NationStates Jolt Archive

I like Lincoln and Clinton best. But that's just me.

I vote for... NotBush.

I vote for... NotBush.


Bastard, you beat me to it!

Washington, Lincoln, the Roosevelts, and Kennedy.

I'm no American… but I'd go for Roosevelt (being the uneducated foreigner that I am).

I vote Teddy Roosevelt! Teddy was a man's man. He was part of the rough riders and he commanded his troops very well. He was an avid outdoorsmen, and he was the one who started the National Forest deal. Hell he even was shot at one time while giving a speech, and that did not stop him! The bullet was stop by a thick book that he had in his breast pocket. You cannot get anymore maniler than that! He also was the few first one to do the third party route. The Bull Moose party. Now tho have the Bull Moose party, you had to be a man's man.

TEDDY ROOSEVELT!

kennedy

Wait, wait, wait.

You put Eisenhower, NIXON (of all people), Carter, Reagan, the Bushes, and Clinton on the poll list, but you left out the Roosevelts?

Ugh...

Nixon!!!

Nixon!!!

Why?

FDR, by far.

clinton
8 years of peace and a roaring economy

Jefferson.

I do not know who is the best, but Bush is the worst. He is not fit to rule a nation.

Ronald Reagan.

Crushed the evil empire of soviet communism, freed eastern Europe, kept western Europe out from under the yolk of Soviet Russia.

I voted for Washington but both Roosevelts are certianly good choices. They should be options in the poll.

Lincoln, the baddest Republican President of them all.

Although Teddy had some brass ones, too.

clinton
8 years of peace and a roaring economy
Yeah, temporarily, and at the expense of our future.
But hey, who am I to judge? :headbang:

you guys didnt watch the greatest american? it was Reagan who won and so shall he be the best president. you dont cower in fear of nukes, any more thanks to that man

Yeah, I was gonna add the Roosevelts (and I would've voted for 'em, too) but I didn't have enough room.

Yeah, temporarily, and at the expense of our future.
But hey, who am I to judge? :headbang:

yes all our current problems are his fault and our good ol' boy president had nothing to do with it,you neo-cons are so silly :p

Ths foreigner votes for Abraham Lincoln.

Ronald Reagan.

Crushed the evil empire of soviet communism, freed eastern Europe, kept western Europe out from under the yolk of Soviet Russia.
We didn't keep Europe under the yolk, we kept it under the egg white. :)

Seriously, the Soviet Union was doomed to fall, and it is more of a coincidence that Reagan and Bush (and not Mondale and Dukakis) oversaw our collapse.

Regan or FDR, both kicked some ass.

Regan brought down communism with his Powerful Anti-communism jellybeans.

Those beans were feared by the soviet people and struck fear into their hearts. Children were told stories of how if they were bad "Regans Jellybeans" would eat you, and then make you work at McDonalds.

I hardly know anything about US history so forgive me for my lack of authority, but i have to say that i voted Lincoln. His name runs along side the delcaration of independence in my head. And for the noble intent that is enshrined in those words, regardless of how well implemented it is in practise* he gets my vote.

*here i only mean that men are not in our world equal - the rich, the majority, the strong most times prosper at the expense if the weak - but still the sentiment is good.

Seriously, the Soviet Union was doomed to fall, and it is more of a coincidence that Reagan and Bush (and not Mondale and Dukakis) oversaw our collapse.

I agree - it seems to me that the cold war was lost, by the soviets, rather than won, by the west.

Ths foreigner votes for Abraham Lincoln.


We didn't keep Europe under the yolk, we kept it under the egg white. :)

Seriously, the Soviet Union was doomed to fall, and it is more of a coincidence that Reagan and Bush (and not Mondale and Dukakis) oversaw our collapse.
REvisionist history is so charming.

Whatever, man.

Ronald Reagan.

Crushed the evil empire of soviet communism, freed eastern Europe, kept western Europe out from under the yolk of Soviet Russia.

you say that as if western europe couldnt look after itself.

i'd say lincoln, as he abolished slavery.

8 years of peace and a roaring economy

The most corrupt, venal, lying President ever to be in office and one of the very few to be impeached.

Monica Lewinsky, Whitewater, Able Danger, the WTC (as in he failed to do a damned thing about it), lying under oath, perjury...yeah, makes quite a list, doesn't it?

Which President was it that left office as a known sex offendor?

William Henry Harrison. He died in office about a month after his inauguration. He's my favorite because he didn't serve long enough to permanently fuck over the country.

But seriously, I'd have to go with Thomas Jefferson. I'm also fond of James Madison. Abraham Lincoln's not in my top ten. FDR can kiss my boo-tay. Reagan's cool. He didn't accomplish a whole lot during his presidency, but I like many of the libertarian ideals he held. I can't render a verdict on Bush-41, Clinton or Bush-43 yet. Maybe it's just because I'm a historian, but I like to give a president at least 50 years before I decide his historical legacy. Bias obscures any sort of objective analysis, so that's why I like to distance myself from a presidency by at least 50 years before labeling him the best or worst in American history.

I agree - it seems to me that the cold war was lost, by the soviets, rather than won, by the west.
Don't want to hijack the thread, but I'll comment on it. The Cold War was something similar to a 'zero-sum game'--each and every Soviet loss was an American win, and vice versa. The general problems of the Soviet economy and the Soviet society made this game unwinnable for us. We were bound to lose in the Cold War.

