[trying to step over the fights of people's opinions]
my favorite president was Jefferson. i liked how he was a revered statesman, wrote (cowrote?) the Declaration of Independance, and cowrote the Constitution. During his presidency he tried to stick to a strict reading of the constitution, because thats how he intended it to be used when he cowrote it. The federal government, under his and many of the coauthors' plan, was to be a very limited body, which was supposed to only deal with issues relating to the several states. with a limited government, we wouldn't have a lot of the problems we have now. and we wouldn't be wasting money on stupid shit. i think space exploration is really cool, but why the fvck is it a government institution. Plus Jefferson grew pot. Gotta love a president who did that.
i think nixon was the worst president. not just for watergate. not just for prolonging a war that a huge amount of americans were opposed to. nor for using the military to act like his own personal gestapo and bodyguards. nor for his paranoid fear of different people. but mainly for presiding over the country when the Controlled Substances Act was passed. that illegal bit of legislation can pull a state-contained 'drug' altercation into a federal crime, it encourages federal encroachment on free individuals, ignores article 2 sec 8 of the constitution, led the U.S. to waste millions (possibly billions) of dollars in an unendable 'war', all predicated on inaccurate information (perhaps flatout lies). in summary, tricky dick made it a federal crime for individuals to try psychotropic drugs. i mean, honestly, who gets hurt, besides each individual user? that law really bothers me sometimes (like when i'm not hi). i need a beer. now i'm even more angry. beer is legal, pot isn't? i'll stop now with my drug rant.
Greatest: Probably Washington... the only person in our US history that could have been King had he wanted to.
Worst: Carter, Clinton
Carter - not a bad guy, just a bit dim... however his administration was a complete leadership vaccum.
Clinton - the most morally bankrupt individual to ever hold the office. Interestingly enough, had he not been elected, he would have never received security clearance for the White House.... He was a gifted communicator, and a fairly strong leader, but his character was flawed beyond repair.
Generally Carter is discribed like a good man, but not a great president. The man have lost all credibility after the US hostages in US ambassady.
I think it's exagerate to say that Clinton was the worst president. US was in both economically and diplomaticaly in good shape under Clinton. He is not "white", but others former US presidents have also some black side issues.
Kennedy is a myth, but was probabily the biggest Casanova in US president history, he was also addictive to drugs (even if at that time, amphetamines wasn't truly considered this way) and his father was not clean at all, and made a lot of money during the prohibition.
His was also a strong man, with a lot of charisma, but was not an angel of virtue. His wife helped a lot for his popularity.
Nixon was a good politician, but he deserve the medal : what he did was a threat for democraty. He betrayed the republic and the democratia. This is much more an issue than some blow-jobs and some financial scandals (even if i blame any financial scandals).
Washington merit more than the medal of best president, he is the incarnation of the republic, and one of his fathers.
I'm [not really] surprised that so many people ignore Clinton being able to start in a shack in Arkansas but ultimately making it to President. One of those success stories some of you are touting as wonderful.
f 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.
Depends on which detainees you speak of. The ones taken as suspected terrorists aren't accorded the same rights as POWs. The ones taken from the battlefield in Afghanistan are POWs, and yes they do get protection, but I don't believe they are afforded a timely process as we think of it especially when there is still a ground war in Afghanistan. You don't release POWs so they can go back and start fighting you again.
As for the suspected terrorists, I suspect that the admin is trying to figure out how to deal with them appropriately w/o alarming too many.
The tribunals? The Constitution does not apply to people of other nationalities. If the International community is outragged then they will have a concensus on how to handle it in the future, otherwise each government gets to write the rules for procedure as they go along, just as long as it falls under the Geneva Convention.
Reagan: You're holding some really typical false ideas about Reagan. Here we go again: Gov't revenue went UP...(two fold) after his tax policies were implemented.
