| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Epignosis 
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32581
|
 Posted: October 12 2008 at 19:59 |
|
I'll quietly go back to "Prog Polls" now...
|
 |
Failcore
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 27 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 4625
|
Posted: October 10 2008 at 14:28 |
Epignosis, you are saving the IQ of the internet one post at a time. ++ for you! 
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32581
|
Posted: October 10 2008 at 13:51 |
 ClemofNazareth wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
ClemofNazareth wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
ClemofNazareth wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Not that I'm defending him, but I'm pretty sure we've had way lousier presidents than Bush #2. Face it- it's popular to be "anti-Bush" (especially among young people), but saying he's the WORST president might betray any knowledge of US history some people claim to have.
Franklin Pierce, anyone?
|
I agree Bush-bashing is popular these days, but it's hard to ignore the fact that he has the worst approval rating of any president in the history of tracking approval ratings - how can tens of millions of people all be wrong?
More importantly, Pierce's poor legacy is largely a reflection of him being a drunken ass who alienated large portions of the American populace, and at a time when the nation was deeply divided internally. Grant was a pretty lousy president as well, and for some of the same reasons.
But Bush's ineptitude rises to new levels because the damage he and his ilk have done go far, far beyond our own borders. He has left his stain on many other parts of the world, and in doing so has shamed our nation on an international stage. Pierce (and pretty much all presidents prior to WWII) never had the power or the reach to make such a broad impact.
|
Hey friend-
Tens of millions of people voted for Bush. Remember, I'm not defending him here, just pointing out some US history (since I enjoy history). Bush only has more effect on the world due to the era he lives in. Had other US Presidents lived in this time, what unpopular choices would they have made?
How about Andrew "I don't think blacks deserve rights" Jackson?" Kanye West could have made some defensible accusations against this guy.
|
Yes, roughly 53,000,000 people voted for him, but in a country of more than 300,000,000 I wouldn't call that a ringing endorsement of support.
Anyway, your point that Bush has had more opportunity to make more impactful bad decisions only because of the time he lives in might be true, but it is kind of irrelevant. Jackson, Grant, Johnson and possibly others would have been worse presidents were they serving today, but the fact is they aren't (and can't) serve today, so the point is rather moot. Really, under that rationale Kennedy would likely have been the worst since in today's world the Bay of Pigs would undoubtedly have been much more catastrophic than it turned out to be then.
|
I was merely countering your statement that "tens of millions" of people can't be wrong. Listen- if it's popular nowadays to be anti-Bush, then it likely follows that Bush will have a low approval rating. Most people I know or encounter are ignorant of what's going on in our own state, let alone the country or rest of the world, merely basing their opinions about a headline they skimmed over or the snippet of news they heard in the break room. Not all, just the majority of the people I know. When I have to explain to someone that the President isn't a dictator (in that the position does not confer ultimate power over the affairs of the country, and that Bush doesn't control gas prices), or explain the difference between the branches of government or explain very basic tenets of the Constitution, I take it with a grain of salt when they say "Bush is the worst President we've ever had." Usually I can put their claim to rest by just saying, "Really? Name ten other US Presidents."
Therefore, I put absolutely no stock in "approval ratings."
Also, you mentioned that our country has 300 million people, so 53,000,000 votes doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement of support- that claim doesn't stand up to scrutiny. How many people in our country are minors, who can't vote? Or convicted felons? Or just don't vote because they don't want to?
I can see what you mean in your third paragraph, though, but how do we judge the crappiness of a President? Do we do it according to the context of his situation, or acknowledge that the cards are stacked against more recent Presidents because the world is bigger and there are just more problems to contend with?
By the way, I disagree that Presidents prior to WWII never had the power to make a broad, foreign impact. Both Roosevelts are prime examples of this. James K. Polk "lied to Congress" to go to war with Mexico to take over land, just to name a few examples, for better or for worse.
|
We'll have to start color-coding if this keeps up  .
Or possibly Bush-bashing is popular because he has low public approval. Hard to say really. And yes, there are a lot of ignorant (or at least ill-informed) people running around exercising their right to free speech - that's an unavoidable by-product of the social compact we signed up for a long time ago. On the other hand, perception is reality (at least for the person who is doing the perceiving), and a whole lot of any politician's 'worth' to the public is based on our perception of that person, which is why politicians have publicists, public relations advisors, image consultants, etc. etc.