The most corrupt, venal, lying President ever to be in office and one of the very few to be impeached.

Monica Lewinsky, Whitewater, Able Danger, the WTC (as in he failed to do a damned thing about it), lying under oath, perjury...yeah, makes quite a list, doesn't it?

Which President was it that left office as a known sex offendor?
So he cheated on his wife. Yeah, that sucks, but he's only human.

He did go after the WTC guy...

Rameses, or something, was the guys name. The found him somewehre in North Africa, I belive.

you say that as if western europe couldnt look after itself.

i'd say lincoln, as he abolished slavery.

No, he didn't. The Emancipation Proclamation abolished slavery in the rebel states. Slavery still existed in the border states that hadn't joined the Confederacy. The 13th Amendment abolished slavery.

The most corrupt, venal, lying President ever to be in office and one of the very few to be impeached.

...

Which President was it that left office as a known sex offendor?
What was Clinton's sexual offence? :confused:

No, he didn't. The Emancipation Proclamation abolished slavery in the rebel states. Slavery still existed in the border states that hadn't joined the Confederacy. The 13th Amendment abolished slavery.

Basically, 4 or 5 states still had slavery. Not to mention the fact that slaves were escaping, being liverated, and in some cases joining the Northern army.

Of those I can remember: Ike: did nothing,which is what people wanted at the time Kennedy: died too young to know how he would be, Johnson: good domestic, bad war, Nixon: good international, but parinoid, Ford: caretaker Carter: Good except for the economy, the only real Christian. Reagan: Good at public relations, massive debt, committed TREASON by selling arms to the enemy. Bush1: caretaker, massive debt, didn't know what to do after he got the job. Clinton: immoral personally, turned debt around, good domestic, good international Bush2: TOTAL FAILURE, massive debt, didn't finish war with those who attacked us, went to war with Bushnam for no reason, disaster failure to respond, accomplished nothing. Best ever: Washington: gave up power. Jefferson: expanded nation, gave up power to continue tradition. Lincoln: Great manager in bad situation. FDR: Failed to give up power, but did lead in bad situation,like Lincoln.

What was Clinton's sexual offence? :confused:

I presume he's referring to the alleged sexual harassment of Paula Jones and various other women. Clinton's not a convicted sex offender, but the point's taken.

yes all our current problems are his fault and our good ol' boy president had nothing to do with it,you neo-cons are so silly :p
You really shouldn't assume you know someones political leanings from a single opinion. I assure you, I AM NOT a neo-con

Reagan!!!!!! Best President we have ever had. Opposed Liberalism, brought the Soviet Union to its knees, and looked good doing both. He also knew how to talk to people, as seen by any one of his amazing quotes. One of my personal favorites is, after he is shot, and rushed to the hospital, he looks at the doctors about to save his life and goes, "I hope your all Republicans". You dont get much cooler than that.

On a second note, behind Reagan, I have to admire Bush, Bush JR., FDR, Truman, Teddy, Johnson, and Wilson. Because weither you agreed with the wars they were in, or not, you have to admire them for being wartime Presidents. That takes ALOT.

Hmm, best President.

Reagan did win the cold war.

Clinton gave away the nation to the Chinese spies and to NAFTA.

The most corrupt, venal, lying President ever to be in office and one of the very few to be impeached.

Monica Lewinsky, Whitewater, Able Danger, the WTC (as in he failed to do a damned thing about it), lying under oath, perjury...yeah, makes quite a list, doesn't it?

Which President was it that left office as a known sex offendor?


And that's not mentioning the fact he was selling American secrets to the Chinese, America's should-be-sworn-enemies, who practice communism openely. That's the real reason he was almost impeached, not Monicagate.

I voted G. Wash. He started it all and was a bad-ass general too. Without him, America wouldn't be the same country it is today -- may have had a totally different outlook.

Basically, 4 or 5 states still had slavery. Not to mention the fact that slaves were escaping, being liverated, and in some cases joining the Northern army.

Exactly. I also forgot to mention that Abraham Lincoln really had no legal authority over the Confederate states since they had formed a separate government. In other words, he abolished slavery in a region over which he didn't preside and ignored slavery in the regions over which he DID preside. I find that hilarious. Shrewd political move, Lincoln, you rat bastard.

Exactly. I also forgot to mention that Abraham Lincoln really had no legal authority over the Confederate states since they had formed a separate government. In other words, he abolished slavery in a region over which he didn't preside and ignored slavery in the regions over which he DID preside. I find that hilarious. Shrewd political move, Lincoln, you rat bastard.
Well, he couldn't actually abolish slavery in the regions that he personally controlled. However, he could say that since Slaves=Property and Property of the Enemy=Spoils of War, all slaves that were captured from the South were liberated.

And that's not mentioning the fact he was selling American secrets to the Chinese, America's should-be-sworn-enemies, who practice communism openely. That's the real reason he was almost impeached, not Monicagate.

Exactly, giving away the secrets to the chinese for campaign money.

What an asshole. and Gore arranged the whole thing.

Reagan=Most Conservative President we have ever had=Best President we have ever had.