Actually, his ideas are right on target. The things you say are intentionally misleading. I don't know where you got them, but don't go there any more. First, government revenues went up three-fold during the 70's so who cares if they doubled in the 80's. Anyone can increase revenues if they have enough inflation. Second, for this purpose, one doesn't include all government revenues because that includes payroll taxes for social security and medicare. The appropriate measure, income taxes adjusted for inflation, rose by 17% during the 1980's. This is a very poor performance. Average increase is generally about 40%. The increase by about 60% in the 90's.
US military spending in the 1980's had very little to do with the fall of the Soviet Union. It does make for a nice story, though, doesn't it?
Best: Jefferson. Why? By Definition. He put together the american ideal. Nobody since has been a "better" American.
Worst: Wilson. And that's a heavy blow since I'm a Princeton fella. Why? Complete failure to understand and cherish the American ideal. Since his election I'd argue that America has lost a lot of it's spark.
Depends on which detainees you speak of. The ones taken as suspected terrorists aren't accorded the same rights as POWs. The ones taken from the battlefield in Afghanistan are POWs, and yes they do get protection,
None of the Guantanamo detainees have been afforded POW status or its accompanying rights. Nor have they been afforded criminal status or its accompanying rights. Assuming for the moment that no innocent bystanders have ended up there, there is nothing else that they can be. Captured soldiers are POWs. Captured terrorists are criminals.
Yes...legalised thuggery..It should REALLY BE BANNED.. from the Olympics....
Right. Consenting adults who volunteer to box shouldn't be allowed the right to play a violent sport. Consenting adults also shouldn't be allowed to sodomize eachother, ingest anything deemed unhealthy by the Powers That Be?, or watch anything deemed immoral or unwholesome.
Consenting adults need FEWER RIGHTS! Vote Bush/Cheney/Ashcroft 2004.
Right. Consenting adults who volunteer to box shouldn't be allowed the right to play a violent sport. Consenting adults also shouldn't be allowed to sodomize eachother, ingest anything deemed unhealthy by the Powers That Be?, or watch anything deemed immoral or unwholesome.
Consenting adults need FEWER RIGHTS! Vote Bush/Cheney/Ashcroft 2004.
But will I still be allowed to sodomize myself if I vote for them?
But will I still be allowed to sodomize myself if I vote for them?
No. People must be protected from themselves, hence no drugs, red meat, sodomy, or rock and roll. Remember, society is the real victim of any so-called "victimless" crime.
I see, only Bush/Cheney/Asscrack will be allowed to sodomize me.
Yes, but only metaphorically...well, unless they think you are a terrorist then they'll hold you indefinitely and sodomize you until you admit you are one whether it's true or not.
If Kennedy was the king of Camelot, then Clinton would have been Lancelot...& we all know how Lancelot fooled around with Queen Guenivere & the walls came tumbling down....
Actually, his ideas are right on target. The things you say are intentionally misleading. I don't know where you got them, but don't go there any more. First, government revenues went up three-fold during the 70's so who cares if they doubled in the 80's. Anyone can increase revenues if they have enough inflation. Second, for this purpose, one doesn't include all government revenues because that includes payroll taxes for social security and medicare. The appropriate measure, income taxes adjusted for inflation, rose by 17% during the 1980's. This is a very poor performance. Average increase is generally about 40%. The increase by about 60% in the 90's.
US military spending in the 1980's had very little to do with the fall of the Soviet Union. It does make for a nice story, though, doesn't it?
Apparently, you've missed the point.
Reagan proposed and signed dramatic and unprecedented tax cuts. Even after these cuts, revenues eventually doubled. Taxation and government revenue is not a zero sum game...which is my point. If you listen to the anti-tax cut crowd, they make it seem as if when one cuts taxes, one has that much less to spend. That's simply not true, because government revenue is tied to economic growth, which itself is aided by tax reductions. And BTW, we have to include all tax revenue because revenue...wait for it....was (and is) TIED TO ECONOMIC GROWTH...which lower taxes helped initiate.
