Print Page | Close Window

Best US President

Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Topics not related to music
Forum Name: General Polls
Forum Description: Create polls on topics not related to music
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=32801
Printed Date: June 06 2024 at 17:48
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Best US President
Posted By: Scapler
Subject: Best US President
Date Posted: January 02 2007 at 18:30
This poll can be viewed as a companion to the "worst USA Presidents" poll if you wish.

I just found that, in the poll (since it was a "worst" poll), people were talking more of Presidents weaknesses instead of their strengths. This poll is for saying why you think the best was the best. If you want to say a president sucked, go to the worst Pres. poll.


So, prepare to hold up your Presidental favorite!

Star


-------------
Bassists are deadly



Replies:
Posted By: progismylife
Date Posted: January 02 2007 at 18:33
None of these presidents seem to have that many good qualities. They all have their sour points. I guess I vote for Ford for holding the US together after Nixon was impeached.


Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: January 02 2007 at 19:05
Probably Ike, Ford or Clinton.

-------------
http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want!


Posted By: markosherrera
Date Posted: January 02 2007 at 19:54
kennedy and carter


Posted By: Scapler
Date Posted: January 02 2007 at 20:11
^^^
Kennedy was my second favorite after Reagan, good choice!

-------------
Bassists are deadly


Posted By: micky
Date Posted: January 02 2007 at 20:12
for Micky... between Reagan and Clinton...

for much the same reason... ABILITY TO COMPROMISE and work with the other party. Reagan  like many Republicans paid lip-service to the wackos on the right.. Clinton to those on the left. Could bore everyone with my opinions on each for pages hahahha.

edge to Clinton.. balancing a budget edges out voodoo economics.  Reagan gets too much credit for ending the Cold War.. Communism was a morally bankrupt system IN PRACTICE and was bound to fail, and Pope John Paul deserves the real credit for engineering or speeding up it's demise. For those who consider Clinton weak militarily.  Remember his audacious action on Bosnia, while Europe and the GOP Congress fiddled around.. for those who think of Somalia and equate it with him being weak... remember Reagan's handling of Beirut.LOL


-------------
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip


Posted By: Arrrghus
Date Posted: January 02 2007 at 20:13
How can you think Reagan is the best of these? He was not a great president.

Kennedy was the best, but he still doesn't measure up to Lincoln.

-------------


Posted By: micky
Date Posted: January 02 2007 at 20:16
Originally posted by Arrrghus Arrrghus wrote:

How can you think Reagan is the best of these? He was not a great president.



how can you ask that if you remember.. or know.. the state of this country in 1980


-------------
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip


Posted By: video vertigo
Date Posted: January 02 2007 at 20:17
Reagan by process of elimination. Nixon would be because he accomplished a lot but was a crook (but then again who wasn't on this list.)
Bush wasn't too bad either (not W) he had potential to do some good things in a second term (damn Ross Perot!)
    

-------------
"The rock and roll business is pretty absurd, but the world of serious music is much worse." - Zappa


Posted By: video vertigo
Date Posted: January 02 2007 at 20:18
best of all time list:
Jefferson
Lincoln
Teddy Roosevelt
Reagan

-------------
"The rock and roll business is pretty absurd, but the world of serious music is much worse." - Zappa


Posted By: Arrrghus
Date Posted: January 02 2007 at 20:21
Originally posted by micky micky wrote:


for Micky... between Reagan and Clinton...for much the same reason... ABILITY TO COMPROMISE and work with the other party. Reagan  like many Republicans paid lip-service to the wackos on the right.. Clinton to those on the left. Could bore everyone with my opinions on each for pages hahahha.edge to Clinton.. balancing a budget edges out voodoo economics.  Reagan gets too much credit for ending the Cold War.. Communism was a morally bankrupt system IN PRACTICE and was bound to fail, and Pope John Paul deserves the real credit for engineering or speeding up it's demise. For those who consider Clinton weak militarily.  Remember his audacious action on Bosnia, while Europe and the GOP Congress fiddled around.. for those who think of Somalia and equate it with him being weak... remember Reagan's handling of Beirut.


Along with John Paul, Gorbachev deserves a LOT of credit for ending the Cold War. (If anything, Reagan deserves very little credit at all).
    

-------------


Posted By: markosherrera
Date Posted: January 02 2007 at 20:24
the best for me was Lincoln, ...when an important northamerican is progresist,he is killed,remember martin luther king,lincoln ,etc


Posted By: Arrrghus
Date Posted: January 02 2007 at 20:24
Originally posted by micky micky wrote:


Originally posted by Arrrghus Arrrghus wrote:

How can you think Reagan is the best of these? He was not a great president.

how can you ask that if you remember.. or know.. the state of this country in 1980

    

You have a point, but I still am not convinced that Reagan really should have held any power at all.

-------------


Posted By: Chris H
Date Posted: January 02 2007 at 20:24
Its gotta be Ford. He stepped up when the country needed him and, I wasn'y alive then, but I heard he did a fantastic job.
Rest In Peace Best US PresidentConfused


-------------
Beauty will save the world.


Posted By: Harkmark
Date Posted: January 02 2007 at 20:24
Esoteric...



Posted By: Bern
Date Posted: January 02 2007 at 20:27
Clinton wins because he's a good saxophonist Thumbs Up

(I didn't vote) LOL


-------------

RIP in bossa nova heaven.


Posted By: Scapler
Date Posted: January 02 2007 at 20:27
Originally posted by Arrrghus Arrrghus wrote:

How can you think Reagan is the best of these? He was not a great president.

Kennedy was the best, but he still doesn't measure up to Lincoln.


Need I remeber Kennedy and Reagan are more similar in views than most of the people they worked with during their presidency? Plus, Reagan turned the entire economy around, after Carter left it to die in a pool of stagnant inflation and downswings. Sure, Reagan spent money, but this isn't a perfect world, and you have to spend money to get money.
Plus, he avoided war with the USSR. If we had gone to war with them, millions upon millions of civilan and military lives would have been lost. By building up the arms race, Reagan forced the Soviets to spend almost all of their already dying budget on the military. This caused the USSR to lose so much money, their economy fell completly, and the Soviet Empire was effectively destroyed. If that is not brillance, I don't know what is

(And Lincoln, for all he did for the country, really stomped on the liberties of the American people, he had many politicians jailed for speaking out against him)But he did do a good job, just wanted to share a view of Lincoln many people don't get


-------------
Bassists are deadly


Posted By: markosherrera
Date Posted: January 02 2007 at 20:28

 Carter was good for latin america



Posted By: Arrrghus
Date Posted: January 02 2007 at 20:28
Reagan also wasn't the best governor for California, either.

However, I do respect some of the things he did for the enviornment.

-------------


Posted By: video vertigo
Date Posted: January 02 2007 at 20:28
Originally posted by Arrrghus Arrrghus wrote:

How can you think Reagan is the best of these? He was not a great president.

    I think he was great for his Reaganomics being able to lower taxes by almost 25% without putting the gov't in debt in fact he brought up the national debt and deficits in the gov't. He strengthened social security which was dying and might not be around today without him. His diplomacy without a doubt helped bring down communism (along with the other factors mentioned by you)

-------------
"The rock and roll business is pretty absurd, but the world of serious music is much worse." - Zappa


Posted By: markosherrera
Date Posted: January 02 2007 at 20:29
clinton play sax,and the others?


Posted By: micky
Date Posted: January 02 2007 at 20:30
Originally posted by Arrrghus Arrrghus wrote:

Originally posted by micky micky wrote:


Originally posted by Arrrghus Arrrghus wrote:

How can you think Reagan is the best of these? He was not a great president.

how can you ask that if you remember.. or know.. the state of this country in 1980

    

You have a point, but I still am not convinced that Reagan really should have held any power at all.


he brought this country together.. gave it pride and strengthened it at a time where ..well things really weren't so hot.  I do think he was a crook and should have been impeached for Iran-Contra and bypassing the laws of the country (anyone who knows anything about the military knows that Colonels.. even full bird.. are a dime a dozen at the Pentagon and have no real authority there.  Ollie North was authorized by someone HIGH up to do willingly ignore the laws of the land) ...but other than that and the financial train wreck he left his predessors to fix.. a damn fine President.  If you know my politics.. that is high praise indeed hahhaha.  Wink


-------------
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip


Posted By: micky
Date Posted: January 02 2007 at 20:31
Originally posted by Bern Bern wrote:

Clinton wins because he's a good saxophonist Thumbs Up

(I didn't vote) LOL


BERN!!!!! Hug They let you out of the VR again hahahhah


-------------
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip


Posted By: Bern
Date Posted: January 02 2007 at 20:32
Originally posted by micky micky wrote:

Originally posted by Bern Bern wrote:

Clinton wins because he's a good saxophonist Thumbs Up

(I didn't vote) LOL


BERN!!!!! Hug They let you out of the VR again hahahhah


MICKY!!! Hug

No I've just been away from the site for a long time Embarrassed


-------------

RIP in bossa nova heaven.


Posted By: Arrrghus
Date Posted: January 02 2007 at 20:33
Originally posted by Scapler Scapler wrote:


Originally posted by Arrrghus Arrrghus wrote:

How can you think Reagan is the best of these? He was not a great president.

Kennedy was the best, but he still doesn't measure up to Lincoln.
Need I remeber Kennedy and Reagan are more similar in views than most of the people they worked with during their presidency? Plus, Reagan turned the entire economy around, after Carter left it to die in a pool of stagnant inflation and downswings. Sure, Reagan spent money, but this isn't a perfect world, and you have to spend money to get money.

Plus, he avoided war with the USSR. If we had gone to war with them, millions upon millions of civilan and military lives would have been lost. By building up the arms race, Reagan forced the Soviets to spend almost all of their already dying budget on the military. This caused the USSR to lose so much money, their economy fell completly, and the Soviet Empire was effectively destroyed. If that is not brillance, I don't know what is(And Lincoln, for all he did for the country, really stomped on the liberties of the American people, he had many politicians jailed for speaking out against him)But he did do a good job, just wanted to share a view of Lincoln many people don't get


You give too much credit to Reagan for preventing any war with the USSR. Gorbachev deserves more credit.

So what if Lincoln did what he did. He was the last man who was a public servant and didn't serve himself (Kennedy had self-serving motives). Lincoln was more brilliant than any president except for Thomas Jefferson.
    

-------------


Posted By: video vertigo
Date Posted: January 02 2007 at 20:34
I'm surprised Ford is being voted for, he was the only president in history to never become elected president.