You're right about the fact that many of the 250,000,000 people who didn't vote for Bush are people who can't vote anyway (and I was wrong - 62M voted for Bush). Look at it this way though: over 60,000,000 people who did show and and vote cast their votes against him. Still not a show of strong public support. And millions who could have voted didn't. It's easy to dismiss them by saying they had a chance for a voice and forfeited it by not going to the polls (and I would agree for the most part), but even that is not so simple. In many states and voting districts provisional and absentee ballots are not counted unless they are deemed to be 'needed' to determine an outcome. And of course as we learned in 2000 there is always 'spoilage' (i.e., ballots that are disqualified for whatever reason). So some unknown number of voters did show up and their votes didn't count anyway. Also, I think you really have to ask the question as to why so many people choose to stop participating in the process. I liken that to our statistics on unemployment; we have a published rate of unemployment, but it does not include people who have given up trying to be employed. Our numbers look better by not counting them, but they're still out there. Shouldn't we care why? But that's wandering off-topic a bit.
I think on the question of how one judges a president's (or anyone's) performance and legacy, you have to base your assessment off their actual performance in the arena they operated under. Otherwise it's just a meaningless intellectual debate. Would Napoleon have been as great a military leader in Vietnam in the 60s? Would Thatcher have had the same legacy if she were leading South Africa in the 70s? How can we ever know?
Last comment on the WWII thing: the point I was trying to make is that the stakes are higher when U.S. administrations engage in world affairs today, much more so than before that war. Prior to that the U.S. had no real claim to being a significant 'world power'; afterwards they did (for better or worse). Polk attacking Mexico meant little or nothing to folks outside our continent; Bush attacking Iraq has had world-wide implications that have impacted billions of people in various ways. The rise of the global economy exacerbates the impact of poor policy as well; look at the current house of economic cards (although the Iranian embargo of the late 70s is another example). All I'm suggesting is that with the effective shrinking distances of borders due to technology and commerce, the stakes are higher when it comes to bad policy and bad behavior by a U.S. president (or any other world leader for that matter).
|
You know, Bob, incidentally, I agree with just about everything you've said in this most recent post. I disagree with a few minor points, but for the most part you and I see eye to eye here. I am cynical about the election process (although I still plan on voting), and I agree it is pointless to talk about political leaders in different situations (like talking about how different a given progressive rock band would sound if they had a different lineup  )
I must, however, take issue with "perception = reality." There are plenty of people in mental hospitals for whom the little green men under their beds are real- but that doesn't mean we have to take them seriously. Politically, people don't take everything into consideration (we really can't), but many do not even try to gather as much information as they can before making a judgment. That's my whole point about US politics- lack of information or misinformation driving voters' consciences- and the Internet age has only made things worse in that respect.
The media has been playing tricks for years, like using a huge headline, but tacking a question mark on the end- George W. Bush Slept With Michael Jackson? for example. Sometimes busy people catch the headline, but don't read or process the article (or better yet, question it). When the subject comes up in conversation later that week or that month, it might very well sound like this:
"So George W. Bush was on TV yesterday, and..."
"George W. Bush? Isn't he the guy that slept with Michael Jackson?"
And so misinformation spreads. It's just one of many techniques.
So how much "awfulness" can be attributed to Bush and how much can be attributed to other factors? Again, I'm not defending Bush, but from my experience, people treat the President as a convenient scapegoat for anything and everything that goes wrong. I just wonder how much of Bush's foreign policy was based on faulty military intelligence or other forms of bad information? All I am proposing is that before people claim "Bush is the worst," they might want to judge themselves- how would I act in Bush's situation? Heck, right after 9/11, lots of people were ready to jump out of their seats to go to war (I lived just outside of Fort Bragg at the time). And Bush's approval rating then? A whopping 86%. Apparently people thought Bush was doing the right thing by going to war at the time. Now it's popular to be against having gone to war. It seems that voters don't have to be responsible for the outcome of their opinions, and are free to change their minds at any time, and without repercussion.