Poor performance? There it is folks...a true believer. That kind of thinking is exactly the problem. Government revenue is not the singular GOAL of fiscal policy...it is the RESULT of said policy. The GOAL is increased economic activity. This kind of thinking, where everything is defined by how much revenue it will bring in, is the very definition tax and spend liberalism. Why call it a tax when we can call it a "revenue enhancement"? Or a fee? Or a surcharge? Anything to bring more money into the coffers! "Poor performance". My God!
And finally, military spending had EVERYTHING to do with the collapse of the Soviet Union. Reagan literally TOLD Gorbachev that the US "would never be outspent on defense". He then backed up those words. By doing this, he negotiated from a position of strength rather than weakness. Prior to Reagan, the Soviets had the diplomatic advantage, because they were seen as the dominant military power. Reagan changed this, and began to convince Gorbachev that our free market system could outspend them indefinitely, while still feeding our people at the same time.
The Soviet System did not collapse entirely on its own. Soviet Expansionism was an accepted fact during Carter's era. Not so with Reagan. These are historical facts of which, with all due respect, you are completely ignorant.
It is amazing that even AFTER Reagan's Cold War policies have been proven effective, liberals refuse to give him credit. During his administration, they called him an idiot, simpleton war monger. Yet, there was no WWIII. The Soviet system is no more. The Berlin wall is gone. The expansion of communism has been at least halted. But according to liberals, these events had everything to do with a complex set of geopoltical events set in motion my the Truman administration... and had nothing to do with Reagan going out in public, standing up to the Soviets and then backing up his word. History will judge Reagan (as it already is beginning to) as one of the greatest US Presidents.
And finally, military spending had EVERYTHING to do with the collapse of the Soviet Union. Reagan literally TOLD Gorbachev that the US "would never be outspent on defense". He then backed up those words. By doing this, he negotiated from a position of strength rather than weakness. Prior to Reagan, the Soviets had the diplomatic advantage, because they were seen as the dominant military power. Reagan changed this, and began to convince Gorbachev that our free market system could outspend them indefinitely, while still feeding our people at the same time.
The Soviet System did not collapse entirely on its own. .
Yes the competition for space and military power, accellerated, the collapse of a the soviet system who was inherently flawed. As you said the Soviets havent got the same amount of money to spend than US.
Yes the competition for space and military power, accellerated, the collapse of a the soviet system who was inherently flawed. As you said the Soviets havent got the same amount of money to spend than US.
That's right!
SDW, it's their system that failed. They weren't beaten back or anything like that. Their collapse was internal. The Soviets were deverting money from other places ( hence the long lines just to get a loaf of bread ) for more years than you've been alive. Finally their economic structure failed. Reagan didn't really have anything to do with it anymore than any other american president.
It is amazing that even AFTER Reagan's Cold War policies have been proven effective, liberals refuse to give him credit.
[snip: revisionist nonsense.]
History will judge Reagan (as it already is beginning to) as one of the greatest US Presidents.
And I suppose that Reagan was responsible for the near-simultaneous revolutions in East Germany and Czechoslovakia and the unbanning of the African National Congress and the release of Nelson Mandela, too.
The idea that Reagan's foreign policy had more influence on the political climate of the Soviet Union than the legacy of Stalinist oppression, the death of Andropov, the influence of the cabinet appointed by Gorbachev and his policies of perestroika and glasnost is... well, it's balderdash.
History's not "beginning" to judge Reagan as anything other than the old fool who dyed his hair, cracked jokes about nuclear holocaust on national TV and happened to be around when the people of the Soviet Union took power back to themselves, I'd say.