-------------
"The rock and roll business is pretty absurd, but the world of serious music is much worse." - Zappa


Posted By: video vertigo
Date Posted: January 02 2007 at 20:37
Originally posted by Arrrghus Arrrghus wrote:

Originally posted by Scapler Scapler wrote:


Originally posted by Arrrghus Arrrghus wrote:

How can you think Reagan is the best of these? He was not a great president.

Kennedy was the best, but he still doesn't measure up to Lincoln.
Need I remeber Kennedy and Reagan are more similar in views than most of the people they worked with during their presidency? Plus, Reagan turned the entire economy around, after Carter left it to die in a pool of stagnant inflation and downswings. Sure, Reagan spent money, but this isn't a perfect world, and you have to spend money to get money.

Plus, he avoided war with the USSR. If we had gone to war with them, millions upon millions of civilan and military lives would have been lost. By building up the arms race, Reagan forced the Soviets to spend almost all of their already dying budget on the military. This caused the USSR to lose so much money, their economy fell completly, and the Soviet Empire was effectively destroyed. If that is not brillance, I don't know what is(And Lincoln, for all he did for the country, really stomped on the liberties of the American people, he had many politicians jailed for speaking out against him)But he did do a good job, just wanted to share a view of Lincoln many people don't get


You give too much credit to Reagan for preventing any war with the USSR. Gorbachev deserves more credit.

So what if Lincoln did what he did. He was the last man who was a public servant and didn't serve himself (Kennedy had self-serving motives). Lincoln was more brilliant than any president except for Thomas Jefferson.
    

    
I agree with your 2nd statement, the first one is hard to agree with because so many factors went into the ending of the cold war Reagan was a factor so was Gorbachev I don't know who was a bigger one.


-------------
"The rock and roll business is pretty absurd, but the world of serious music is much worse." - Zappa


Posted By: Arrrghus
Date Posted: January 02 2007 at 20:39
Originally posted by video vertigo video vertigo wrote:

Originally posted by Arrrghus Arrrghus wrote:

Originally posted by Scapler Scapler wrote:


Originally posted by Arrrghus Arrrghus wrote:

How can you think Reagan is the best of these? He was not a great president.

Kennedy was the best, but he still doesn't measure up to Lincoln.
Need I remeber Kennedy and Reagan are more similar in views than most of the people they worked with during their presidency? Plus, Reagan turned the entire economy around, after Carter left it to die in a pool of stagnant inflation and downswings. Sure, Reagan spent money, but this isn't a perfect world, and you have to spend money to get money.

Plus, he avoided war with the USSR. If we had gone to war with them, millions upon millions of civilan and military lives would have been lost. By building up the arms race, Reagan forced the Soviets to spend almost all of their already dying budget on the military. This caused the USSR to lose so much money, their economy fell completly, and the Soviet Empire was effectively destroyed. If that is not brillance, I don't know what is(And Lincoln, for all he did for the country, really stomped on the liberties of the American people, he had many politicians jailed for speaking out against him)But he did do a good job, just wanted to share a view of Lincoln many people don't get


You give too much credit to Reagan for preventing any war with the USSR. Gorbachev deserves more credit.

So what if Lincoln did what he did. He was the last man who was a public servant and didn't serve himself (Kennedy had self-serving motives). Lincoln was more brilliant than any president except for Thomas Jefferson.
    

    
I agree with your 2nd statement, the first one is hard to agree with because so many factors went into the ending of the cold war Reagan was a factor so was Gorbachev I don't know who was a bigger one.



I'm not a fan of conservatives, so I'm a bit biased (don't get me wrong, I don't like many liberals either).
    

-------------


Posted By: Arrrghus
Date Posted: January 02 2007 at 20:40
Originally posted by video vertigo video vertigo wrote:

I'm surprised Ford is being voted for, he was the only president in history to never become elected president.

    

That means that someone believes the populace is stupid! They're probably right...

-------------


Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: January 02 2007 at 20:42
Of every president, I'll say Teddy Roosevelt was probably the best. Captured the frontier spirit and was an all-around likeable guy.

-------------
http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want!


Posted By: Atkingani
Date Posted: January 02 2007 at 20:43
I won't vote but I'd like to remember that the deeds of certain rulers (not only in the USA) are only to be noticed in the future, maybe 30 or 40 years ahead.
 
Ike started the space program and it opened a great door for new technologies, communications, medicine, general sciences, etc. Kennedy continued and estimulated the program in spite of all criticism it gained. The space race was in fact a chapter in the Cold War however it was a great moment in Man's history and Ike (and Kennedy) contributed hugely to inscribe their names in this book. 