This is another thing I don't get (remember, as an English teacher I engaged my students in political discussion from time to time, especially if someone made a bold assertion I was not certain they could back up): Some folks paint Bush as a moron- he's fairly inarticulate, he doesn't always do a decent job of getting his point across, and he seems mildly incompetent; yet in the same breath, claim that he is some criminal mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks, some sort of villain who orchestrated and manipulated events to go to war. Is it just me, or do these two characters seem at odds, or are the people who make these claims disingenuous at best?
One more thought your post brought up in my mind regarding the number of people voting is this: If you want to claim that Bush did not receive strong support from his country at election time in 2004, you would have to concede that no candidate has received strong support from his country at election time since perhaps Nixon over McGovern in 1972 (60.1% of the popular vote).
Sorry for the extended post. My intention was to be brief, but I kept thinking of things to say.  Go ahead and tear me apart.
|
|
ClemofNazareth
Special Collaborator
Prog Folk Researcher
Joined: August 17 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4659
|
Posted: October 10 2008 at 13:04 |
Epignosis wrote:
ClemofNazareth wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
ClemofNazareth wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Not that I'm defending him, but I'm pretty sure we've had way lousier presidents than Bush #2. Face it- it's popular to be "anti-Bush" (especially among young people), but saying he's the WORST president might betray any knowledge of US history some people claim to have.
Franklin Pierce, anyone?
|
I agree Bush-bashing is popular these days, but it's hard to ignore the fact that he has the worst approval rating of any president in the history of tracking approval ratings - how can tens of millions of people all be wrong?
More importantly, Pierce's poor legacy is largely a reflection of him being a drunken ass who alienated large portions of the American populace, and at a time when the nation was deeply divided internally. Grant was a pretty lousy president as well, and for some of the same reasons.
But Bush's ineptitude rises to new levels because the damage he and his ilk have done go far, far beyond our own borders. He has left his stain on many other parts of the world, and in doing so has shamed our nation on an international stage. Pierce (and pretty much all presidents prior to WWII) never had the power or the reach to make such a broad impact.
|
Hey friend-
Tens of millions of people voted for Bush. Remember, I'm not defending him here, just pointing out some US history (since I enjoy history). Bush only has more effect on the world due to the era he lives in. Had other US Presidents lived in this time, what unpopular choices would they have made?
How about Andrew "I don't think blacks deserve rights" Jackson?" Kanye West could have made some defensible accusations against this guy.
|
Yes, roughly 53,000,000 people voted for him, but in a country of more than 300,000,000 I wouldn't call that a ringing endorsement of support.
Anyway, your point that Bush has had more opportunity to make more impactful bad decisions only because of the time he lives in might be true, but it is kind of irrelevant. Jackson, Grant, Johnson and possibly others would have been worse presidents were they serving today, but the fact is they aren't (and can't) serve today, so the point is rather moot. Really, under that rationale Kennedy would likely have been the worst since in today's world the Bay of Pigs would undoubtedly have been much more catastrophic than it turned out to be then.
|
I was merely countering your statement that "tens of millions" of people can't be wrong. Listen- if it's popular nowadays to be anti-Bush, then it likely follows that Bush will have a low approval rating. Most people I know or encounter are ignorant of what's going on in our own state, let alone the country or rest of the world, merely basing their opinions about a headline they skimmed over or the snippet of news they heard in the break room. Not all, just the majority of the people I know. When I have to explain to someone that the President isn't a dictator (in that the position does not confer ultimate power over the affairs of the country, and that Bush doesn't control gas prices), or explain the difference between the branches of government or explain very basic tenets of the Constitution, I take it with a grain of salt when they say "Bush is the worst President we've ever had." Usually I can put their claim to rest by just saying, "Really? Name ten other US Presidents."
Therefore, I put absolutely no stock in "approval ratings."
Also, you mentioned that our country has 300 million people, so 53,000,000 votes doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement of support- that claim doesn't stand up to scrutiny. How many people in our country are minors, who can't vote? Or convicted felons? Or just don't vote because they don't want to?
I can see what you mean in your third paragraph, though, but how do we judge the crappiness of a President? Do we do it according to the context of his situation, or acknowledge that the cards are stacked against more recent Presidents because the world is bigger and there are just more problems to contend with?
By the way, I disagree that Presidents prior to WWII never had the power to make a broad, foreign impact. Both Roosevelts are prime examples of this. James K. Polk "lied to Congress" to go to war with Mexico to take over land, just to name a few examples, for better or for worse.
|
We'll have to start color-coding if this keeps up .
