock of the planet. i once had to receive my mail (my xmas gifts, no less) from the back room of a 7-eleven, off the top of a stack of doritos boxes. no wonder macs ship up there three months late.
Reagan DID win the Cold War. Gorbachev realized that the US would not be outspent on defense. Prior to Reagan, the Soviets were negotiating from a position of strength. During Reagan, the US was. Yes, the Soviet system was far worse off than we knew. But Reagan had the guts to call a spade a spade. He told thw world that Democracy would win and that the Soviet system was evil (and it was).
You credit Ronald Reagan with a degree of political vision and sophistication that the man manifestly didn't have.
America didn't 'win' the Cold War because Gorbachev realised the inherent flaws in the Russian socialist model and threw in the towel, but because conservative Communist Party members and army generals grew too anxious over his reforms and took things into their own hands. Glasnost and perestroika were attempts to provide a viable alternative to the western capitalist model that might actually be sustainable; arms limitation was supposed to free up money for nation-building and rid the world of the threat of nuclear holocaust. Gorby was an idealist as far this goes - he was genuinely committed to peace. He's written very eloquently, although somewhat boringly, on it. Reagan hated communism more than he wanted peace. Simply because he was "fighting communism" is not an excuse to fund terrorists fighting a democratically elected government.
Incidentally thanks for pointing out to me that punctuation marks are capable of political bias. "Liberal quotes" indeed.
Comments
Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar
no, i was talking about how it's turned into another right vs. left pissing contest, with the usual suspects.
I was thinking we should keep with the theme of the thread, only using presidents from before Nixon. Anything more recent and I'd say there hasn't been enough history to truly judge and it's also too partisan for most people.
Plus, I think that was essentially the point of the thread, although I'm not sure.
For me, I like Polk. He was a one term president because he accomplished everything he wanted to accomplish in his first term. He didn't run a second time because he was done. Good for him.
As for worst, I really don't know. A lot of presidents have done some terrible things, but I guess that's not how I would judge the worst.
Originally posted by bunge
I was thinking we should keep with the theme of the thread, only using presidents from before Nixon. Anything more recent and I'd say there hasn't been enough history to truly judge and it's also too partisan for most people.
Plus, I think that was essentially the point of the thread, although I'm not sure.
For me, I like Polk. He was a one term president because he accomplished everything he wanted to accomplish in his first term. He didn't run a second time because he was done. Good for him.
As for worst, I really don't know. A lot of presidents have done some terrible things, but I guess that's not how I would judge the worst.
exactly. i don't think you can judge a president 'til at least a generation later. take our president bush for example, i don't consider myself a fan, but some of the things the administration is doing and plans to do with regards to deploying the milatary are interesting. he may be thought of as a genius some day.
or not.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Wasn't Ronald Wilson Reagan in charge during the Iran-Contra scandal? People lost their lives for political expedience, blowjobs in the White House be damned. Either Reagan knew (inconceivable that he didn't) and his foreign affairs policy was self-serving, immoral and arrogant, or he didn't and he was incompetent.
Either way, his administration had no business training and funding the Contras. Terrorists are not OK, even if you agree with their aims and they're killing other people.
Ronald Reagan was an actor. He was the man who didn't realise the mic was on before a nationwide broadcast and announced "My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes."
A fool. A laughing stock.
He blighted my childhood. I remember when he refused to ratify the SALT treaty on arms limitation even though Gorbachev's cabinet OK'd it. I was really frightened of nuclear war breaking out every minute of every day. I'm not being melodramatic, I was a kid.
You can argue about Reagan's economic policy amongst yourselves; I don't just think he was one of the worst presidents America ever had, he's one of the people in this world I hate the most.
I disagree on Contra. We were fighting communism. Reagan didn't even know about it until the end.
Reagan was making a joke on the Russia thing. Of course, the press went ballistic, just like the time he made a funny face during an interview. The man had a sense of humor. God forbid.