-------------
Guigo

~~~~~~


Posted By: Scapler
Date Posted: January 02 2007 at 20:46
Originally posted by Arrrghus Arrrghus wrote:

Originally posted by video vertigo video vertigo wrote:

Originally posted by Arrrghus Arrrghus wrote:

Originally posted by Scapler Scapler wrote:


Originally posted by Arrrghus Arrrghus wrote:

How can you think Reagan is the best of these? He was not a great president.

Kennedy was the best, but he still doesn't measure up to Lincoln.
Need I remeber Kennedy and Reagan are more similar in views than most of the people they worked with during their presidency? Plus, Reagan turned the entire economy around, after Carter left it to die in a pool of stagnant inflation and downswings. Sure, Reagan spent money, but this isn't a perfect world, and you have to spend money to get money.

Plus, he avoided war with the USSR. If we had gone to war with them, millions upon millions of civilan and military lives would have been lost. By building up the arms race, Reagan forced the Soviets to spend almost all of their already dying budget on the military. This caused the USSR to lose so much money, their economy fell completly, and the Soviet Empire was effectively destroyed. If that is not brillance, I don't know what is(And Lincoln, for all he did for the country, really stomped on the liberties of the American people, he had many politicians jailed for speaking out against him)But he did do a good job, just wanted to share a view of Lincoln many people don't get


You give too much credit to Reagan for preventing any war with the USSR. Gorbachev deserves more credit.

So what if Lincoln did what he did. He was the last man who was a public servant and didn't serve himself (Kennedy had self-serving motives). Lincoln was more brilliant than any president except for Thomas Jefferson.
    

    
I agree with your 2nd statement, the first one is hard to agree with because so many factors went into the ending of the cold war Reagan was a factor so was Gorbachev I don't know who was a bigger one.



I'm not a fan of conservatives, so I'm a bit biased (don't get me wrong, I don't like many liberals either).
    


Your best Conservative friend criesCryCryCryCryCryCryCryCryCryCryCry
                                                                ^^^
                                                 (points)  SEEEEEEE!!!!!


-------------
Bassists are deadly


Posted By: Arrrghus
Date Posted: January 02 2007 at 20:48
Originally posted by stonebeard stonebeard wrote:

Of every president, I'll say Teddy Roosevelt was probably the best. Captured the frontier spirit and was an all-around likeable guy.

    

He's pretty cool, but what did he do for the country?

That's the most important thing.

-------------


Posted By: video vertigo
Date Posted: January 02 2007 at 20:49
Originally posted by Arrrghus Arrrghus wrote:

Originally posted by video vertigo video vertigo wrote:

Originally posted by Arrrghus Arrrghus wrote:

Originally posted by Scapler Scapler wrote:


Originally posted by Arrrghus Arrrghus wrote:

How can you think Reagan is the best of these? He was not a great president.

Kennedy was the best, but he still doesn't measure up to Lincoln.
Need I remeber Kennedy and Reagan are more similar in views than most of the people they worked with during their presidency? Plus, Reagan turned the entire economy around, after Carter left it to die in a pool of stagnant inflation and downswings. Sure, Reagan spent money, but this isn't a perfect world, and you have to spend money to get money.

Plus, he avoided war with the USSR. If we had gone to war with them, millions upon millions of civilan and military lives would have been lost. By building up the arms race, Reagan forced the Soviets to spend almost all of their already dying budget on the military. This caused the USSR to lose so much money, their economy fell completly, and the Soviet Empire was effectively destroyed. If that is not brillance, I don't know what is(And Lincoln, for all he did for the country, really stomped on the liberties of the American people, he had many politicians jailed for speaking out against him)But he did do a good job, just wanted to share a view of Lincoln many people don't get


You give too much credit to Reagan for preventing any war with the USSR. Gorbachev deserves more credit.

So what if Lincoln did what he did. He was the last man who was a public servant and didn't serve himself (Kennedy had self-serving motives). Lincoln was more brilliant than any president except for Thomas Jefferson.
    

    
I agree with your 2nd statement, the first one is hard to agree with because so many factors went into the ending of the cold war Reagan was a factor so was Gorbachev I don't know who was a bigger one.



I'm not a fan of conservatives, so I'm a bit biased (don't get me wrong, I don't like many liberals either).
    


great statement. Well I'm a registered Republican but only because I dislike democrats slightly more (although the current president changes everything) I tend to lean towards libertarianism. I think historically conservatives have screwed up slightly less than liberals (again the current president not included because he screws all my theories up)

-------------
"The rock and roll business is pretty absurd, but the world of serious music is much worse." - Zappa


Posted By: progismylife
Date Posted: January 02 2007 at 20:51
Originally posted by video vertigo video vertigo wrote:

I'm surprised Ford is being voted for, he was the only president in history to never become elected president.


He was the only president to never be elected for anything. And he did a good job considering he didn't really ask for it.


Posted By: video vertigo
Date Posted: January 02 2007 at 20:53
Originally posted by Arrrghus Arrrghus wrote:

Originally posted by stonebeard stonebeard wrote:

Of every president, I'll say Teddy Roosevelt was probably the best. Captured the frontier spirit and was an all-around likeable guy.

    

He's pretty cool, but what did he do for the country?

That's the most important thing.


created the national park system he was probably the best environmentalist president. Definitely deserves his spot right here \/


-------------
"The rock and roll business is pretty absurd, but the world of serious music is much worse." - Zappa


Posted By: video vertigo
Date Posted: January 02 2007 at 20:55
Originally posted by progismylife progismylife wrote:


Originally posted by video vertigo video vertigo wrote:

I'm surprised Ford is being voted for, he was the only president in history to never become elected president.
He was the only president to never be elected for anything. And he did a good job considering he didn't really ask for it.

Makes me glad Bush is alive and not going to be impeached or resign, he's not a good president but look who's next in line

-------------
"The rock and roll business is pretty absurd, but the world of serious music is much worse." - Zappa


Posted By: Arrrghus
Date Posted: January 02 2007 at 20:56
The problem with liberals is that they don't get anything done. Conservatives get stuff done, but the stuff isn't always what's is best.

On one hand, we have idealists, and the other we have people who get the job done.

Frankly, we need a comprimise. That's why I'm a moderate. I think we need stuff done, but the wishy-washy nature of today's political correctness gets in the way. As my wise father says, "I will respect you in the work place and in economic endeavours, but I'll be damned if the color of your skin or whether or not you piss sitting down or standing up or what is your sexual preference give you an advantage over the next guy."

My father is talking about the ridiculous need to overcompensate (affirmative action, anyone). Political correctness just gets in the way.


-------------


Posted By: progismylife
Date Posted: January 02 2007 at 20:57
Originally posted by video vertigo video vertigo wrote:

Originally posted by progismylife progismylife wrote:


Originally posted by video vertigo video vertigo wrote:

I'm surprised Ford is being voted for, he was the only president in history to never become elected president.
He was the only president to never be elected for anything. And he did a good job considering he didn't really ask for it.

Makes me glad Bush is alive and not going to be impeached or resign, he's not a good president but look who's next in line



Who?


Posted By: video vertigo
Date Posted: January 02 2007 at 20:59
Originally posted by progismylife progismylife wrote:


Originally posted by video vertigo video vertigo wrote:

Originally posted by progismylife progismylife wrote:


Originally posted by video vertigo video vertigo wrote:

I'm surprised Ford is being voted for, he was the only president in history to never become elected president.
He was the only president to never be elected for anything. And he did a good job considering he didn't really ask for it.

Makes me glad Bush is alive and not going to be impeached or resign, he's not a good president but look who's next in line
Who?


the vice president is next in line to the president. Currently the vice president is Dick Cheney
    

-------------
"The rock and roll business is pretty absurd, but the world of serious music is much worse." - Zappa


Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: January 02 2007 at 21:34
Originally posted by Arrrghus Arrrghus wrote:

The problem with liberals is that they don't get anything done. Conservatives get stuff done, but the stuff isn't always what's is best.

On one hand, we have idealists, and the other we have people who get the job done.

Frankly, we need a comprimise. That's why I'm a moderate. I think we need stuff done, but the wishy-washy nature of today's political correctness gets in the way. As my wise father says, "I will respect you in the work place and in economic endeavours, but I'll be damned if the color of your skin or whether or not you piss sitting down or standing up or what is your sexual preference give you an advantage over the next guy."

My father is talking about the ridiculous need to overcompensate (affirmative action, anyone). Political correctness just gets in the way.


You know why liberals haven't gotten "anything done" with the Bush administration? Because they've been in the minority in the House and Senate for 6 years. It's hard to get your agenda on the table when the other party dominates the process. And why did Republicans get stuff done? Because they were in control.

-------------
http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want!


Posted By: Scapler
Date Posted: January 02 2007 at 21:40
Originally posted by video vertigo video vertigo wrote:

Originally posted by progismylife progismylife wrote:


Originally posted by video vertigo video vertigo wrote:

Originally posted by progismylife progismylife wrote:


Originally posted by video vertigo video vertigo wrote:

I'm surprised Ford is being voted for, he was the only president in history to never become elected president.
He was the only president to never be elected for anything. And he did a good job considering he didn't really ask for it.

Makes me glad Bush is alive and not going to be impeached or resign, he's not a good president but look who's next in line
Who?


the vice president is next in line to the president. Currently the vice president is Dick Cheney
    


Pray to God if they both go and good ol' Nancy Pelosi gets a chance to screw with the country even more than is currently being done




-------------
Bassists are deadly


Posted By: Arrrghus
Date Posted: January 02 2007 at 21:44
Originally posted by stonebeard stonebeard wrote:

Originally posted by Arrrghus Arrrghus wrote:

The problem with liberals is that they don't get anything done. Conservatives get stuff done, but the stuff isn't always what's is best.

On one hand, we have idealists, and the other we have people who get the job done.

Frankly, we need a comprimise. That's why I'm a moderate. I think we need stuff done, but the wishy-washy nature of today's political correctness gets in the way. As my wise father says, "I will respect you in the work place and in economic endeavours, but I'll be damned if the color of your skin or whether or not you piss sitting down or standing up or what is your sexual preference give you an advantage over the next guy."

My father is talking about the ridiculous need to overcompensate (affirmative action, anyone). Political correctness just gets in the way.


You know why liberals haven't gotten "anything done" with the Bush administration? Because they've been in the minority in the House and Senate for 6 years. It's hard to get your agenda on the table when the other party dominates the process. And why did Republicans get stuff done? Because they were in control.


What agenda? Even with power they're disorganized and trying as hard as they can to be dipsh*ts.
    

-------------


Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: January 02 2007 at 21:46
Originally posted by Arrrghus Arrrghus wrote:

Originally posted by stonebeard stonebeard wrote:

Originally posted by Arrrghus Arrrghus wrote:

The problem with liberals is that they don't get anything done. Conservatives get stuff done, but the stuff isn't always what's is best.

On one hand, we have idealists, and the other we have people who get the job done.

Frankly, we need a comprimise. That's why I'm a moderate. I think we need stuff done, but the wishy-washy nature of today's political correctness gets in the way. As my wise father says, "I will respect you in the work place and in economic endeavours, but I'll be damned if the color of your skin or whether or not you piss sitting down or standing up or what is your sexual preference give you an advantage over the next guy."