Or possibly Bush-bashing is popular because he has low public approval. Hard to say really. And yes, there are a lot of ignorant (or at least ill-informed) people running around exercising their right to free speech - that's an unavoidable by-product of the social compact we signed up for a long time ago. On the other hand, perception is reality (at least for the person who is doing the perceiving), and a whole lot of any politician's 'worth' to the public is based on our perception of that person, which is why politicians have publicists, public relations advisors, image consultants, etc. etc.
You're right about the fact that many of the 250,000,000 people who didn't vote for Bush are people who can't vote anyway (and I was wrong - 62M voted for Bush). Look at it this way though: over 60,000,000 people who did show and and vote cast their votes against him. Still not a show of strong public support. And millions who could have voted didn't. It's easy to dismiss them by saying they had a chance for a voice and forfeited it by not going to the polls (and I would agree for the most part), but even that is not so simple. In many states and voting districts provisional and absentee ballots are not counted unless they are deemed to be 'needed' to determine an outcome. And of course as we learned in 2000 there is always 'spoilage' (i.e., ballots that are disqualified for whatever reason). So some unknown number of voters did show up and their votes didn't count anyway. Also, I think you really have to ask the question as to why so many people choose to stop participating in the process. I liken that to our statistics on unemployment; we have a published rate of unemployment, but it does not include people who have given up trying to be employed. Our numbers look better by not counting them, but they're still out there. Shouldn't we care why? But that's wandering off-topic a bit.
I think on the question of how one judges a president's (or anyone's) performance and legacy, you have to base your assessment off their actual performance in the arena they operated under. Otherwise it's just a meaningless intellectual debate. Would Napoleon have been as great a military leader in Vietnam in the 60s? Would Thatcher have had the same legacy if she were leading South Africa in the 70s? How can we ever know?
Last comment on the WWII thing: the point I was trying to make is that the stakes are higher when U.S. administrations engage in world affairs today, much more so than before that war. Prior to that the U.S. had no real claim to being a significant 'world power'; afterwards they did (for better or worse). Polk attacking Mexico meant little or nothing to folks outside our continent; Bush attacking Iraq has had world-wide implications that have impacted billions of people in various ways. The rise of the global economy exacerbates the impact of poor policy as well; look at the current house of economic cards (although the Iranian embargo of the late 70s is another example). All I'm suggesting is that with the effective shrinking distances of borders due to technology and commerce, the stakes are higher when it comes to bad policy and bad behavior by a U.S. president (or any other world leader for that matter).
|
|
"Peace is the only battle worth waging."
Albert Camus
|
|
Slartibartfast
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
|
Posted: October 10 2008 at 10:09 |
|
|
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32581
|
Posted: October 10 2008 at 09:44 |
ClemofNazareth wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
ClemofNazareth wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Not that I'm defending him, but I'm pretty sure we've had way lousier presidents than Bush #2. Face it- it's popular to be "anti-Bush" (especially among young people), but saying he's the WORST president might betray any knowledge of US history some people claim to have.
Franklin Pierce, anyone?
|
I agree Bush-bashing is popular these days, but it's hard to ignore the fact that he has the worst approval rating of any president in the history of tracking approval ratings - how can tens of millions of people all be wrong?
More importantly, Pierce's poor legacy is largely a reflection of him being a drunken ass who alienated large portions of the American populace, and at a time when the nation was deeply divided internally. Grant was a pretty lousy president as well, and for some of the same reasons.
But Bush's ineptitude rises to new levels because the damage he and his ilk have done go far, far beyond our own borders. He has left his stain on many other parts of the world, and in doing so has shamed our nation on an international stage. Pierce (and pretty much all presidents prior to WWII) never had the power or the reach to make such a broad impact.
|
Hey friend-
Tens of millions of people voted for Bush. Remember, I'm not defending him here, just pointing out some US history (since I enjoy history). Bush only has more effect on the world due to the era he lives in. Had other US Presidents lived in this time, what unpopular choices would they have made?