Or as the guy whose administration sold arms to a fundamentalist Islamic theocracy, against a specific election pledge, and then gave the money to a South American terrorist organisation, went on TV to deny it in his own lie-through-your-teeth Monica Lewinsky moment and then had half a dozen senior members of his governments indicted in court, of course. History might might remember the Gipper like that: as the President who either didn't know what his own cabinet were doing or approved some of the vilest, most hypocritical foreign policy in the history of the American presidency. Reagan: Not ONLY a GRATE man but A GRATE PRESDIENT TOO> Whatever Anne COULTER SAYS.
Comments
my favorite president was Jefferson. i liked how he was a revered statesman, wrote (cowrote?) the Declaration of Independance, and cowrote the Constitution. During his presidency he tried to stick to a strict reading of the constitution, because thats how he intended it to be used when he cowrote it. The federal government, under his and many of the coauthors' plan, was to be a very limited body, which was supposed to only deal with issues relating to the several states. with a limited government, we wouldn't have a lot of the problems we have now. and we wouldn't be wasting money on stupid shit. i think space exploration is really cool, but why the fvck is it a government institution. Plus Jefferson grew pot. Gotta love a president who did that.
i think nixon was the worst president. not just for watergate. not just for prolonging a war that a huge amount of americans were opposed to. nor for using the military to act like his own personal gestapo and bodyguards. nor for his paranoid fear of different people. but mainly for presiding over the country when the Controlled Substances Act was passed. that illegal bit of legislation can pull a state-contained 'drug' altercation into a federal crime, it encourages federal encroachment on free individuals, ignores article 2 sec 8 of the constitution, led the U.S. to waste millions (possibly billions) of dollars in an unendable 'war', all predicated on inaccurate information (perhaps flatout lies). in summary, tricky dick made it a federal crime for individuals to try psychotropic drugs. i mean, honestly, who gets hurt, besides each individual user? that law really bothers me sometimes (like when i'm not hi). i need a beer. now i'm even more angry. beer is legal, pot isn't? i'll stop now with my drug rant.
Worst: Carter, Clinton
Carter - not a bad guy, just a bit dim... however his administration was a complete leadership vaccum.
Clinton - the most morally bankrupt individual to ever hold the office. Interestingly enough, had he not been elected, he would have never received security clearance for the White House.... He was a gifted communicator, and a fairly strong leader, but his character was flawed beyond repair.
I think it's exagerate to say that Clinton was the worst president. US was in both economically and diplomaticaly in good shape under Clinton. He is not "white", but others former US presidents have also some black side issues.
Kennedy is a myth, but was probabily the biggest Casanova in US president history, he was also addictive to drugs (even if at that time, amphetamines wasn't truly considered this way) and his father was not clean at all, and made a lot of money during the prohibition.
His was also a strong man, with a lot of charisma, but was not an angel of virtue. His wife helped a lot for his popularity.
Nixon was a good politician, but he deserve the medal : what he did was a threat for democraty. He betrayed the republic and the democratia. This is much more an issue than some blow-jobs and some financial scandals (even if i blame any financial scandals).
Washington merit more than the medal of best president, he is the incarnation of the republic, and one of his fathers.
f 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.
Depends on which detainees you speak of. The ones taken as suspected terrorists aren't accorded the same rights as POWs. The ones taken from the battlefield in Afghanistan are POWs, and yes they do get protection, but I don't believe they are afforded a timely process as we think of it especially when there is still a ground war in Afghanistan. You don't release POWs so they can go back and start fighting you again.
As for the suspected terrorists, I suspect that the admin is trying to figure out how to deal with them appropriately w/o alarming too many.
The tribunals? The Constitution does not apply to people of other nationalities. If the International community is outragged then they will have a concensus on how to handle it in the future, otherwise each government gets to write the rules for procedure as they go along, just as long as it falls under the Geneva Convention.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Reagan: You're holding some really typical false ideas about Reagan. Here we go again: Gov't revenue went UP...(two fold) after his tax policies were implemented.