My father is talking about the ridiculous need to overcompensate (affirmative action, anyone). Political correctness just gets in the way.


You know why liberals haven't gotten "anything done" with the Bush administration? Because they've been in the minority in the House and Senate for 6 years. It's hard to get your agenda on the table when the other party dominates the process. And why did Republicans get stuff done? Because they were in control.


What agenda? Even with power they're disorganized and trying as hard as they can to be dipsh*ts.
    


I'll give you an answer when you start to sound deserving of an answer (ie not calling people dipsh*ts).
    
    

-------------
http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want!


Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: January 02 2007 at 22:03
Originally posted by Scapler Scapler wrote:

Pray to God if they both go and good ol' Nancy Pelosi gets a chance to screw with the country even more than is currently being done

    Are you just saying that because she's a democrat or because she would be a bad president? Back it up if the second option applies.

-------------
http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want!


Posted By: Peter
Date Posted: January 02 2007 at 23:57
Originally posted by Arrrghus Arrrghus wrote:



Along with John Paul, Gorbachev deserves a LOT of credit for ending the Cold War. (If anything, Reagan deserves very little credit at all).
    

Yes -- and Solidarity leader Lech Walesa in Poland, too. Don't forget him (and Polish unionism as a whole) -- he was very important in providing the pressures for Gorby to react to.

I liked the way Reagan had the courage and foresight to significantly reduce the US nuclear arsenal (and thus Russia's), though.

Don't know that I'd give John Paul much credit, as I recall. I'd shake the hands of Walesa and Gorbachev first. Ermm


-------------
"And, has thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!'
He chortled in his joy.


Posted By: Peter
Date Posted: January 03 2007 at 00:00
Anyway, I'm no American, and I'm far from being an expert on US politics, but I always liked Carter (though I know he had his faults, like all leaders and other mere humans).

-------------
"And, has thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!'
He chortled in his joy.


Posted By: Empathy
Date Posted: January 03 2007 at 00:29
Originally posted by progismylife progismylife wrote:

Originally posted by video vertigo video vertigo wrote:

I'm surprised Ford is being voted for, he was the only president in history to never become elected president.


He was the only president to never be elected for anything. And he did a good job considering he didn't really ask for it.


I believe Ford was Speaker of the House before becoming President, so he was still an elected offical.

That said, some would say that the reason he had no ambition to become President was exactly why he was suited for the job.

"Why is the sea king of a hundred streams? Because it lies below them... If the sage would guide the people, he must serve with humility. If he would lead them, he must follow behind. In this way when the sage rules, the people will not feel oppressed..."

- Lao Tzu

My vote's for Eisenhower. In his farewell address to the nation in 1961, he warned about the growing danger of what he coined as the "military-industrial complex".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY

Dire words that should have been heeded, long ago.

from Wikipedia:

"In the penultimate draft of the address, Eisenhower initially used the term military-industrial-congressional complex, and thus indicated the essential role that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Congress - U.S. Congress plays in the propagation of the military industry. But, it is said, that the president chose to strike the word congressional in order to placate members of the legislative branch of the federal government."






-------------
Pure Brilliance:


Posted By: Peter
Date Posted: January 03 2007 at 00:56
Smile ^ Yep -- Eisenhower was a good'un too, in my books. A good man for the times, with obvious spine and integrity.

 I didn't know about his address warning about the growing power of the military-industrial complex.Clap 

(Now, joined with right-wing religion, it's in power.Unhappy)

Pretty impressive and courageous, especially from a former top general!

-------------
"And, has thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!'
He chortled in his joy.


Posted By: Scapler
Date Posted: January 03 2007 at 11:15
Originally posted by stonebeard stonebeard wrote:

Originally posted by Scapler Scapler wrote:

Pray to God if they both go and good ol' Nancy Pelosi gets a chance to screw with the country even more than is currently being done

    Are you just saying that because she's a democrat or because she would be a bad president? Back it up if the second option applies.


The second option, I don't care about your party if you do a good job (Thus Kennedy as my second choice)

Pelosi disagrees with me however. She talks about bi-partisanship, but what she really means is Democrats win while Republicans sit there looking useless. Pelosi would completly ignore any idea coming from any Conservative, it doesn't matter how good it is. Pelosi would ruin the Presidency by becoming the most selfish, partisan President in history. Her idea of politics isn't promoting good ideas, but just making everyone else's good ideas look like crap.

Ouch


-------------
Bassists are deadly


Posted By: Arrrghus
Date Posted: January 03 2007 at 13:19
Originally posted by Peter Rideout Peter Rideout wrote:



Originally posted by Arrrghus Arrrghus wrote:


Along with John Paul, Gorbachev deserves a LOT of credit for ending the Cold War. (If anything, Reagan deserves very little credit at all).
    
Yes -- and Solidarity leader Lech Walesa in Poland, too. Don't forget him (and Polish unionism as a whole) -- he was very important in providing the pressures for Gorby to react to.I liked the way Reagan had the courage and foresight to significantly reduce the US nuclear arsenal (and thus Russia's), though.Don't know that I'd give John Paul much credit, as I recall. I'd shake the hands of Walesa and Gorbachev first.

    

Oh! I've heard of him. Okay, I did some research... and you're absolutely right! Thanks!

-------------


Posted By: Peter
Date Posted: January 03 2007 at 13:33
Originally posted by Arrrghus Arrrghus wrote:

Originally posted by Peter Rideout Peter Rideout wrote:



Originally posted by Arrrghus Arrrghus wrote:


Along with John Paul, Gorbachev deserves a LOT of credit for ending the Cold War. (If anything, Reagan deserves very little credit at all).
    
Yes -- and Solidarity leader Lech Walesa in Poland, too. Don't forget him (and Polish unionism as a whole) -- he was very important in providing the pressures for Gorby to react to.I liked the way Reagan had the courage and foresight to significantly reduce the US nuclear arsenal (and thus Russia's), though.Don't know that I'd give John Paul much credit, as I recall. I'd shake the hands of Walesa and Gorbachev first.

    

Oh! I've heard of him. Okay, I did some research... and you're absolutely right! Thanks!
You're welcome!
 
Yeah, I lived through those turbulent, exciting times (I was 20 in 1980), and what was happening in Poland, prior to the dissolution of the Eastern Bloc and the USSR was very important, and very revolutionary. (I remember my older brother had a cool "Solidarnosc" poster on his bedroom wall.)
 
You have to hand it to Walesa, the Solidarity (Solidarnosc) movement, and the Polish people in general. It was amazing what they accomplished and got away with. (And Gorby didn't send in the Red Army to stomp them -- that was amazing, too.)
 
We never thought such sweeping changes would happen in our lifetimes, or so rapidly -- it was a thrilling time (like China's subsequent Tianamen Square, but with a much better outcome).
 
Ordinary people (like Walesa's miners) CAN make a big difference, when they stand united against oppression.Smile
 
 
 And the hated Wall comes down!


-------------
"And, has thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!'
He chortled in his joy.


Posted By: bhikkhu
Date Posted: January 03 2007 at 18:16
    Bill Clinton was actually a very good President. He eliminated the deficit (remember, we didn't have one at the end of the last administration). He also would have gotten healthcare for everyone. The Republicans had to stop it, just because it came from him.

-------------
a.k.a. H.T.

http://riekels.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow - http://riekels.wordpress.com


Posted By: Jared
Date Posted: January 04 2007 at 10:48

I've gone for Ike... a decidedly steading influence on US Economics during your post-war boom time of 1952-60, besides his significant contribution to the war...Clap



-------------
Music has always been a matter of energy to me. On some nights I believe that a car with the needle on empty can run 50 more miles if you have the right music very loud on the radio. Hunter S Thompson


Posted By: rileydog22
Date Posted: January 05 2007 at 20:15
Lincoln was the greatest president our country ever had.  He had the toughest job ever placed on a leader of this president (uniting the North and South), and he did so spectacularly.  No other president has had to deal with anything close (the closest being the decision to drop the bomb on Hiroshima), and frankly, no one SHOULD be subjected to what he was.  

-------------



Posted By: Man With Hat
Date Posted: January 05 2007 at 23:46
JFK or Clinton.

-------------
Dig me...But don't...Bury me
I'm running still, I shall until, one day, I hope that I'll arrive
Warning: Listening to jazz excessively can cause a laxative effect.


Posted By: The T
Date Posted: January 06 2007 at 01:39
Of course best US president is a question that would get an obvious answer: Abraham Lincoln or, later, FD Roosevelt; but if this is about modern US presidents, I think Clinton has been the best. JFK could've been the one had he lived longer (had they allowed him to live longer, whoever "they" are) but of the remaining ones, Clinton left the country with a big surplus, an employment rate of great proportions, and specially, he was an harmonic figure abroad (in Latin america "che guevara"-fanatics hate whatever comes from US, but rational people liked Clinton, unlike today's chaotic excuse for a president who is hated everywhere). He had an intern perform something on him, so who cares? I prefer a president with a colorful private life but that helps me eat, feed and go to the doctor than a "moral authority" that helps his partners in the religious right and the oil companies feed, eat and FEAST upon the contituents.

-------------


Posted By: markosherrera
Date Posted: January 06 2007 at 02:01
  Clinton is better of course than   Bush daddy and   Bush baby,.... better than     Nixon and Reagan I want Hillarius  Clinton or Nancy Pelosi   for   president and Bush for   presid..iary


Posted By: The T
Date Posted: January 08 2007 at 20:25
Unlike my beautiful latin american lands, The US has been blessed with decent presidents (I don't mean perfect, but if you compare them with the wonders we elect down south, these look like charitable angels). Except Bush, all of them were pretty decent. Yes, Nixon was a crook, but at least he did ONE good thing (opened China).... and that one good thing put him MILES ahead of the current US president.

-------------


Posted By: el böthy
Date Posted: January 08 2007 at 21:14
Ah Clinton...what a cool dudeLOL

-------------
"You want me to play what, Robert?"


Posted By: Empathy
Date Posted: January 08 2007 at 21:53
Originally posted by el böthy el böthy wrote:

Ah Clinton...what a cool dudeLOL


Yeah, but he's a crappy saxophone player. Wink


-------------
Pure Brilliance:


Posted By: billbuckner
Date Posted: January 10 2007 at 06:29
I don't know, he was a bit prog at times...


Posted By: King of Loss
Date Posted: January 10 2007 at 20:46
Clinton probably, but I must admit, none of them are that good.


Posted By: heyitsthatguy
Date Posted: January 10 2007 at 20:50
Harding!

-------------




Posted By: Jeams Pfirp
Date Posted: January 13 2007 at 01:13
Lincoln was probably the best president ever, but I put my vote on Reagan.

-------------


Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: January 13 2007 at 01:31
Originally posted by Jeams Pfirp Jeams Pfirp wrote:

Lincoln was probably the best president ever, but I put my vote on Reagan.
 
Idem, RR had the balls to do what it was required in the precoise mnoment, if it wasn't for him, John Paul II and Lech Walesa, maybe the USSR would still exist.
 
EDIT: Just read the previous pages and seen that some people share my opinion and BTW I disagree with Peter, John Paul had a central role in the end of cold war, the Polish sindicates and the situation of the country got more international  support since a Polish was elected Pope and he took such a strong position in favor of Walesa.
 
Iván


-------------
            


Posted By: video vertigo
Date Posted: January 13 2007 at 01:36
clinton is overrated

-------------
"The rock and roll business is pretty absurd, but the world of serious music is much worse." - Zappa


Posted By: The T
Date Posted: January 13 2007 at 14:46
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Originally posted by Jeams Pfirp Jeams Pfirp wrote:

Lincoln was probably the best president ever, but I put my vote on Reagan.

 