Well, he couldn't actually abolish slavery in the regions that he personally controlled. However, he could say that since Slaves=Property and Property of the Enemy=Spoils of War, all slaves that were captured from the South were liberated.
Yes, he said something along that lines. Moreover, Lincoln campaigned for the constitutional amendment abolishing slavery and urged the slave states of the Union to ban slavery. Maryland and Missouri did that in 1864.

Lincoln
Kennedy
Reagan
Washington

These are my 4 from the list of Presidents listed.

Antre_Travarious']Exactly, giving away the secrets to the chinese for campaign money.

What an asshole. and Gore arranged the whole thing.
What are you talking about? What secrets did Clinton and Gore sell?

Well, he couldn't actually abolish slavery in the regions that he personally controlled. However, he could say that since Slaves=Property and Property of the Enemy=Spoils of War, all slaves that were captured from the South were liberated.

That's right. The Radical Republicans fully admitted that they had no constitutional authority to abolish slavery and Lincoln would have agreed. (Hence the need for the 13th Amendment.) He didn't declare that slaves captured were free, though. Slaves in the rebel states were free, period, end of story, and that the Union would harbor them and enlist them in the US military. Also, Lincoln never recognized the legitimacy or sovereignty of the Confederate government, so he never saw himself as losing legal authority over the territory.

*Edit: Lincoln wasn't an abolitionist by any means. Thus, the Emancipation Proclamation wasn't designed to free the slaves. It was designed to embarrass the South internationally, encourage slaves (especially slaves who served in the Confederate military) to run away, and make clear that he still had authority over the rebel states.

The firing of the air traffic controllers, winnable nuclear war, recallable nuclear missiles, trees that cause pollution, Elliott Abrams lying to Congress, ketchup as a vegetable, colluding with Guatemalan thugs, pardons for F.B.I. lawbreakers, voodoo economics, budget deficits, toasts to Ferdinand Marcos, public housing cutbacks, redbaiting the nuclear freeze movement, James Watt.

Getting cozy with Argentine fascist generals, tax credits for segregated schools, disinformation campaigns, "homeless by choice," Manuel Noriega, falling wages, the HUD scandal, air raids on Libya, "constructive engagement" with apartheid South Africa, United States Information Agency blacklists of liberal speakers, attacks on OSHA and workplace safety, the invasion of Grenada, assassination manuals, Nancy's astrologer.

Drug tests, lie detector tests, Fawn Hall, female appointees (8 percent), mining harbors, the S&L scandal, 239 dead U.S. troops in Beirut, Al Haig "in control," silence on AIDS, food-stamp reductions, Debategate, White House shredding, Jonas Savimbi, tax cuts for the rich, "mistakes were made."

Michael Deaver's conviction for influence peddling, Lyn Nofziger's conviction for influence peddling, Caspar Weinberger's five-count indictment, Ed Meese ("You don't have many suspects who are innocent of a crime"), Donald Regan (women don't "understand throw-weights"), education cuts, massacres in El Salvador.

"The bombing begins in five minutes," $640 Pentagon toilet seats, African-American judicial appointees (1.9 percent), Reader's Digest, C.I.A.-sponsored car-bombing in Lebanon (more than eighty civilians killed), 200 officials accused of wrongdoing, William Casey, Iran/contra. "Facts are stupid things," three-by-five cards, the MX missile, Bitburg, S.D.I., Robert Bork, naps, Teflon.

By David Corn, The Nation. Posted June 6, 2004.

I do have to admit that "The bombing begins in five minutes" was quite funny, though.

The firing of the air traffic controllers, winnable nuclear war, recallable nuclear missiles, trees that cause pollution, Elliott Abrams lying to Congress, ketchup as a vegetable, colluding with Guatemalan thugs, pardons for F.B.I. lawbreakers, voodoo economics, budget deficits, toasts to Ferdinand Marcos, public housing cutbacks, redbaiting the nuclear freeze movement, James Watt.

Getting cozy with Argentine fascist generals, tax credits for segregated schools, disinformation campaigns, "homeless by choice," Manuel Noriega, falling wages, the HUD scandal, air raids on Libya, "constructive engagement" with apartheid South Africa, United States Information Agency blacklists of liberal speakers, attacks on OSHA and workplace safety, the invasion of Grenada, assassination manuals, Nancy's astrologer.

Drug tests, lie detector tests, Fawn Hall, female appointees (8 percent), mining harbors, the S&L scandal, 239 dead U.S. troops in Beirut, Al Haig "in control," silence on AIDS, food-stamp reductions, Debategate, White House shredding, Jonas Savimbi, tax cuts for the rich, "mistakes were made."

Michael Deaver's conviction for influence peddling, Lyn Nofziger's conviction for influence peddling, Caspar Weinberger's five-count indictment, Ed Meese ("You don't have many suspects who are innocent of a crime"), Donald Regan (women don't "understand throw-weights"), education cuts, massacres in El Salvador.

"The bombing begins in five minutes," $640 Pentagon toilet seats, African-American judicial appointees (1.9 percent), Reader's Digest, C.I.A.-sponsored car-bombing in Lebanon (more than eighty civilians killed), 200 officials accused of wrongdoing, William Casey, Iran/contra. "Facts are stupid things," three-by-five cards, the MX missile, Bitburg, S.D.I., Robert Bork, naps, Teflon.