On Gorbachev: Reagan had to walk away from some very good deals Gorby offered. He wasn't willing to give up SDI, whihc is what Gorby offered. Soem say one of Reagan's strengths was being able to walk away froma good deal for a better one.
As far as you hating him...that is exceptionally strong. Few people feel the same way...even those that disagreed with him.
Originally posted by der Kopf
That's the precise deadlock I'm talking about. I think they should be tried as any normal suspected criminal would. They are not, because SDW and his government consider them prisoners of war. Yet, for some dark reason, that doesn't give them the rights war prisoners/criminals should get. What'll it be?
That is completely wrong. You are entitled to your opinion, but it is horrendusly misguided. They are not part of a uniformed army from a nation-state. They do not qualify for the protections of the Geneva convention. As far as trying them, I couldn't disagree more. These peopel must be hunted and killed. Period. Our justice system wasn't meant to deal with this.
hassan:
To rebut one of SDW's points on Ronald Wilson Reagan, the man didn't 'win' the Cold War at all. Glasnost and Perestroika - Gorbachev's policies of openness and restructuring - lost it for the Soviet Union. That's where the deadlock was broken. Reagan did nothing to make the world a safer place; he ratcheted up the tension and spent billions on arms. Gorbachev lost it. Reagan didn't win it. We're incredibly fortunate we didn't have two decades of Andropov.
There it is! Derisive liberal quotes around the word "won"! It's like you have a playbook of this stuff.
Reagan DID win the Cold War. Gorbachev realized that the US would not be outspent on defense. Prior to Reagan, the Soviets were negotiating from a position of strength. During Reagan, the US was. Yes, the Soviet system was far worse off than we knew. But Reagan had the guts to call a spade a spade. He told thw world that Democracy would win and that the Soviet system was evil (and it was).
Reagan fought communism and terrorism in every corner of the globe. He dealt with the Soviets from a totally new angle: The eventual victory of Democracy. Prior to him, we had our government pushing a policy of "accepting the expansion of the Soviet empire". One cannot simply say the Soviets collapsed on themselves with no influence by the US.
Originally posted by SDW2001
That is completely wrong.
You should follow the discussion closer. As I have explained up to three times before this: I am all for a regular trial. The US government isn't, claiming this is a WAR (on terrorism, etc, which I DO NOT agree with). Yet they do not treat these people as prisoners of war, etc. yadayadaya. Scroll up if you're interested.
Originally posted by SDW2001
I disagree on Contra. We were fighting communism.
Even if 'fighting communism' were (a) remotely close to the truth of what was going on in Nicaragua in the 1980s or (b) any kind of justification for the financing of the contras (it is neither)...how can you be so blase about the fact that the contras were a para-military organization spawned by the remnants of a fascist dictatorship who used terror tactics to fight against freedom and democracy?
Originally posted by SDW2001
They are not part of a uniformed army from a nation-state. They do not qualify for the protections of the Geneva convention.
If the Guantanamo detainees do not qualify for prisoner of war status then they should be indicted for whatever crimes they are suspected of or released. The assignation of a made-up, arbitraty non-status (ie - 'enemy combatant') that the Bush admin pulled out of its collective ass is total bullshit and pisses over everything that the US is supposed to stand for. The fact that the Bush admin intends to subject these people to military tribunal is obscene.
Originally posted by SDW2001
I mentioned Washington.
My belated aplogies...am becoming blind as a bat..
Yup..Folks,,This post is about who is your choice for Greatest and Worst presidents..Period....
Pleese let it not degenerate into a slinging match between lefties & righties....
Oh my God.
Too predictable.
Worst would be a long list for me because I find most of them far too Machevilian for my tastes, left or right.
I admire Washington, like Reagan (although I was just a kid and my parents are Republican so naturally . . . ), and am withholding judgment regarding GW Bush. I didn't think that much of him before he became governor of Texas. And the thing I DO like about him is that I think he is "smart" enough to let other people do their jobs. I think he is more a frontman for his staff than actually doing much himself. Know what I mean?