Idem, RR had the balls to do what it was required in the precoise mnoment, if it wasn't for him, John Paul II and Lech Walesa, maybe the USSR would still exist.

 

EDIT: Just read the previous pages and seen that some people share my opinion and BTW I disagree with Peter, John Paul had a central role in the end of cold war, the Polish sindicates and the situation of the country got more international  support since a Polish was elected Pope and he took such a strong position in favor of Walesa.

 

Iván
[/QUOTE]


The USSR was going to collapse with any president atop the US, that system was dying from the inside, after years of gigantic expenditure in weapons when it didn't have an economy to support that frenzy, when it had a bureaucratic monster (the nomenklatura of the coumminist party)... better said, from the moment the bolshevik revolution turned its back on the delussional principle of "all are the same" (is delussional not because it's bad per se, but because once you have a party on power, it turns into a privileged class within society) it just started to die. Stalin managed to industralize the country with the five-year plans at a large cost of blood... Kruschev and Brezhnev and Andopov and Chernenko were just puppets of the real ruler: the nomenklatura, the KGB and the system itself. Reagan was just wise enough to see that he had an unlikely ally WITHIN the politburo (mikhail gorbachov) and jut put the appropiate pressure needed for the system to collapse....What's the deal with never giving PEOPLE the credit? It was the PEOPLE of Poland that helped Solitaritat gain enough legitimacy to oppose the Party; it was the PEOPLE in rumania who raised in the squares of Timisoara against Ceaucescu...It was the PEOPLE who forced Hungary to open borders with Austria, and that opened a path towards freedom for the East-German people...THAT brought the wall down, the PEOPLE, it was slow, because there was a political and army aparatus that crushed any opposition but the system itslef was collapsing years ago.... the Pope? He did what he HAD to do, as he was a decent man... But please don't say that him, Walesa and Reagan tore down the wall.... It was GOING TO HAPPEN no matter who was in the White House and in the Vatican... If you have to pick ONE SINGLE person at least pick Mikhail Gorbachov, whose Perestroika and Glasnost really started to bring the moster to his knees... At least that Pope did something, not like the ones during WWII who just were silenced and didn't do anything in the midst of all the apocalypse and the holocaust... But that's what a Pope should do: do SOMETHING. And Reagan? Strong, harsh, I'll give you that.

But please don't make him "the president that brought the Wall down"... be fairer...

T    
    
    

-------------


Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: January 13 2007 at 19:32
Originally posted by The T The T wrote:




The USSR was going to collapse with any president atop the US, that system was dying from the inside, after years of gigantic expenditure in weapons when it didn't have an economy to support that frenzy, when it had a bureaucratic monster (the nomenklatura of the coumminist party)... better said, from the moment the bolshevik revolution turned its back on the delussional principle of "all are the same" (is delussional not because it's bad per se, but because once you have a party on power, it turns into a privileged class within society) it just started to die. Stalin managed to industralize the country with the five-year plans at a large cost of blood... Kruschev and Brezhnev and Andopov and Chernenko were just puppets of the real ruler: the nomenklatura, the KGB and the system itself. Reagan was just wise enough to see that he had an unlikely ally WITHIN the politburo (mikhail gorbachov) and jut put the appropiate pressure needed for the system to collapse
 
The USSR was collapsing that's true, but in politics, things may change in a short period, if the glass is already full, you need to add the extra drop, Gorbachov could have been removed if all that pressure from USSR, The Vatican and specially Poland wasn't over them and a radical leader could had made the system survive, they had the weapons and USA required a strong President who wasn't afraid to put the necessary pressure.
 
Look at Cuba, they are stumbling for decades, they didn't have any support, the logical thing was that the system would had collapsed a few years ago but now with Chavez supporting the Revolution and Venezuela becoming a Communist Government, Cuba has the aid they needed. 
 
Things changed in a couple of years.
 
....What's the deal with never giving PEOPLE the credit? It was the PEOPLE of Poland that helped Solitaritat gain enough legitimacy to oppose the Party; it was the PEOPLE in rumania who raised in the squares of Timisoara against Ceaucescu...It was the PEOPLE who forced Hungary to open borders with Austria, and that opened a path towards freedom for the East-German people...THAT brought the wall down, the PEOPLE, it was slow, because there was a political and army aparatus that crushed any opposition but the system itslef was collapsing years ago....
 
Remember The Prague Spring? The Tiananmen Plaza in China? Both were dramatic for USSR and China but the Communist Governments survided the crisis because there was nobody there to support the people fighting for heir freedom.
 
The people has a lot of credit but without strong leaders and powerful countries supporting them, no changes are possible.
 
 the Pope? He did what he HAD to do, as he was a decent man... But please don't say that him, Walesa and Reagan tore down the wall.... It was GOING TO HAPPEN no matter who was in the White House and in the Vatican...
 
Again, it's easy to guess after the things happened and after somebody had the courage to face the risks of a nuclear war, USSR weak, almost defeated and exhausted, had enough weapons to destroy the world several times.
 
If you have to pick ONE SINGLE person at least pick Mikhail Gorbachov, whose Perestroika and Glasnost really started to bring the moster to his knees...
 
Nobody denies that, but without all the other participants, nothing would have happened, a single radical leader could had overthroned Gorbachov and USSR would had survived, but they were receiving atttacks from everywhere, USA, The Vatican, Poland, Hungary etc all simultaneously.
 
At least that Pope did something, not like the ones during WWII who just were silenced and didn't do anything in the midst of all the apocalypse and the holocaust...
 
Seems you don't ubnderstand the difficult position of the Pope during WWII.
 
The Vatican is not only the center of the biggest Christian Religion but is also a country with no army that only survived because of their neutral status.
 
This neutral status gave them the chance to hide thousands of Jewish refugees that were working in the Vatican. 
 
Monsignor Hugh Joseph O'Flaherty (With the knowledge of the Pope) had a web of 3,423 refugees hidden in the Vatican, as him many other bishops, priests and even the Pope saved thousands of Jewishs and British pilots hidding in the Vatican and in the houses of Italian patriots that were against Mussolini.
 
The Italian Catholic Parishs (Also with the knowledge of the Pope) saved 5,000 more Jewishs.
 
Without the Vatican keeping their neutral status, maybe 20,000 persons had died, Hitler would have placed a puppet Pope (As he always wanted) in Berlin and things woiuld have been harder.
 
What could a small country in the center of Italy do? Send the Swiss Guard to fight and let all the refugees die?
 
The Vatican was far more srategically important for the war existing as a neutral country in the middle of the enemy field and as a safe house for a lot of people than invaded and with a Pope placed by Hitler helping the Nazis.
 
But that's what a Pope should do: do SOMETHING. And Reagan? Strong, harsh, I'll give you that.
 
But both did it, that's the important issue. 

But please don't make him "the president that brought the Wall down"... be fairer...
 
He didn't do it alone, but he took a high risk that no other USA President had the courage to take.
 
Iván

     
    


-------------
            


Posted By: Andrea Cortese
Date Posted: January 13 2007 at 19:39
Uh? Clinton the best?
 
From what it seems (nowadays history) he often came late and wrong...
 
BTW, appreciable words on the Vatican, Ivàn!Thumbs Up


Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: January 13 2007 at 22:03
Jimmy Carter...no joke.

Besides him the only Presidents that really strike me are JFK, Ford, and Clinton (and none really impress me).

Oh, and Reagan was the worst, hands down.


Posted By: The T
Date Posted: January 13 2007 at 22:43
The USSR was collapsing that's true, but in politics, things may change in a short period, if the glass is already full, you need to add the extra drop, Gorbachov could have been removed if all that pressure from USSR, The Vatican and specially Poland wasn't over them and a radical leader could had made the system survive, they had the weapons and USA required a strong President who wasn't afraid to put the necessary pressure.

Look at Cuba, they are stumbling for decades, they didn't have any support, the logical thing was that the system would had collapsed a few years ago but now with Chavez supporting the Revolution and Venezuela becoming a Communist Government, Cuba has the aid they needed.


Things changed in a couple of years

Things may change in a short period, that’s true. But we’re talking a 70+ years old revolution that was dying and no force could’ve stopped it. Remember that the hard line in the Communist Party DID attempt a coup with Gorbachov and had him secluded in.. well, in the “vacation” Villa they had (I don’t remember the name of the town now…). Of course Yeltsin capitalized on the anger of the people and they desire NOT to return to the old ways… so there was the case: they tried to stop the collapse of the soviet union, they couldn’t. The same applies to the “satellite” countries the USSR once played with like puppets: in all of them there was an uprising of people demanding freedom. It was just bound to happen. I’m sure the same would’ve happened with G. Bush (senior, not the current disaster) or even with democrat Clinton. Yes, me may concede that Reagan was tough, tougher than Carter at least (well, who isn’t). But Reagan was the madman who created the “Star wars” myth of using satellites for military protection… I know, maybe just a ploy to embed fear into the soviets’ brains, but please… that was ridiculous.

The good phrase Reagan coined, I have to say, was: “Mr Goorbachov, tear down that wall”…. No doubt that helped Mikhail gain the courage he needed. It had almost the same impact as “Ich bin ein Berliner” (which, by the way, is wrong: the current expression would’ve been “Ich bin Berliner”).

When we’re talking Cuba, we’re talking a poor, small island that NEEDS a “patron” like the USSR was or Venezuela is now… USSR was THE other superpower… (at least in the books… it has been proven repeatedly that, in the facts, it had nowhere the same military power as the US empire)

There was no merit in menacing with war in an era where the MAD theory ruled (and saved the world: Mutually Assured Destruction)… Both sides knew that, whoever ignited a flame, even with the disadvantage the USSR had, it would still have been able to counterattack and tear not the wall but the WORLD to pieces…. Why don’t we praise Kennedy instead who actually had the courage to stand against his OWN ARMY AND GENERALS that wanted to invade Cuba in the missile crisis and would’ve caused the nuclear holocaust? He stood up TO HIS OWN ARMY and did the rational: save the world from utter destruction… at that particular time, the missile bases in Cuba were a threat to the MAD theory, because they would nullify the possibility for the US of a counterattack and made viable a “first attack” option for the USSR…. But he was COOL enough to understand that he didn’t need to rush his country into apocalypse… (the way a certain texas-born president would do today….) So if Reagan had courage, I’d say Kennedy had …. Well, other things….

Remember The Prague Spring? The Tiananmen Plaza in China? Both were dramatic for USSR and China but the Communist Governments survided the crisis because there was nobody there to support the people fighting for heir freedom.

The people has a lot of credit but without strong leaders and powerful countries supporting them, no changes are possible.



If the US had done anything about Prague (or about Hungary a few years earlier, for that matter), the USSR would’ve invaded West-Berlin, the US and NATO would have had to counterattack, and you know what would’ve been next (hint: a mushroom). About China, that’s an eastern, completely alien society for all of us to understand…. They have their way of thinking… we CANNOT see the world only through OUR EYES (the way a certain idiotic president wants to force democracy in a society that DOESN’T UNDERSTAND THE TERM)


Nobody denies that, but without all the other participants, nothing would have happened, a single radical leader could had overthroned Gorbachov and USSR would had survived, but they were receiving atttacks from everywhere, USA, The Vatican, Poland, Hungary etc all simultaneously.

We agree. My point was, let’s not say “Reagan torn down the wall”… Let’s say he HELPED.

About the Vatican part, I don’t know as much as you do, without a doubt, about their involvement in WWI and what good deeds they may have done (though why aren’t those as publicized as their INACTION I don’t know….) but I will accept what you say as I don’t have the knowledge, though I think the supposed representatives of CHRIST (the GREATEST MAN WHO EVER LIVED, regardless whose son he was) should’ve emulated his example and become martyrs, IF THAT WOULD HAVE HELPED STOP THE HOLOCAUST. That would’ve helped bring the US into the war quickier, I think.