Actually, his ideas are right on target. The things you say are intentionally misleading. I don't know where you got them, but don't go there any more. First, government revenues went up three-fold during the 70's so who cares if they doubled in the 80's. Anyone can increase revenues if they have enough inflation. Second, for this purpose, one doesn't include all government revenues because that includes payroll taxes for social security and medicare. The appropriate measure, income taxes adjusted for inflation, rose by 17% during the 1980's. This is a very poor performance. Average increase is generally about 40%. The increase by about 60% in the 90's.
US military spending in the 1980's had very little to do with the fall of the Soviet Union. It does make for a nice story, though, doesn't it?
Best: Jefferson. Why? By Definition. He put together the american ideal. Nobody since has been a "better" American.
Worst: Wilson. And that's a heavy blow since I'm a Princeton fella. Why? Complete failure to understand and cherish the American ideal. Since his election I'd argue that America has lost a lot of it's spark.
Originally posted by LiquidR
Depends on which detainees you speak of. The ones taken as suspected terrorists aren't accorded the same rights as POWs. The ones taken from the battlefield in Afghanistan are POWs, and yes they do get protection,
None of the Guantanamo detainees have been afforded POW status or its accompanying rights. Nor have they been afforded criminal status or its accompanying rights. Assuming for the moment that no innocent bystanders have ended up there, there is nothing else that they can be. Captured soldiers are POWs. Captured terrorists are criminals.
Originally posted by aquafire
Yes...legalised thuggery..It should REALLY BE BANNED.. from the Olympics....
Right. Consenting adults who volunteer to box shouldn't be allowed the right to play a violent sport. Consenting adults also shouldn't be allowed to sodomize eachother, ingest anything deemed unhealthy by the Powers That Be?, or watch anything deemed immoral or unwholesome.
Consenting adults need FEWER RIGHTS! Vote Bush/Cheney/Ashcroft 2004.
Originally posted by BR
Right. Consenting adults who volunteer to box shouldn't be allowed the right to play a violent sport. Consenting adults also shouldn't be allowed to sodomize eachother, ingest anything deemed unhealthy by the Powers That Be?, or watch anything deemed immoral or unwholesome.
Consenting adults need FEWER RIGHTS! Vote Bush/Cheney/Ashcroft 2004.
But will I still be allowed to sodomize myself if I vote for them?
Originally posted by der Kopf
But will I still be allowed to sodomize myself if I vote for them?
No. People must be protected from themselves, hence no drugs, red meat, sodomy, or rock and roll. Remember, society is the real victim of any so-called "victimless" crime.
Originally posted by der Kopf
I see, only Bush/Cheney/Asscrack will be allowed to sodomize me.
Yes, but only metaphorically...well, unless they think you are a terrorist then they'll hold you indefinitely and sodomize you until you admit you are one whether it's true or not.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Kennedy is a myth
yes and refering back to my point :
If Kennedy was the king of Camelot, then Clinton would have been Lancelot...& we all know how Lancelot fooled around with Queen Guenivere & the walls came tumbling down....
next time take your little love fest elsewhere like AIM or something. Don't need you bickering to each other about who knows what.
Originally posted by Sammy Davis
Actually, his ideas are right on target. The things you say are intentionally misleading. I don't know where you got them, but don't go there any more. First, government revenues went up three-fold during the 70's so who cares if they doubled in the 80's. Anyone can increase revenues if they have enough inflation. Second, for this purpose, one doesn't include all government revenues because that includes payroll taxes for social security and medicare. The appropriate measure, income taxes adjusted for inflation, rose by 17% during the 1980's. This is a very poor performance. Average increase is generally about 40%. The increase by about 60% in the 90's.
US military spending in the 1980's had very little to do with the fall of the Soviet Union. It does make for a nice story, though, doesn't it?
Apparently, you've missed the point.
Reagan proposed and signed dramatic and unprecedented tax cuts. Even after these cuts, revenues eventually doubled. Taxation and government revenue is not a zero sum game...which is my point. If you listen to the anti-tax cut crowd, they make it seem as if when one cuts taxes, one has that much less to spend. That's simply not true, because government revenue is tied to economic growth, which itself is aided by tax reductions. And BTW, we have to include all tax revenue because revenue...wait for it....was (and is) TIED TO ECONOMIC GROWTH...which lower taxes helped initiate.