How about Andrew "I don't think blacks deserve rights" Jackson?" Kanye West could have made some defensible accusations against this guy.
|
Yes, roughly 53,000,000 people voted for him, but in a country of more than 300,000,000 I wouldn't call that a ringing endorsement of support. Anyway, your point that Bush has had more opportunity to make more impactful bad decisions only because of the time he lives in might be true, but it is kind of irrelevant. Jackson, Grant, Johnson and possibly others would have been worse presidents were they serving today, but the fact is they aren't (and can't) serve today, so the point is rather moot. Really, under that rationale Kennedy would likely have been the worst since in today's world the Bay of Pigs would undoubtedly have been much more catastrophic than it turned out to be then. |
I was merely countering your statement that "tens of millions" of people can't be wrong. Listen- if it's popular nowadays to be anti-Bush, then it likely follows that Bush will have a low approval rating. Most people I know or encounter are ignorant of what's going on in our own state, let alone the country or rest of the world, merely basing their opinions about a headline they skimmed over or the snippet of news they heard in the break room. Not all, just the majority of the people I know. When I have to explain to someone that the President isn't a dictator (in that the position does not confer ultimate power over the affairs of the country, and that Bush doesn't control gas prices), or explain the difference between the branches of government or explain very basic tenets of the Constitution, I take it with a grain of salt when they say "Bush is the worst President we've ever had." Usually I can put their claim to rest by just saying, "Really? Name ten other US Presidents."
Therefore, I put absolutely no stock in "approval ratings."
Also, you mentioned that our country has 300 million people, so 53,000,000 votes doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement of support- that claim doesn't stand up to scrutiny. How many people in our country are minors, who can't vote? Or convicted felons? Or just don't vote because they don't want to?
I can see what you mean in your third paragraph, though, but how do we judge the crappiness of a President? Do we do it according to the context of his situation, or acknowledge that the cards are stacked against more recent Presidents because the world is bigger and there are just more problems to contend with?
By the way, I disagree that Presidents prior to WWII never had the power to make a broad, foreign impact. Both Roosevelts are prime examples of this. James K. Polk "lied to Congress" to go to war with Mexico to take over land, just to name a few examples, for better or for worse.
|
|
ClemofNazareth
Special Collaborator
Prog Folk Researcher
Joined: August 17 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4659
|
Posted: October 10 2008 at 00:47 |
Epignosis wrote:
ClemofNazareth wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Not that I'm defending him, but I'm pretty sure we've had way lousier presidents than Bush #2. Face it- it's popular to be "anti-Bush" (especially among young people), but saying he's the WORST president might betray any knowledge of US history some people claim to have.
Franklin Pierce, anyone?
|
I agree Bush-bashing is popular these days, but it's hard to ignore the fact that he has the worst approval rating of any president in the history of tracking approval ratings - how can tens of millions of people all be wrong?
More importantly, Pierce's poor legacy is largely a reflection of him being a drunken ass who alienated large portions of the American populace, and at a time when the nation was deeply divided internally. Grant was a pretty lousy president as well, and for some of the same reasons.
But Bush's ineptitude rises to new levels because the damage he and his ilk have done go far, far beyond our own borders. He has left his stain on many other parts of the world, and in doing so has shamed our nation on an international stage. Pierce (and pretty much all presidents prior to WWII) never had the power or the reach to make such a broad impact.
|
Hey friend-
Tens of millions of people voted for Bush. Remember, I'm not defending him here, just pointing out some US history (since I enjoy history). Bush only has more effect on the world due to the era he lives in. Had other US Presidents lived in this time, what unpopular choices would they have made?
How about Andrew "I don't think blacks deserve rights" Jackson?" Kanye West could have made some defensible accusations against this guy.
|
Yes, roughly 53,000,000 people voted for him, but in a country of more than 300,000,000 I wouldn't call that a ringing endorsement of support. Anyway, your point that Bush has had more opportunity to make more impactful bad decisions only because of the time he lives in might be true, but it is kind of irrelevant. Jackson, Grant, Johnson and possibly others would have been worse presidents were they serving today, but the fact is they aren't (and can't) serve today, so the point is rather moot. Really, under that rationale Kennedy would likely have been the worst since in today's world the Bay of Pigs would undoubtedly have been much more catastrophic than it turned out to be then.
|
|
"Peace is the only battle worth waging."