With all the usual respect,

T


-------------


Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: January 14 2007 at 00:42
Originally posted by The T The T wrote:



Things may change in a short period, that’s true. But we’re talking a 70+ years old revolution that was dying and no force could’ve stopped it. Remember that the hard line in the Communist Party DID attempt a coup with Gorbachov and had him secluded in.. well, in the “vacation” Villa they had (I don’t remember the name of the town now…). Of course Yeltsin capitalized on the anger of the people and they desire NOT to return to the old ways… so there was the case: they tried to stop the collapse of the soviet union, they couldn’t. T
 
Believe me T, a Messiahnic leader is all you need to restore a falling empire, a guy that is able to capitalize the anger of the people.
 
Look at Chavez, it's illogic, Venezuela is one of the countries oin Lation America with higher standart and they are ready to allow Chavez to be President for the rest of his life. The worst thing is that as in any country the state companies work terribly bad and often are in the border of bankruptcy but still people is happy with closing all the free  media and the statization of the Petroleum, electricity and telephones.
 
The same could have happened in USSR a Popular, fanatic leader promissing could have recaptured the power for the Politboureau or maybe even worst, a dictator a la Castro, but the rest of the world leaded by Reagan, John Paul II and Walesa were toio much.
 
The same applies to the “satellite” countries the USSR once played with like puppets: in all of them there was an uprising of people demanding freedom. It was just bound to happen. I’m sure the same would’ve happened with G. Bush (senior, not the current disaster) or even with democrat Clinton. Yes, me may concede that Reagan was tough, tougher than Carter at least (well, who isn’t). But Reagan was the madman who created the “Star wars” myth of using satellites for military protection… I know, maybe just a ploy to embed fear into the soviets’ brains, but please… that was ridiculous.
 
That star wars was another factor, believe it or not the capacity of USA to destroy a great percentage of missiles before they reached USA territory was probably the worst threat against USST, who's technology was staying far behind.

The good phrase Reagan coined, I have to say, was: “Mr Goorbachov, tear down that wall”…. No doubt that helped Mikhail gain the courage he needed. It had almost the same impact as “Ich bin ein Berliner” (which, by the way, is wrong: the current expression would’ve been “Ich bin Berliner”).
 
Well, Kennedy messed it with Bay of Pigs but giving a step back when yhe USSR was decided to retire their forces was a sign of weaknes IMO.

When we’re talking Cuba, we’re talking a poor, small island that NEEDS a “patron” like the USSR was or Venezuela is now… USSR was THE other superpower… (at least in the books… it has been proven repeatedly that, in the facts, it had nowhere the same military power as the US empire)
 
But they had enough weapons to destroy most USA big cities.

There was no merit in menacing with war in an era where the MAD theory ruled (and saved the world: Mutually Assured Destruction)… Both sides knew that, whoever ignited a flame, even with the disadvantage the USSR had, it would still have been able to counterattack and tear not the wall but the WORLD to pieces…. Why don’t we praise Kennedy instead who actually had the courage to stand against his OWN ARMY AND GENERALS that wanted to invade Cuba in the missile crisis and would’ve caused the nuclear holocaust? He stood up TO HIS OWN ARMY and did the rational: save the world from utter destruction… at that particular time, the missile bases in Cuba were a threat to the MAD theory, because they would nullify the possibility for the US of a counterattack and made viable a “first attack” option for the USSR…. But he was COOL enough to understand that he didn’t need to rush his country into apocalypse… (the way a certain texas-born president would do today….) So if Reagan had courage, I’d say Kennedy had …. Well, other things….
 
It was well known that Kruschev had already ordered to stop the missiles from being sent to Cuba, he was not mad and clearly stated he didn't wanted to cause an holocaust, but Kennedy showed weakness first, He should had never gone to Cuba, this made Fidel more popular, but once he was in, he should had followed IMO.

If the US had done anything about Prague (or about Hungary a few years earlier, for that matter), the USSR would’ve invaded West-Berlin, the US and NATO would have had to counterattack, and you know what would’ve been next (hint: a mushroom). About China, that’s an eastern, completely alien society for all of us to understand…. They have their way of thinking… we CANNOT see the world only through OUR EYES (the way a certain idiotic president wants to force democracy in a society that DOESN’T UNDERSTAND THE TERM)
 
Of course, that was not the moment, I'm sure USSR would have done nothing about Cuba but I'm also sure a protection to the Prague Spring would have caused a lot of problems, but that's why USSR succeded, all the world saw the destruction of a democratic movement and did nothing, it was not the moment, but USSR had no pressure

We agree. My point was, let’s not say “Reagan torn down the wall”… Let’s say he HELPED.
 
Of course we agree in this, but he played an important role.

About the Vatican part, I don’t know as much as you do, without a doubt, about their involvement in WWI and what good deeds they may have done (though why aren’t those as publicized as their INACTION I don’t know….)
 
There are things people must understand, the Pope is the head of the Catholic Church but aklso the head of a State that had to remain neutral (At least in appearence) to survive.
 
The Catholic Church is not famous for doing evangelism or making TV shows ot attacking other Churches, that you must accept, by the cointrary we are usually the target of many Protestant Churches who will do anything to discredit us.
 
We have at least 10 TV programs of Evangelists in Peruvian TV and ALL OF THEM ATTACK CATHOLIC CHURCH but nobody talks about cases like:
 
Quote
Hugh O'Flaherty had only a standard, modest Irish antipathy towards the British until he was in seminary; then some of his boyhood friends were killed by the Black and Tans.

O'Flaherty earned his bachelor's degree in theology in one year at the Urban College of the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, and was ordained in 1925. He served as vice rector of the college for the next two years, while earning doctorates in divinity, canon law and philosophy. After four years in the Vatican diplomatic service, he was appointed a notary of the Holy Office.

Although many people found him rough-edged, Msgr. O'Flaherty had a stunning success in Roman social high life; this would prove important during the Nazi occupation. He raised some eyebrows by becoming amateur golf champion of Italy-- diocesan priests of Rome were not allowed to play golf. Cardinal Ottaviani, however, liked and defended him.

Monsignor O'Flaherty got his start in smuggling and hiding refugees in the fall of 1942, when the Germans and Italians cracked down on prominent Jews and aristocratic anti-Fascists. Monsignor O'Flaherty had socialized with these people before the war; now he hid them in monasteries and convents, and in his own residence--the German College.

In the spring of 1943, his operation broadened to include escaped British POWs; and he acquired a most improbable partner, Sir Francis D'Arcy Godolphin Osborne, British Minister to the Vatican. The POWs would be safe in the Vatican, but as internees they would be unable to rejoin their fighting units. Sir D'Arcy's status prevented him from leaving the Vatican, so Msgr. O'Flaherty developed a network of apartments in Rome in which they could hide.

In September the Germans occupied Rome. The Italian game of "forgetting" to round up Jews was over.

According to Msgr. O'Flaherty's biographer, J.P. Gallagher, Vatican officials who had inclined to prudence and ordinary Italians who had been indifferent to the plight of the Jews were radicalized by the Gestapo. "Even the most conservative men in the Vatican were prepared now to give the trouble-shooting Monsignor quite a bit more rope."

Monsignor O'Flaherty hid Jews in monasteries and convents, at Castel Gandolfo, in his old college of the Propaganda Fide, in the German College and in his network of apartments. Every evening, he stood in the porch of St. Peter's, in plain view both of the German soldiers across the piazza and of the windows of the Pope's apartments. Escaped POWs and Jews would come to him there. He would smuggle them across the piazza and through the German Cemetary to the college. Sometimes he would disguise them in the robes of a monsignor or the uniform of a Swiss Guard.

"One Jew," Gallagher reports, "made his way to St. Peter's and, coming up to O'Flaherty at his usual post on the steps and drawing him deeper into the shadows, proceeded to unwind a solid gold chain that went twice around his waist. 'My wife and I expect to be arrested at any moment,' said the Jew. 'We have no way of escaping. When we are taken to Germany we shall die. But we have a small son; he is only seven and is too young to die in a Nazi gas chamber. Please take this chain and take the boy for us too. Each link of the chain will keep him alive for a month. Will you save him?'"

Monsignor O'Flaherty improved upon this plan: he accepted the chain, hid the boy and procured false papers for the parents. At the end of the war, he returned the boy and the chain.

Colonel Herbert Kappler, Rome's Gestapo chief, set several traps for Msgr. O'Flaherty. Once he escaped by a rolling-block charge through Gestapo men and in at the doors of St. Mary Major--extraterritorial property of the Church. Another time, he was at the palace of Prince Filippo Doria Pamphili, who provided funds for his operations. The SS surrounded the palace; Msgr. O'Flaherty escaped to the basement, then up a coal chute and away in the coal truck that had been making a delivery.

Finally Colonel Kappler complained to Berlin. Monsignor O'Flaherty received an invitation to a reception at the Hungarian Embassy, with an implicit safe-conduct. There Baron von Weiszacker, the German Ambassador, told him: "Nobody in Rome honors you more than I do for what you are doing. But it has gone too far for us all. Kappler is waiting in the hall, feeling rather frustrated.... I have told him that you will of course have safe-conduct back to the Vatican tonight. But...if you ever step outside Vatican territory again, on whatever pretext, you will be arrested at once.... Now will you please think about what I have said?"

O'Flaherty smiled down at von Weiszacker and replied: "Your Excellency is too considerate. I will certainly think about what you have said-- sometimes!"

Of 9,700 Roman Jews, 1,007 were shipped to Auschwitz. The rest were hidden, 5,000 of them by the official Church--3,000 in Castel Gandolfo, 200 or 400 (estimates vary) as "members" of the Palatine Guard and some 1,500 in monasteries, convents and colleges. The remaining 3,700 were hidden in private homes, including Msgr. O'Flaherty's network of apartments.

After the war, Colonel Kappler was sentenced to life in the Gaeta prison, between Rome and Naples. His only visitor was an Irish monsignor who came once a month. In 1959 Msgr. O'Flaherty baptized Herbert Kappler into the Catholic Church.

"Elsewhere in Italy," Pinchas Lapide says, "thanks in part to the lifting of the enclosure...at least 40,000 Italian Jews and others who had managed to flee to Italy were hidden and saved by humble priests, monks, farmers and laborers, dozens of whom lost their lives for sheltering them."

After the war O'Flarherty was named Notary of the Holy Office, the first Irishman to receive that honor. In 1960, he retired to Cahirciveen, County Kerry, where he died in 1963, and is buried in Cahersiveen.

 
This are facts that the anti Catholic movements never talk about, the Vatican not only saved almost 90% of the Roman Jewishs (89.62%) but also saved a total of 40,000 lives without counting the soldiers and pilots that were hidden by the Vatican directly.
 
The Pope remained neutral in appearence because all those lives were in their hands, this is more than most Churches did.
 
Of course coward  rumors have been released by the CIA that he could have been a Nazi informer but this is absurd, nobody saves so many lives and is a traitor (BTW: The CIA later reported that the information provided to the Germans was false in order to mislead them at the risk of his own life), the same things were said about Schindler after the war and today is a hero.
 
Quote

After the Allied forces landings and Italy’s capitulation in September 1943, thousands of POWs were let lose. Many reached Rome just as German troops seized it. Remembering the visits of the Monsignor to the POW camps, the ex prisoners turned to him for help.
He concealed more than 4,000 in convents, crowded flats and outlying farms. He secured aid from monks, nuns, communists, a Swiss Count and Free French secret service agents.
He knew everyone and they all adored him.

(...)
 