Poor performance? There it is folks...a true believer. That kind of thinking is exactly the problem. Government revenue is not the singular GOAL of fiscal policy...it is the RESULT of said policy. The GOAL is increased economic activity. This kind of thinking, where everything is defined by how much revenue it will bring in, is the very definition tax and spend liberalism. Why call it a tax when we can call it a "revenue enhancement"? Or a fee? Or a surcharge? Anything to bring more money into the coffers! "Poor performance". My God!
And finally, military spending had EVERYTHING to do with the collapse of the Soviet Union. Reagan literally TOLD Gorbachev that the US "would never be outspent on defense". He then backed up those words. By doing this, he negotiated from a position of strength rather than weakness. Prior to Reagan, the Soviets had the diplomatic advantage, because they were seen as the dominant military power. Reagan changed this, and began to convince Gorbachev that our free market system could outspend them indefinitely, while still feeding our people at the same time.
The Soviet System did not collapse entirely on its own. Soviet Expansionism was an accepted fact during Carter's era. Not so with Reagan. These are historical facts of which, with all due respect, you are completely ignorant.
It is amazing that even AFTER Reagan's Cold War policies have been proven effective, liberals refuse to give him credit. During his administration, they called him an idiot, simpleton war monger. Yet, there was no WWIII. The Soviet system is no more. The Berlin wall is gone. The expansion of communism has been at least halted. But according to liberals, these events had everything to do with a complex set of geopoltical events set in motion my the Truman administration... and had nothing to do with Reagan going out in public, standing up to the Soviets and then backing up his word. History will judge Reagan (as it already is beginning to) as one of the greatest US Presidents.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Apparently, you've missed the point.
And finally, military spending had EVERYTHING to do with the collapse of the Soviet Union. Reagan literally TOLD Gorbachev that the US "would never be outspent on defense". He then backed up those words. By doing this, he negotiated from a position of strength rather than weakness. Prior to Reagan, the Soviets had the diplomatic advantage, because they were seen as the dominant military power. Reagan changed this, and began to convince Gorbachev that our free market system could outspend them indefinitely, while still feeding our people at the same time.
The Soviet System did not collapse entirely on its own. .
Yes the competition for space and military power, accellerated, the collapse of a the soviet system who was inherently flawed. As you said the Soviets havent got the same amount of money to spend than US.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Yes the competition for space and military power, accellerated, the collapse of a the soviet system who was inherently flawed. As you said the Soviets havent got the same amount of money to spend than US.
That's right!
SDW, it's their system that failed. They weren't beaten back or anything like that. Their collapse was internal. The Soviets were deverting money from other places ( hence the long lines just to get a loaf of bread ) for more years than you've been alive. Finally their economic structure failed. Reagan didn't really have anything to do with it anymore than any other american president.
Originally posted by SDW2001
It is amazing that even AFTER Reagan's Cold War policies have been proven effective, liberals refuse to give him credit.
[snip: revisionist nonsense.]
History will judge Reagan (as it already is beginning to) as one of the greatest US Presidents.
And I suppose that Reagan was responsible for the near-simultaneous revolutions in East Germany and Czechoslovakia and the unbanning of the African National Congress and the release of Nelson Mandela, too.
The idea that Reagan's foreign policy had more influence on the political climate of the Soviet Union than the legacy of Stalinist oppression, the death of Andropov, the influence of the cabinet appointed by Gorbachev and his policies of perestroika and glasnost is... well, it's balderdash.
History's not "beginning" to judge Reagan as anything other than the old fool who dyed his hair, cracked jokes about nuclear holocaust on national TV and happened to be around when the people of the Soviet Union took power back to themselves, I'd say.