By David Corn, The Nation. Posted June 6, 2004.


I may be an idiot, but what the hell is this?

Reagan=Most Conservative President we have ever had=Best President we have ever had.
How can one be a conservative and sell out the children's future with massive debt?

F.d.r.

How can one be a conservative and sell out the children's future with massive debt?

Are you, in any way shape or form, trying to say that Reagan wasnt a Conservative????

I may be an idiot, but what the hell is this?
I bet its some sort of coded signal, like the Red Queens from The Manchurian Candidate (the original, good one). In a few moments someone dressed like a priest is going to start sniping people from the top of a civic center.

I for one would've liked to have seen the last 9 only: JFK and after are a "set" of "Modern" Presidents. I really can't compare Nixon to Grant and decide... it's too removed. Ditto Jimmy Carter vs. Rutherford B. Hayes.

Ike back to Teddy Roosevelt are another "group" of Presidents, as they ran the country in the expansionistic phase/America as the arsenal of Democracy.

Lincoln to McKinley are the post-Civil War Presidents, etc...

Are you, in any way shape or form, trying to say that Reagan wasnt a Conservative????

I think he's just calling Reagan a hypocrite. He's not doing a very good job, but I believe that's the general idea.

It was originally entitled "Things to Remember when Entering Ronald Reagan Airport."

A list of things that seemed to get forgotten about Reagan.

I still fail to believe that Bill Clinton can get threatened with impeachment for a blow-job, and Reagan can sell arms to a country he's branded a terrorist state to raise funds for a terrorism campaign congress said had to stop, claim he can't remeber what happened and be remebered as an even half-decent President. Watergate seems pretty tame by comparison.

I bet its some sort of coded signal, like the Red Queens from The Manchurian Candidate (the original, good one). In a few moments someone dressed like a priest is going to start sniping people from the top of a civic center.

lol

Are you, in any way shape or form, trying to say that Reagan wasnt a Conservative????
What do YOU call someone that spends more $$ than all previous presidents put together and goes in debt deeper than all previous presidents put together?

William Henry Harrison. He died in office about a month after his inauguration. He's my favorite because he didn't serve long enough to permanently fuck over the country.

But seriously, I'd have to go with Thomas Jefferson. I'm also fond of James Madison. Abraham Lincoln's not in my top ten. FDR can kiss my boo-tay. Reagan's cool. He didn't accomplish a whole lot during his presidency, but I like many of the libertarian ideals he held. I can't render a verdict on Bush-41, Clinton or Bush-43 yet. Maybe it's just because I'm a historian, but I like to give a president at least 50 years before I decide his historical legacy. Bias obscures any sort of objective analysis, so that's why I like to distance myself from a presidency by at least 50 years before labeling him the best or worst in American history.

I would just like to second every single thing Orangians said in that post. Before I read it, I was also going to mention Jefferson and Reagan because of their Libertarian tendencies, but I'm now thinking Harrison deserves a spot among the greats as well. As to Clinton and the two Bushes (especially the current Bush) Orangians is right: it's too early to judge.

It was originally entitled "Things to Remember when Entering Ronald Reagan Airport."

A list of things that seemed to get forgotten about Reagan.

I still fail to believe that Bill Clinton can get threatened with impeachment for a blow-job, and Reagan can sell arms to a country he's branded a terrorist state to raise funds for a terrorism campaign congress said had to stop, claim he can't remeber what happened and be remebered as an even half-decent President. Watergate seems pretty tame by comparison.

You know what....I hear Communist Cuba has an opening, why dont you move there and get a taste of Communism....And thats not even close to what the U.S.S.R. was like. Its idiots like you who thought that the Soviet Union was a great empire during the Cold War.

I vote for Hillary

http://photos1.blogger.com/img/140/2845/640/hillary.jpg

How can one be a conservative and sell out the children's future with massive debt?

Because with double digit inflation and our foreign policy in tatters, he needed to kickstart the economy?

I remember the late 70s. After leaving 'Nam, no space program from 77-81, the Iran hostages, the Soviets apparently winning the cold war and the 1980 olympic boycott et al, the country was a mess.

Reagan was no saint, nor messiah. But 1984 was MUCH BETTER than 1978.

It was originally entitled "Things to Remember when Entering Ronald Reagan Airport."

A list of things that seemed to get forgotten about Reagan.

I still fail to believe that Bill Clinton can get threatened with impeachment for a blow-job, and Reagan can sell arms to a country he's branded a terrorist state to raise funds for a terrorism campaign congress said had to stop, claim he can't remeber what happened and be remebered as an even half-decent President. Watergate seems pretty tame by comparison.

Clinton was impeached and not for a "blow job." Congress impeached him for committing perjury during an interview with the Office of Independent Counsel. If you want to question the merits of the charges, that's fine, but don't strawman the situation.

What do YOU call someone that spends more $$ than all previous presidents put together and goes in debt deeper than all previous presidents put together?

The Man that destroyed the USSR.

You can find dirt on any President, no, any PERSON. That doesnt mean anything. There is not one person on earth who hasnt done anything wrong. But, what you have to do, is look at the good things they have done and go from there.

I may be an idiot, but what the hell is this?