Monsignor O’Flaherty was awarded the highest honours six countries could bestow on him, including the CBE and the US Medal of Freedom with Silver Palm. But when Italy’s first post-war government awarded him a life-time pension he refused to take one lira of it. He wanted nothing for himself.
 
This is the portrait of a hero almost unknown because nobody cares to know the truth about the Catholic Church role in the WWII.
 
The paradox is that while most Christians ignore this:
 
Quote Thursday, November 20, 2003

Monsignor O’Flaherty to be honoured in Israel
 
CAHERCIVEEN born Monsignor Hugh O’Flaherty is to be honoured by the Government of Israel for his support of the Jewish people during World War II.

The government plans to commemorate the great Kerryman and his bravery in the face of great adversity.
 
The Israel Government (Not Catholic or Christian), honors his memory 40 years after his death and three years after the false rumors spreaded by CIA and the Daily Telegraph in UK (Monsignor O'Flagherty was Irish and didn't liked the English Government).
 
but I will accept what you say as I don’t have the knowledge, though I think the supposed representatives of CHRIST (the GREATEST MAN WHO EVER LIVED, regardless whose son he was) should’ve emulated his example and become martyrs, IF THAT WOULD HAVE HELPED STOP THE HOLOCAUST. That would’ve helped bring the US into the war quickier, I think.
 
The only thing achieved would have been that the Vatican would have been occupied, the Pope removed, a nazi puppet Pope named (As a puppet German pseudo Lutheran Church was created when Hitler appointed a Reich Bishop, Ludwig Mueller, who led a "German Christian" movement within the church) and Germany would had made use of all the power and resources of the Catholic Church.

Don't you believe 40,000 lives are worth the formal neutral position? Don't you believe that a safe net for British Prissoners of War that escaped was worth?

If you survive you can help more people than dead or conquered, 40,000 Jewishs and numerous British POW's survived due to this neutrality.
 
The Church doesn't make propaganda with this things so nobody cares to make them public.
 
Iván
 


-------------
            


Posted By: The T
Date Posted: January 14 2007 at 21:19
Believe me T, a Messiahnic leader is all you need to restore a falling empire, a guy that is able to capitalize the anger of the people.

Look at Chavez, it's illogic, Venezuela is one of the countries oin Lation America with higher standart and they are ready to allow Chavez to be President for the rest of his life. The worst thing is that as in any country the state companies work terribly bad and often are in the border of bankruptcy but still people is happy with closing all the free media and the statization of the Petroleum, electricity and telephones.

The same could have happened in USSR a Popular, fanatic leader promissing could have recaptured the power for the Politboureau or maybe even worst, a dictator a la Castro, but the rest of the world leaded by Reagan, John Paul II and Walesa were toio much.



I wouldn’t agree with that… every falling empire has… well, fallen. Haven’t seen a falling empire rise up again from near the ashes… Chavez doesn’t qualify, as his is not an empire but a small nation (small in the international-power way I mean) that Chavez precisely has turned into a major player, not with the best of practices I must say, (in fact, I disagree with him 110%) but that’s what has played in his favor: the “underdog that faces the empire” theme… I really think it’s not the same as the USSR that WAS an empire, a falling one, and where the only messianic figures they had were dead about 70 years ago (Lenin, who was not a true messianic figure anyway, for he didn’t really convince all the people but a mere fraction that happened to wisely capitalize in the debacle that was Nicolas’ rule in Russia).

That star wars was another factor, believe it or not the capacity of USA to destroy a great percentage of missiles before they reached USA territory was probably the worst threat against USST, who's technology was staying far behind.

Exactly what I said, it was just a threat, but please… “Star wars”? Wonder why Reagan didn’t say that fully dressed as Ronald Skywalker or something….

Well, Kennedy messed it with Bay of Pigs but giving a step back when yhe USSR was decided to retire their forces was a sign of weaknes IMO.

It was the CIA that got him into that awful mess… He was told of everything when little time was available to make the plan any better… but anyway, I really don’t agree with that “interventionist” policy that says that the US can go wherever they want to change governments, so, in the light of this, and keeping in mind that, up to date, Castro hadn’t really been a tyrant as he later become, I’m happy that FOR ONCE someone left a country solve its OWN business…


It was well known that Kruschev had already ordered to stop the missiles from being sent to Cuba, he was not mad and clearly stated he didn't wanted to cause an holocaust, but Kennedy showed weakness first, He should had never gone to Cuba, this made Fidel more popular, but once he was in, he should had followed IMO.


He stopped the missiles from being sent but A FEW were already OPERATIONAL. Off course, it’s the same: as I’m asking not to name Reagan “the wall-destroyer”, but just a helper, I agree that it took TWO people with goodwill to save the earth from the mushroom: Kruschev played his part, but so did Kennedy.


Of course, that was not the moment, I'm sure USSR would have done nothing about Cuba but I'm also sure a protection to the Prague Spring would have caused a lot of problems, but that's why USSR succeded, all the world saw the destruction of a democratic movement and did nothing, it was not the moment, but USSR had no pressure


At that point in time, the world, as you say, couldn’t do ANYTHING to stop that… And neither would have if the USSR had invaded Hungary in the 80’s! The thing is, the USSR was collapsing thanks to a lot of factors and it didn’t have the power (not military, but the LEGITIMACY, if such a word applies to such a tyrannic regime) to stop what was going on ….


Of course we agree in this, but he played an important role.


Yes he did.


There are things people must understand, the Pope is the head of the Catholic Church but aklso the head of a State that had to remain neutral (At least in appearence) to survive.

As I said, I don’t know that much. Yo may be absolutely right. Again, just one question:

When did Jesus say: “and you will create a state that will have its own borders, its own little (insignificant) army, its own rulers, etc…..” Where in the Bible (which I don’t know who was it written by but let’s take it as a tool right now) says that Jesus wished his church to be a state? I’m not saying the Vatican as a state didn’t do what was needed, I said THE CHURCH AS SUPPOSED REPRESENTATIVES OF JESUS ON EARTH…..

So many deaths and wars have been cause in Jesus’ name…. but I’d like to see the church, the “state”, instead of accumulating beautiful paintings and gold and costumes, to have BLED as it MADE PEOPLE BLED for just once….

Yes, asking a priest to bled…. That would be a new one.

The few ones that have done it (like the one in Salvador whose name now I can’t remember, maybe Romero?) were CAST OUT by the church….

Great institution. It has to defend “borders”….

I respect every belief, though.

The Catholic Church is not famous for doing evangelism or making TV shows ot attacking other Churches, that you must accept, by the cointrary we are usually the target of many Protestant Churches who will do anything to discredit us.

We have at least 10 TV programs of Evangelists in Peruvian TV and ALL OF THEM ATTACK CATHOLIC CHURCH but nobody talks about cases like:


That I can agree with. But is the usual case of the minority trying to upset the majority.

This are facts that the anti Catholic movements never talk about, the Vatican not only saved almost 90% of the Roman Jewishs (89.62%) but also saved a total of 40,000 lives without counting the soldiers and pilots that were hidden by the Vatican directly.

The Pope remained neutral in appearence because all those lives were in their hands, this is more than most Churches did.

Of course coward rumors have been released by the CIA that he could have been a Nazi informer but this is absurd, nobody saves so many lives and is a traitor (BTW: The CIA later reported that the information provided to the Germans was false in order to mislead them at the risk of his own life), the same things were said about Schindler after the war and today is a hero.



I will agree that trusting the CIA is not wise.

This is the portrait of a hero almost unknown because nobody cares to know the truth about the Catholic Church role in the WWII.

The paradox is that while most Christians ignore this:

The Israel Government (Not Catholic or Christian), honors his memory 40 years after his death and three years after the false rumors spreaded by CIA and the Daily Telegraph in UK (Monsignor O'Flagherty was Irish and didn't liked the English Government).


I never said there aren’t true, good, honest catholics. I never said there aren’t ANY good priests. You seem to be a true, honest catholic. What I really don’t agree with is THE INSTITUTION.

The only thing achieved would have been that the Vatican would have been occupied, the Pope removed, a nazi puppet Pope named (As a puppet German pseudo Lutheran Church was created when Hitler appointed a Reich Bishop, Ludwig Mueller, who led a "German Christian" movement within the church) and Germany would had made use of all the power and resources of the Catholic Church.


The US hasn’t had many catholic presidents (curiously, Kennedy is an exception), but I’m sure Roosevelt would’ve entered the conflict earlier if the church and the Pope would’ve been attacked… But about this all is speculation… Neither you nor I have the truth, for it didn’t happen.

But really, I admire your passion in defending your creed. It would be so nice if everybody did, whatever their beliefs be. The problem is, the majority’s TRUE creed is MONEY…. And that’s something that even the church has helped to create. But that’s matter for another discussion.

Respects,

T
    
    

-------------


Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: January 15 2007 at 00:57

Originally posted by The T The T wrote:



I wouldn’t agree with that… every falling empire has… well, fallen. Haven’t seen a falling empire rise up again from near the ashes… Chavez doesn’t qualify, as his is not an empire but a small nation (small in the international-power way I mean) that Chavez precisely has turned into a major player, not with the best of practices I must say, (in fact, I disagree with him 110%) but that’s what has played in his favor: the “underdog that faces the empire” theme… I really think it’s not the same as the USSR that WAS an empire, a falling one, and where the only messianic figures they had were dead about 70 years ago (Lenin, who was not a true messianic figure anyway, for he didn’t really convince all the people but a mere fraction that happened to wisely capitalize in the debacle that was Nicolas’ rule in Russia).

Venezuela is a power because of the petroleum and they are supporting economically not only Cuba but also Bolivia and most surely Nicaragua since Ortega has been elected.

Venezuela in this moment stops selling oil to USA and the most powerful country in the world will be in serious trouble.
 
But the point is, Cuba was dead 2 years ago, now Castro, his brother and folllowers will survive thanks to Venezuela.


Exactly what I said, it was just a threat, but please… “Star wars”? Wonder why Reagan didn’t say that fully dressed as Ronald Skywalker or something….

The name was silly (More a press product) but, hey if you could stop the missiles before reaching USA territory, this was a tacttic advantage, probably determninant.

It was the CIA that got him into that awful mess… He was told of everything when little time was available to make the plan any better… but anyway, I really don’t agree with that “interventionist” policy that says that the US can go wherever they want to change governments, so, in the light of this, and keeping in mind that, up to date, Castro hadn’t really been a tyrant as he later become, I’m happy that FOR ONCE someone left a country solve its OWN business… 


I never believed in an innocence of a Kannedy, please look his family background, look the Giancana connection that allowed him to reach the President office, he knew much more than he wanted people to believe.

He stopped the missiles from being sent but A FEW were already OPERATIONAL. Off course, it’s the same: as I’m asking not to name Reagan “the wall-destroyer”, but just a helper, I agree that it took TWO people with goodwill to save the earth from the mushroom: Kruschev played his part, but so did Kennedy.


Cuba was not able to launch those operational missiles without USSR and Kruschev was not a lunatic, at the end Cuba was a heavy charge for their country and only a small propaganda.

At that point in time, the world, as you say, couldn’t do ANYTHING to stop that… And neither would have if the USSR had invaded Hungary in the 80’s! The thing is, the USSR was collapsing thanks to a lot of factors and it didn’t have the power (not military, but the LEGITIMACY, if such a word applies to such a tyrannic regime) to stop what was going on ….


But this factors already mentioned accelerated them


As I said, I don’t know that much. Yo may be absolutely right. Again, just one question:

When did Jesus say: “and you will create a state that will have its own borders, its own little (insignificant) army, its own rulers, etc…..” Where in the Bible (which I don’t know who was it written by but let’s take it as a tool right now) says that Jesus wished his church to be a state? I’m not saying the Vatican as a state didn’t do what was needed, I said THE CHURCH AS SUPPOSED REPRESENTATIVES OF JESUS ON EARTH…..
 
When you ar the head of a congregation of 2,000 members, you can use theaters, if you're bigger you can have a TV station but when you are the head of 1.3 billion Catholics around the whole world, you need much more.
 
Also important, the Vatican as a soberaign nation allows the Catholic Church total independence of any country, if a priest or Catholics are attacked or harrased anywhere, the Vatican State and Churches may give assylum, they can vote in the UN for what they think is right and CATHOLIC CHURCH DOESN'T NEED TO ASK THEIR FOLLOWERS A DIME, THE VATICAN HAS IT'S OWN RESOURCES, SO WE DON'T NEED TO EXPLOIT OUR PEOPLE.

So many deaths and wars have been cause in Jesus’ name…. but I’d like to see the church, the “state”, instead of accumulating beautiful paintings and gold and costumes, to have BLED as it MADE PEOPLE BLED for just once….
 
The Catholic Church has accepted their past mistakes, the Pope pubblicly has apologized, why people always mentions Cathoilic Church past mistakes and forgets the Salems, the Irish catholics being killed, the massacres of many other churches, the actual con-artists working as preachers.
 
The Catholic Churh comited mistakes and even crimes, but the situation today is different.

Yes, asking a priest to bled…. That would be a new one.
 
Do you know how many muissionaries die every year in Africa, how many have died and bleed during the istory?

The few ones that have done it (like the one in Salvador whose name now I can’t remember, maybe Romero?) were CAST OUT by the church….
 
Romero wasn't cast out but the church, wher did you read that? He died being Monsignor Oscar Arnulfo Romero with all the powers of a Cardinal.

Great institution. It has to defend “borders”….
 
Those borders saved 40,000 Jewishs when nobody else did anything in Italy and Germany, those borders saved 4,500 English POW's in ITALY, the center of the Berlin Ro,e Axis, what else can you ask?

I respect every belief, though.

I have noticed but the problem is that hoinest people is misinformed specially in USA where Catholic Church is not exactly popular.

That I can agree with. But is the usual case of the minority trying to upset the majority.

Yep, butwe are suposed to be brothers in Christ, the difference is that the Catholic Church believes salvation is for Christians and mno Christians, most our brother religions don't and they dislike the idea very much.

I will agree that trusting the CIA is not wise. 

In this we agree. 

I never said there aren’t true, good, honest catholics. I never said there aren’t ANY good priests. You seem to be a true, honest catholic. What I really don’t agree with is THE INSTITUTION.

It's not a Priest, is a Monsignor (Përsonal Atache of the Pope and career Diplomatic of the Holy See) that hid 44,500 refugees (Between Jewishs and POW's), do you believe you can hide that number of persons in the Vatican without the knowledge of the Pope?
 
Please nobody reaches the chair of St, Peter being an idiot, the Popes know exactly what's happening inside the Church.
 
Pius XII had to keep a formal neutral position, 44,500 humans were in his hands and 90% not Catholics or Christians.


The US hasn’t had many catholic presidents (curiously, Kennedy is an exception), but I’m sure Roosevelt would’ve entered the conflict earlier if the church and the Pope would’ve been attacked… But about this all is speculation… Neither you nor I have the truth, for it didn’t happen.
 
For God's sake, Roosevelt was descendant of Jewishs and knew what was happening to the Jewishs in Europe but did nothing until USA was atacked, what makes you believe he would have done something for the Catholic Church?
 
And what about the refugees, the Pope can sacrifice his life but those refugees went to the Vatican to save their lives, it was the Pope's responsability to keep them alive.

But really, I admire your passion in defending your creed. It would be so nice if everybody did, whatever their beliefs be. The problem is, the majority’s TRUE creed is MONEY…. And that’s something that even the church has helped to create. But that’s matter for another discussion.
 
The funny thing is that I am not the most faithful Catholic, rarely go to Mass, dislike the Catholic fanatics as much as any other fanatic, I even have my disagreements with the doctrine like admiting abortion in exceptional cases (Therapeutic abortion in order to preserve maternal health [already accepted by the Church], rape or malformation of the phoetus that will lead to an unavoidable death), I used condoms since I remember (I believe it's more responsible to avoid conception than to bring unwanted children without having to reach abortion), in other words, I'm far from being the perfect Catholic.
 
But I believe in Jesus and I also believe the Pope as the successor of Peter and I'm very tired to see how my Church and the Church of my parents is constantly under attack by some of our so called brothers.
 
Honestly, I never heard a Jewish or a Moslem attacking the Pope with such hate as some Christians, or calling us the whore of Babylone, by the contrary they have always showed respect for the Holy Father, receiving him in the Sinagoogues and the Mosques as a brother in the God of Abraham.

Iván
     
    


-------------
            


Posted By: Andrea Cortese
Date Posted: January 15 2007 at 06:00
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

 
The funny thing is that I am not the most faithful Catholic, rarely go to Mass, dislike the Catholic fanatics as much as any other fanatic, I even have my disagreements with the doctrine like admiting abortion in exceptional cases (Therapeutic abortion in order to preserve maternal health [already accepted by the Church], rape or malformation of the phoetus that will lead to an unavoidable death), I used condoms since I remember (I believe it's more responsible to avoid conception than to bring unwanted children without having to reach abortion), in other words, I'm far from being the perfect Catholic.
 
But I believe in Jesus and I also believe the Pope as the successor of Peter and I'm very tired to see how my Church and the Church of my parents is constantly under attack by some of our so called brothers.
 
Honestly, I never heard a Jewish or a Moslem attacking the Pope with such hate as some Christians, or calling us the whore of Babylone, by the contrary they have always showed respect for the Holy Father, receiving him in the Sinagoogues and the Mosques as a brother in the God of Abraham.

Iván
     
 
Shocked
 
I'm shocked. My thoughts exactly.Clap


Posted By: The T
Date Posted: January 15 2007 at 22:38
very good. I'll answer soon, as soon as I understand what did I do that now I don't get quote in color or nothing but just promt-language when I quote... Anyway, great discussion, i have to say Ivan you know a lot, you are more experienced than me (with age comes coolness) but I still have some points to make. But this in no way goes to attack a church just for the sake of attacking a church. I don't agree with religions, with dividing people (just the opposite of what Jesus said) according to beliefs... I said Clinton was the best president, Kennedy could've been.... He was no saint (who that is in power is?) but largely responsible for saving the world of utter disaster. He was cool when he had reasons not to be... the missiles were operational and there were USSR personnel in Cuba, so they actually had achieved first-strike capability, shortly but surely, so he would have had to react quickly, invaded Cuba, and then.... a mushroom. He was cool enough to stand against his own trigger-crazy army.... About the WWII, the church didn't do everything it could but OK, I concede, they may have done more than I knew. The churches' past mistakes were not just that, were atrocities performed in CHRIST name.... they have asked for forgiveness....we should give that, even though is hard to forgive an institution that didn't do that centuries ago.... I agree, other religions are filled with more fanatics, the "terror" threat today is a proof.... Reagan was a cowboy and his "starwars" rant was just that, in a time when it was not needed (the USSR was collapsing, their weapons getting obsolete). The US won't collapse when Venezuela's oil doesn't come here.... they have reserves, they have the Saudis... they want to have Iraq. (what's the purpose of the war then?... man, my answer wasso much better but I erased it and this stupid promt-writing is driving me crazy, so I will do it later. Anyway, in a hurry, that's what I think. I blame my lack of strcuture here to my own stupidity at erasing what I wrote in ANOTHER computer, becasue in this one I'm just getting crazy.... anyway, respects.

-------------


Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: March 01 2007 at 09:19
Great posts Ivan, especially about Pope Pious. Shame I missed this while it was hot.

Reagan is so far out of the league of any modern president. He was eloquent, intelligent, and at the same time very firm and willing to take action. As many people said, he was able to compromise while not compromising his principles, which speaks of his greatness. The prosperity of the country following his predency speaks for itself. I believe he's the only modern president able to to be mentioned with the same breath as Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Lincoln.


-------------
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "


Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: March 01 2007 at 12:22
None of these.  George Washington.
 
If he had wanted, he could have been president for life.  However, he found that unethical, and decided to allow others to make America a true democracy.
 
What an American in the ideal sense of the word.
 
Micky better give him a few clappies.


Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: March 01 2007 at 14:27

Presidente Jorge Arbusto got a vote and his Father didn't?

I would've voted for Bush 41 a hundred times before 43....
Honestly, while I disagree with his politics... I didn't think he was that bad, and this coming from the most pro-democrat/anti-republican guy around.
 
I say the best modern US President is...
FDR!
or Carter from that list...
And the worst is Reagan


Posted By: BaldFriede
Date Posted: March 01 2007 at 16:10
Originally posted by The T The T wrote:


 It had almost the same impact as “Ich bin ein Berliner” (which, by the way, is wrong: the current expression would’ve been “Ich bin Berliner”).

Not true; you can say both. Only "Ich bin ein Berliner" has a funny side to it too, because "Berliner" is also the German name for a kind of doughnut with jelly filling. LOL


-------------


BaldJean and I; I am the one in blue.


Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: March 01 2007 at 16:58
Originally posted by BaldFriede BaldFriede wrote:

Originally posted by The T The T wrote:


 It had almost the same impact as “Ich bin ein Berliner” (which, by the way, is wrong: the current expression would’ve been “Ich bin Berliner”).

Not true; you can say both. Only "Ich bin ein Berliner" has a funny side to it too, because "Berliner" is also the German name for a kind of doughnut with jelly filling. LOL


Found this great picture of JFK that I'd like to share:



Tongue
(borrowed shamelessly from wikipedia) Wink



Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: March 01 2007 at 16:59
Originally posted by inpraiseoffolly inpraiseoffolly wrote:

None of these.  George Washington.
 
If he had wanted, he could have been president for life.  However, he found that unethical, and decided to allow others to make America a true democracy.
 
What an American in the ideal sense of the word.
 
Micky better give him a few clappies.


He's my favorite president too, but the poll asked who's the best modern president, not who's the best president.


-------------
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "


Posted By: BroSpence
Date Posted: March 08 2007 at 21:33
They've all pretty much sucked.  Especially  in terms of foreign policy.  


Posted By: pianoman
Date Posted: March 08 2007 at 21:39
Originally posted by BroSpence BroSpence wrote:

They've all pretty much sucked.  Especially  in terms of foreign policy.  
Well saidClap
 
Kennady is good with me though.


Posted By: IVNORD
Date Posted: March 09 2007 at 08:24
Originally posted by BroSpence BroSpence wrote:

They've all pretty much sucked.  Especially  in terms of foreign policy.  
 

By this criteria one really has to go with the least harmful one. Add domestic economy to foreign policy and the high vote Clinton  has received here is totally unwarranted.



Posted By: BroSpence
Date Posted: March 10 2007 at 20:20
Clinton's strategy for foreign policy was pretty much what Carter's was only it worked a tiny bit better.  Meaning it still sucked.  Everyone since Carter has had about the same roll in policy.  Bush jr. is even taking an approach like Carter after realizing his early neo-isolationist and other strategies worked even worse.  Kennedy's problem was everything he set up failed. 

Nixon was awful too for obvious reasons.  During the '68 elections he told the leader of S. Vietnam (before a peace signing with the North, setup by Johnson) that he would get him a better deal.  S. Vietnam pulled out of the treaty signing and Nixon won the election and then blew up Cambodia. 






Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2014 Web Wiz Ltd. - http://www.webwiz.co.uk