Albert Camus
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32581
|
Posted: October 09 2008 at 19:56 |
ClemofNazareth wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Not that I'm defending him, but I'm pretty sure we've had way lousier presidents than Bush #2. Face it- it's popular to be "anti-Bush" (especially among young people), but saying he's the WORST president might betray any knowledge of US history some people claim to have.
Franklin Pierce, anyone?
|
I agree Bush-bashing is popular these days, but it's hard to ignore the fact that he has the worst approval rating of any president in the history of tracking approval ratings - how can tens of millions of people all be wrong?
More importantly, Pierce's poor legacy is largely a reflection of him being a drunken ass who alienated large portions of the American populace, and at a time when the nation was deeply divided internally. Grant was a pretty lousy president as well, and for some of the same reasons.
But Bush's ineptitude rises to new levels because the damage he and his ilk have done go far, far beyond our own borders. He has left his stain on many other parts of the world, and in doing so has shamed our nation on an international stage. Pierce (and pretty much all presidents prior to WWII) never had the power or the reach to make such a broad impact.
|
Hey friend- Tens of millions of people voted for Bush. Remember, I'm not defending him here, just pointing out some US history (since I enjoy history). Bush only has more effect on the world due to the era he lives in. Had other US Presidents lived in this time, what unpopular choices would they have made? How about Andrew "I don't think blacks deserve rights" Jackson?" Kanye West could have made some defensible accusations against this guy.
Edited by Epignosis - October 09 2008 at 19:57
|
|
ClemofNazareth
Special Collaborator
Prog Folk Researcher
Joined: August 17 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4659
|
Posted: October 09 2008 at 18:17 |
Epignosis wrote:
Not that I'm defending him, but I'm pretty sure we've had way lousier presidents than Bush #2. Face it- it's popular to be "anti-Bush" (especially among young people), but saying he's the WORST president might betray any knowledge of US history some people claim to have.
Franklin Pierce, anyone?
|
I agree Bush-bashing is popular these days, but it's hard to ignore the fact that he has the worst approval rating of any president in the history of tracking approval ratings - how can tens of millions of people all be wrong?
More importantly, Pierce's poor legacy is largely a reflection of him being a drunken ass who alienated large portions of the American populace, and at a time when the nation was deeply divided internally. Grant was a pretty lousy president as well, and for some of the same reasons.
But Bush's ineptitude rises to new levels because the damage he and his ilk have done go far, far beyond our own borders. He has left his stain on many other parts of the world, and in doing so has shamed our nation on an international stage. Pierce (and pretty much all presidents prior to WWII) never had the power or the reach to make such a broad impact.
|
|
"Peace is the only battle worth waging."
Albert Camus
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32581
|
Posted: October 09 2008 at 14:10 |
|
Not that I'm defending him, but I'm pretty sure we've had way lousier presidents than Bush #2. Face it- it's popular to be "anti-Bush" (especially among young people), but saying he's the WORST president might betray any knowledge of US history some people claim to have.
Franklin Pierce, anyone?
|
|
npjnpj
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 05 2007
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 2720
|
Posted: October 06 2008 at 03:37 |
Moved to thread:
"$700 billion from us to save the banks. Good?"
Edited by npjnpj - October 06 2008 at 04:00
|
|
Tapfret
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin
Joined: August 12 2007
Location: Bryant, Wa
Status: Offline
Points: 8634
|
Posted: October 05 2008 at 16:53 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
(snip)- The people of Cuba: People in that beautifuk country, don't deserve the suffering they had for soi many years, most surely if Fidel had been overthroned long time ago, the situation would be normal for people there.
|
Great idea, because since WWII the U.S. track record for removing despots (either directly or behind the scenes) and replacing them with great leaders is flawless. Maybe we could have supplied Cuba with a Noriega, Pinochet or Hussain.
|
|
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
Posted: October 05 2008 at 12:31 |
tszirmay wrote:
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
I don't believe Nixon was catastrophic before Watergate.
I believe Kennedy was worst than Nixon.
Iván
|
What do you dislike so much about JFK? Just curious (I am no fan of US politicos) = all vasura as far as i am concerned |
I replied to that same question some posts above Tszirmay:
Atavachron wrote:
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Atavachron wrote:
I think it's pretty obvious GWB is the most disastrous president we've ever had, at least in the last few generations ..Ivan I'm curious; is your reference to Kennedy in regard to Viet Nam or the Missile Crisis?
|
Who started Vietnam?