It sounds like a sequel to Billy Joel's "We didn't start the fire" only less rhymey.

What do YOU call someone that spends more $$ than all previous presidents put together and goes in debt deeper than all previous presidents put together?

A president that actually believes in a strong military. Lets face it. Carter screwed over the United States Military. He betrayed his promises to the US military and Reagan picked up the pieces and made our military alot stronger than at any time in our history.

What are you talking about? What secrets did Clinton and Gore sell?

To China. http://www.freetrade.org/pubs/articles/mg-11-6-00.html

What do YOU call someone that spends more $$ than all previous presidents put together and goes in debt deeper than all previous presidents put together?

Bro, you get dumber by the second.....You can look at any modern President and say hes spent more than all the other Presidents (usually) because of inflation.....Obviously Presidents back in the day were spending billions.....God, your a retard. Are you French?

I vote for Hillary

http://photos1.blogger.com/img/140/2845/640/hillary.jpg

Now here's a revolting thought. I can just imagine how our intelligence and military will be by the time she gets out of office.

china is not communist at all

The Man that destroyed the USSR.
How exactly did he manage it?

How exactly did he manage it?

You see it around today?

Reagan forced the USSR to go bankrupt trying to keep up with American military spending. (Esp: Star Wars). Throw in some support to Solidarity in Poland via the Pope and *bang* no more Iron Curtain.

How exactly did he manage it?

Increased military spending. The USSR had to keep up so they increased theirs too. Problem though. Our economic system could withstand it, theirs couldn't!

How exactly did he manage it?

By beating them in an arms race. Reagans plan was to keep spending up on our military, that way the Soviets would have to do the same or risk falling behind in the arms race. Then, they would spend too much and thier economy would implode. And it worked....That was the Complete Idiots Guide Version to it. lol

To China. http://www.freetrade.org/pubs/articles/mg-11-6-00.html
That's more like 'business as usual' then 'selling official secrets' to me.

A president that actually believes in a strong military. Lets face it. Carter screwed over the United States Military. He betrayed his promises to the US military and Reagan picked up the pieces and made our military alot stronger than at any time in our history.
He bought a 100 ship navy, not because the pentagon wanted 100 ships, but because it "sounded" good to say 100 ships. Do you know where most of them are now? Museums and mothballs. In the mean time, the Chinese own the US debt for those ships.

FDR ought to have been on there.

You know what....I hear Communist Cuba has an opening, why dont you move there and get a taste of Communism....And thats not even close to what the U.S.S.R. was like. Its idiots like you who thought that the Soviet Union was a great empire during the Cold War.

Chill on the psychotic Reagan-love my friend. He's dead and unlikely to be able to reciprocate your creepy affections. I wasn't talking about the USSR, I was talking about lying to congress.

As for supporting the USSR, no I didn't. Mainly because I was too young, but mostly because it quite clearly doesn't look like a bunch of fun. And most Russians seem to think it was on the brink of economic collapse. And if you really want to give a regime credit for helping it over the edge, how about Carter for drawing them into Afghanistan?

Just pointing out that for all the PR, Reagan was not the great leader he was cracked up to be.

Its probably not true, but my favourite story about him is that on getting elected he asked to see the War room, only to be told that it didn't really exist, it was just made up for Dr. Strangelove.

You see it around today?

Reagan forced the USSR to go bankrupt trying to keep up with American military spending. (Esp: Star Wars). Throw in some support to Solidarity in Poland via the Pope and *bang* no more Iron Curtain.
One problem with that--Mr Gorbachev reduced the military spending of the USSR.

I also believe that the Conservative point was meant to be about a man supposedly commited to small government spending enough to land the US further in the red than it had ever been. Small government is meant to mean more than cutting education and welfare.

He bought a 100 ship navy, not because the pentagon wanted 100 ships, but because it "sounded" good to say 100 ships. Do you know where most of them are now? Museums and mothballs. In the mean time, the Chinese own the US debt for those ships.

You also realize that China isn't that technologically advanced militarily right? Nice job of trying to change subjects from one of military to economics.

Anyway, the United States became more advanced under Reagan because of his military spending.

Lincoln
Polk
and FDR

my 3 favs

Where's James K. Polk? That guy did everything he said he was going to do in his campaign for office... A very strong and honest president... exactly what the US needed back then.

You also realize that China isn't that technologically advanced militarily right? Nice job of trying to change subjects from one of military to economics.

Anyway, the United States became more advanced under Reagan because of his military spending.

The two do seem at least a little connected.

And so now the God of the free market is getting praise for giving subsidies to the technology industry? Do you even know why you love this man so much?

Lincoln
Polk
Teddy
FDR

my favs

Ohh i just looked at that poll up there and its Fubar

Your putting modern prezes up against Lincoln :rolleyes:

Polk was in the top ten for the greatest presidents according to a group of Political science profs. Teddy i just like because he says it like it is and kicked all the corrupt fools out of office

None of em! They all sucked in one way or another.

Absolutely no Roll models for american kids(or worldwide) for as long as I have been alive-1966 on, with the possible exception of a few classical composers or film makers/animators, but in the political realm, zippo....screw em all!

...