But if I had to pick one worst, it would be Clinton. I never could listen to a single speech that man gave because he "irritated" me so bad. I always felt like I was being manipulated.
Otherwise, yeah, I'd probably go with Jackson (I just finished a slim biography on the man), because I disagree with his Bank policy (like it matters what I think now!). And as much as historians try to cast it in a good light, his situation with his wife, well it doesn't sound all that "honorable."
Originally posted by der Kopf
From your link, Aquafire:
Woops. Somebody is having trouble drawing within the lines. Of a sudden, all constitutions of all free nations are shit. Apparently, there are crimes that don't need judging? Also, you'll have to excuse me, but I will not accept terrorism as an act of war. War is fought between countries. As soon as Al Qaeda gets UN recognition for its countryship, I'll accept this term. And even if it WERE a legit war the US is fighting against Al Qaeda, then still there is a certain Geneva convention with which mister Bush happily wipes his rear end.
More underwhelming still, Aquafire. I never knew you were this militarist and belligerent.
We didn't know it at the time but we were at war (still are). In war you can engage the enemy at any time without warning. Check your GC.
Dealing with bin laden et. al. like they were common criminals is the stupidest thing you could do.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Deregulation can and does work. I'm in PA, and we have electric choice. We're fine now.
off topic, but: then send some PA rep's to CA (both of them -- California and Canada), 'cause they don't have two clues between the two of 'em on how to do it right. we never got to rolling blackouts in toronto, but i found it nearly impossible to get a straight answer from anyone as to what exactly i was paying from month to month towards the end. in many cases, i don't think even they knew what was happening with the cash flow, but figured that the average person would simply get a headache and pay whatever was requested for basic utilities. and we (well, i) did.
and on an even less-related topic i pseudo-brought-up, never, ever privatize the postal system. canada post has to be the utter laughing stock of the planet. i once had to receive my mail (my xmas gifts, no less) from the back room of a 7-eleven, off the top of a stack of doritos boxes. no wonder macs ship up there three months late.
The iconic self made man..like Lincoln...raised on a farm...
And I who will ever forget his desktop plaque - motto.
" The buck stops here "
In his defense, I don't think Presidents who didn't serve in the military do that.
I see he's still slick as ever...
Dumb president..smart cabinet.
Smart president..dumb cabinet.
Worst: Nixon
Originally posted by Argento
Best: FDR, Lincoln Truman
Worst: Nixon
Thanks Argento..we're back on track..at least for a little while...
Originally posted by SDW2001
Reagan DID win the Cold War. Gorbachev realized that the US would not be outspent on defense. Prior to Reagan, the Soviets were negotiating from a position of strength. During Reagan, the US was. Yes, the Soviet system was far worse off than we knew. But Reagan had the guts to call a spade a spade. He told thw world that Democracy would win and that the Soviet system was evil (and it was).
You credit Ronald Reagan with a degree of political vision and sophistication that the man manifestly didn't have.
America didn't 'win' the Cold War because Gorbachev realised the inherent flaws in the Russian socialist model and threw in the towel, but because conservative Communist Party members and army generals grew too anxious over his reforms and took things into their own hands. Glasnost and perestroika were attempts to provide a viable alternative to the western capitalist model that might actually be sustainable; arms limitation was supposed to free up money for nation-building and rid the world of the threat of nuclear holocaust. Gorby was an idealist as far this goes - he was genuinely committed to peace. He's written very eloquently, although somewhat boringly, on it. Reagan hated communism more than he wanted peace. Simply because he was "fighting communism" is not an excuse to fund terrorists fighting a democratically elected government.
Incidentally thanks for pointing out to me that punctuation marks are capable of political bias. "Liberal quotes" indeed.
Originally posted by aquafire
Thanks Argento..we're back on track..at least for a little while...
aquafire, don't start a thread on an internet forum and then complain when people start debating the issues.