Who was responsible of Bay of Pigs?
Iván |
gotcha, just curious
|
If you add to this that Kennedy is responsible of the Cuba situation untoil today, it makes thing even worst, not for USA, but for other countries:
- Latin American countries: Many terrorist groups that attacked our nations and killed innocent people were trained in Cuba during the 660's, 70's and 80's.
- The people of Cuba: People in that beautifuk country, don't deserve the suffering they had for soi many years, most surely if Fidel had been overthroned long time ago, the situation would be normal for people there.
Lets be honest, people loved Kennedy because he was young, had charisma and popularity, while Nixon had absolutely no charisma and was not young or had a wife like Jeckie, but he ended with Vietnam and helped stabilize the country.
Iván
|
|
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: October 05 2008 at 00:31 |
|
Much worse presidents than either of these two. They're policies are
just natural outgrowths of policies set into motion by far worse
presidents.
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
Alberto Muńoz
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 26 2006
Location: Mexico
Status: Offline
Points: 3577
|
Posted: October 02 2008 at 13:43 |
ClemofNazareth wrote:
Bush by a nose.
Nixon destroyed any faith or trust in our public "leadership" that many post-WWII American youth may have had left after Vietnam. Our government is not Uncle Sam any more - it's more like that creepy neighbor Sam who stares at your sister too long when she walks by his house, and who causes you to worry about home and hearth when you're traveling and you know he's still back home lurking next door.
Bush may have actually succeeded in destroying our legacy as a nation by the time all is said and done; largely through his hubris; his lack of sophistication in recognizing the cause-and-effect of most everything going on around him; but mostly by surrounding himself with too many for whom social justice, objective governance, public trust or even basic honesty are considered 'quaint' and 'outdated' concepts.
|
Totally agree
|
|
|
|
tszirmay
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: August 17 2006
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 6673
|
Posted: October 01 2008 at 20:58 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
I don't believe Nixon was catasteophic before Watergate.
I believe Kennedy was worst than Nixon.
Iván
|
What do you dislike so much about JFK? Just curious (I am no fan of US politicos) = all vasura as far as i am concerned
|
|
I never post anything anywhere without doing more than basic research, often in depth.
|
|
npjnpj
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 05 2007
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 2720
|
Posted: October 01 2008 at 04:12 |
Post deleted because of good mood now  , as opposed to when I wrote it earlier. 
Edited by npjnpj - October 01 2008 at 06:08
|
|
tszirmay
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: August 17 2006
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 6673
|
Posted: September 30 2008 at 23:07 |
crimhead wrote:
So how many here believe that Reagan spent the USSR into bankruptcy or it was the oil market that cause the USSR to go under?
I heard recently that the USSR is sitting on a reserve that is bigger than Saudi Arabia but back in the 80's when oil bottomed out it cost the USSR more money per barrel to produce it than it was worth. Now the USSR is oil rich.
|
Sorry , guv but the USSR collapsed uniquely because of an economic system that forbade productive profit , in order to reinvest in newer machinery, R&D and improve productivity. This you cannot do when you punish people for trying to do something of quality. Quantity and poor amounts of it was the USSR's downfall. A country that could make a mig -25 Foxbat at mach 3 but no toilet paper ot toothbrushes. Pfff.
Plus the Brezhnev regime was ultra state capitalists (did you know that Leonid had the largest car collection on earth? very marxist , no?) True about the oil deal though as the USSSR had to pay with US dollars (rubles=rubbles)
|
|
I never post anything anywhere without doing more than basic research, often in depth.
|
|
tszirmay
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: August 17 2006
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 6673
|
Posted: September 30 2008 at 23:02 |
|
Nixon was a sicko but he just was a typical politician. GWB is a not a sicko but a psycho , who is unbeleievable, non credible, hypocritical, sly, and for a rich family, amazingly classless! His charm is between his flexed eyebrows. He was asked if it concerns him that he is viewed as the second worst president in US history. His reply: not worried , in a couple of months I will be first!
|
|
I never post anything anywhere without doing more than basic research, often in depth.
|
|
Padraic
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169
|
Posted: September 30 2008 at 15:03 |
|
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Which US President