No I didn't. Mainly because I was too young, but mostly because it quite clearly doesn't look like a bunch of fun in hind-sight. And most Russians seem to think it was on the brink of economic collapse. And if you really want to give a regime credit for helping it over the edge, how about Carter for drawing them into Afghanistan?

...
Exactly. We were fucked by 1980 ('Instead of the Communism the Party gave us the Olympics'--Khrushchev had promised us Communism by that date). Then was 1982, the great Food Programme read out to us by dying Brezhnev ('The new Soviet plat de jour: Food Programme Salad!')

The two do seem at least a little connected.

And so now the God of the free market is getting praise for giving subsidies to the technology industry? Do you even know why you love this man so much?

Yep,

He took care of the military! Something that is near and dear to my heart.

You also realize that China isn't that technologically advanced militarily right? Nice job of trying to change subjects from one of military to economics. He wasn't changing the subject. He was pointing out that Reagan was spending needlessly and causing US debt to foreign nations.
If anything, your pointing out China's unadvanced military is an attempt at changing subjects.

Anyway, the United States became more advanced under Reagan because of his military spending.
It also did under Clinton because of his lack of military spending. Fancy that.

Calvin Coolidge was certainly the Libertarians man. He didn't want the Fed to involve itself in anything unnecessary. We need another President that's willing to do very little.

I'm mixed on Andrew Jackson. On one hand, I'm glad he told the Supreme Court to enforce it's own rulings. I think more Presidents should do that. But on the other, it's sad that the decision he ignored had such devastating consequences for American Indians.

One problem with that--Mr Gorbachev reduced the military spending of the USSR.

Psh. You're Russian, what could you possibly know about the fall of the Soviet Union? I liked the theory about the anti-Communist jelly beans myself...

How exactly did he manage it?

Apparently, leading an opposing nation while said nation is bankrupt, and is being lead by gorbachev, means defeating.

I mean, its not like the soviet economy was already on its way to hell, and unless you tried to destroy america, you probably would have "won", being president in the 80's. Everything good that happens during a republican presidency is because of that president. Everything bad that happens was because of the last democrat president. And vica-versa for democrats.

Anyways, I think Eisenhower was probably the worst choice put on the list. H e really, really was crappy. My favorite is Truman. He ended ww2 in a decisive way, and began soviet containment. He managed Korea well, as well as he could with china intervening. His post-ww2 economic policies led to a booming west, which would eventually cripple the USSR. His help in Indochina could have led to a win, if eisenhower hadn't pussied out during Dien Bien phu. He was one of the few presidents I can think of that have no major stains, and yet made large gains.

Then I would probably say Theodore Roosevelt, and then I dont want to go further, because it becomes a fight between pre-civil war presidents and 20th century ones.

Calvin Coolidge was certainly the Libertarians man. He didn't want the Fed to involve itself in anything unnecessary. We need another President that's willing to do very little.

I'm mixed on Andrew Jackson. On one hand, I'm glad he told the Supreme Court to enforce it's own rulings. I think more Presidents should do that. But on the other, it's sad that the decision he ignored had such devastating consequences for American Indians.

Waaaa get over. The Indians had their chance, now its ours. I dont know why we get so much shit for taking the Indians land. Look throughout History at any great empire. They have always taken other peoples lands to progress, but because we do it, its wrong? Give me a break. Look at the great Roman Empire. Your going to tell me they didnt take land. Ottoman, Germany, England, Russia, America, Holy Roman, Rome, Greece, France, Scandanvia. Give me a break, get over it....pfft, Liberals.

Washington, Jefferson, Teddy, Reagan.
Carter was a good man at heart, just not meant to be a President. =\

Calvin Coolidge was certainly the Libertarians man. He didn't want the Fed to involve itself in anything unnecessary. We need another President that's willing to do very little.

I'm mixed on Andrew Jackson. On one hand, I'm glad he told the Supreme Court to enforce it's own rulings. I think more Presidents should do that. But on the other, it's sad that the decision he ignored had such devastating consequences for American Indians.

Two things I dislike about Jackson: spoils system and abuse of his veto power. Unfortunately, the two things I dislike about Jackson have become prominent features of the modern presidency. Boourns.

Exactly. We were fucked by 1980 ('Instead of the Communism the Party gave us the Olympics'--Khrushchev had promised us Communism by that date). Then was 1982, the great Food Programme read out to us by dying Brezhnev ('The new Soviet plat de jour: Food Programme Salad!')

Maybe if Brezhnev hadn't deposed Khruschev, you might have reached it :P

\Carter was a good man at heart, just not meant to be a President. =\[/QUOTE]

Well said.

Yep,

He took care of the military! Something that is near and dear to my heart.

OK, I do concede that the man did spend a lot on the military, and by those standards he did pretty well. So how do you feel about Adolf Hitler?

Waaaa get over. The Indians had their chance, now its ours. I dont know why we get so much shit for taking the Indians land. Look throughout History at any great empire. They have always taken other peoples lands to progress, but because we do it, its wrong? Give me a break. Look at the great Roman Empire. Your going to tell me they didnt take land. Ottoman, Germany, England, Russia, America, Holy Roman, Rome, Greece, France, Scandanvia. Give me a break, get over it....pfft, Liberals.

Uhm, those empires get shit for their empires too. Its just worse when you are the superpower at the moment.

Nixon and Eisenhower
Nixon first.

EPA,
Opened China
Pulled out of Vietnam,
Yeah he got caught being a politician--so he was bad at being a bad guy, to me that makes him a good guy by default.

I just like Dwight.

Yeah my reasons are stupid but the question is really "which rotten apple looks the least rotten".

OK, I do concede that the man did spend a lot on the military, and by those standards he did pretty well. So how do you feel about Adolf Hitler?

OMG. How do you sleep at night. Your comparing Ronald Reagan to Adolf Hitler. Just leave. Grab a horse, go to the mountains, and dont bother anyone.

Waaaa get over. The Indians had their chance, now its ours. I dont know why we get so much shit for taking the Indians land. Look throughout History at any great empire. They have always taken other peoples lands to progress, but because we do it, its wrong? Give me a break. Look at the great Roman Empire. Your going to tell me they didnt take land. Ottoman, Germany, England, Russia, America, Holy Roman, Rome, Greece, France, Scandanvia. Give me a break, get over it....pfft, Liberals.

Is this deliberately funny?

My list would be:
Lincoln(If it wasn't for him there wouldn't be a US as we know it today)
FDR(led the US during WW2 and the Great Depression)
Carter(had the one of the best foreign policies of any president)

I heard someone say polk should be on the list. The fact that he moved US troops to provoke a war with Mexico so he could steal their land kinda pisses me off.
Reagan. I'm not going to argue about if he was a great president or not. I'm just going to say that most academics who have studied the fall of the Soviet Union give say the US had little influence on its collapse and that the credit belongs to the nationalists in the Soviet Union.
But the problem with a poll over who is the best president is that there is a bais based on who we know the most about and that usually means modern presidents. How much do we know about the presidentencies of Tyler,
Taylor, Van Buren, Pierce, Hoover, and so forth. While i admit I think Carter was a great president it is still hard to gauge how a good a president is only a few decades afterward. You really need to step back to fully understand the full affect of that president's tenure. For you Bush and Clinton haters stop saying they are the worst president ever. I have you ever heard of a man named Buchanan. He is credited with doing not a damn thing when the southern states succeeded. He is usually considered the worst president ever. Pierce and Fillmore are also considered to have been horrible presidents. So before you start calling someone the worst look at all of the presidents first.

You also realize that China isn't that technologically advanced militarily right? Nice job of trying to change subjects from one of military to economics.

Anyway, the United States became more advanced under Reagan because of his military spending.
WHAT???? Using US money, China has become the third country to put a human in space. They graduate more engineers than the rest of the world put together. While money is cut from US college loans and grants. Where is Reagan's military power? Can it be used to win in two of the least advanced nations in the world? Where are the ships of the 100 ship navy? It takes 6 days for a hospital ship to sail out of Norfolk VA--another 3 days (estimate) to get to New Orleans. My God-son can't get a new bullet-proof glass to put in his armored vehicle in Bushnam. Much less armor to wear. How much could be bought with the cost of all those ships? How much could be bought if we just had the annual storage cost to spend?

One problem with that--Mr Gorbachev reduced the military spending of the USSR.

Mr. Gorbachev also didn't come to power until 1985, which was a year into Reagan's second term. He was in the end game, and he knew it.

Brezhnev, Andropov & Chernenko certainly didn't decrease military spending.

You might also find this interesting:
http://intellit.muskingum.edu/russia_folder/pcw_era/sect_05.htm

In the November 1991 issue of the USSR's Military Historical Journal, then-chief of the Soviet general staff Vladimir Lobov referred to Soviet military spending as one-third of the Soviet gross national product [GNP]. During the same month, in issue no. 44 of Moscow News, Soviet President Gorbachev placed Soviet military spending at the same level, stating, "If this (the Soviet military-industrial complex) is not half of society, then it's at least a third of it." Just two months earlier, the U.S. government had estimated Soviet military spending at half this figure, 15 to 17 percent of GNP, in the publication Military Forces in Transition.

In comparison, the United States spent 13 percent of its GNP on defense at the height of the Korean War, 9 percent at the peak of the Vietnam War, 6 to 7 percent during the military buildup of the 1980s, and 42 percent during the maximum World War II mobilization during 1943 and 1944. The Soviet figure of one-third of GNP spent on defense during peacetime is truly staggering. As Soviet Academician Oleg Bogomolov stated in Moscow News, number 20 of 1990: "For decades we lived ... in conditions of a wartime economy."

...and that's how Reagan broke the USSR's back. He knew they couldn't keep this going on forever.

FDR, I agree.

Is this deliberately funny?

Yes, ha-ha :rolleyes: ......

OK, I do concede that the man did spend a lot on the military, and by those standards he did pretty well. So how do you feel about Adolf Hitler?

By that token, how do you feel about Adolf Hitler's left-wing economic policies?

OMG. How do you sleep at night. Your comparing Ronald Reagan to Adolf Hitler. Just leave. Grab a horse, go to the mountains, and dont bother anyone.

I'm not comparing Reagan to Hitler. I'm just pointing out that there are probably a few criteria you should judge great leadership on other than military spending. Reductio ad absurdam, as I believe you might call it if you're of the pseudy inclination.

By that token, how do you feel about Adolf Hitler's left-wing economic policies?

Your the man, good work, well said.

Mr. Gorbachev also didn't come to power until 1985, which was a year into Reagan's second term. He was in the end game, and he knew it.

Brezhnev, Andropov & Chernenko certainly didn't decrease military spending.

You might also find this interesting:
http://intellit.muskingum.edu/russia_folder/pcw_era/sect_05.htm

In the November 1991 issue of the USSR's Military Historical Journal, then-chief of the Soviet general staff Vladimir Lobov referred to Soviet military spending as one-third of the Soviet gross national product [GNP]. During the same month, in issue no. 44 of Moscow News, Soviet President Gorbachev placed Soviet military spending at the same level, stating, "If this (the Soviet military-industrial complex) is not half of society, then it's at least a third of it." Just two months earlier, the U.S. government had estimated Soviet military spending at half this figure, 15 to 17 percent of GNP, in the publication Military Forces in Transition.

In comparison, the United States spent 13 percent of its GNP on defense at the height of the Korean War, 9 percent at the peak of the Vietnam War, 6 to 7 percent during the military buildup of the 1980s, and 42 percent during the maximum World War II mobilization during 1943 and 1944. The Soviet figure of one-third of GNP spent on defense during peacetime is truly staggering. As Soviet Academician Oleg Bogomolov stated in Moscow News, number 20 of 1990: "For decades we lived ... in conditions of a wartime economy."

...and that's how Reagan broke the USSR's back. He knew they couldn't keep this going on forever.

Brezhnev wasnt exactly a good leader either. The only thing he has going for him is that he wasnt trying to destroy communism :P

Really though, nobody is saying Reagan didnt win over the USSR... The argument is that pretty much any other president could have, unless giant cuts were made. Continuing 40 year old american policy isn't really special.

By that token, how do you feel about Adolf Hitler's left-wing economic policies?

He was pretty central, military Keynesian. Some would say much like Reagan in that respect as well. Nazism did, after all, originate as a reaction to communism, as right-wingers never tire of pointing out. Anyway, the point is not that you should never do anything that Hitler did, but that you can't judge a man on military spending alone.

Waaaa get over. The Indians had their chance, now its ours. I dont know why we get so much shit for taking the Indians land. Look throughout History at any great empire. They have always taken other peoples lands to progress, but because we do it, its wrong? Give me a break. Look at the great Roman Empire. Your going to tell me they didnt take land. Ottoman, Germany, England, Russia, America, Holy Roman, Rome, Greece, France, Scandanvia. Give me a break, get over it....pfft, Liberals.

Please say that your joking? Because if you not you just said that it's okay for a state to commit genocide. The US committed genocide against the native american tribes. Remember we gave them blankets with small pox to kill them and we led calvary raids into their villages and killed men, women and children. The ones we didn't kill we tried to force them to assimilate to american culture, thus trying to kill their culture. Any And the Indians are now the poorest and worst off minority group in American. The legacy of what our ancestors did to them lives one.
While other nations have done that it in no way justifies what the us did. I actually find what we did to the Indians to be as shamefully as our legacy of slavery.

Psh. You're Russian, what could you possibly know about the fall of the Soviet Union? I liked the theory about the anti-Communist jelly beans myself...

Shhhhh! And don't mention the TARDIS!

http://www.shillpages.com/dw/story/st--4w03.jpg

FDR

I can't believe you left either one of them out, nevermind both...

Having said that, I guess Hillary Clinton! Oh, wait...I guess she wasn't really President. She just had Bill in check.

OK, I do concede that the man did spend a lot on the military, and by those standards he did pretty well. So how do you feel about Adolf Hitler?

He should've let his military commanders run the war and not done it himself. That hurt the German war effort more than the Soviet Union did.

Bad military commander he was. Economically.....I don't know. However, he gets low marks for the extermination of the jews. No leader should go on a rampage of genocide.

Please say that your joking? Because if you not you just said that it's okay for a state to commit genocide. The US committed genocide against the native american tribes. Remember we gave them blankets with small pox to kill them and we led calvary raids into their villages and killed men, women and children. The ones we didn't kill we tried to force them to assimilate to american culture, thus trying to kill their culture. Any And the Indians are now the poorest and worst off minority group in American. The legacy of what our ancestors did to them lives one.
While other nations have done that it in no way justifies what the us did. I actually find what we did to the Indians to be as shamefully as our legacy of slavery.

I'm still wondering. It doesn't seem like something anyone over six who wasn't a card carrying member of some neo-fascist party would be coming out with, and yet...

Brezhnev wasnt exactly a good leader either. The only thing he has going for him is that he wasnt trying to destroy communism :P

Really though, nobody is saying Reagan didnt win over the USSR... The argument is that pretty much any other president could have, unless giant cuts were made. Continuing 40 year old american policy isn't really special.

Yet he was in power for what? 18 years?

Er... what?
Carter couldn't achieve it. Reagans was a VERY different, hardline policy. It wasn't a continuation, it was a blatent, calculated escallation.

EDIT: And don't you remember the detente with Nixon and Ford?!?

Mr. Gorbachev also didn't come to power until 1985, which was a year into Reagan's second term. He was in the end game, and he knew it.

Brezhnev, Andropov & Chernenko certainly didn't decrease military spending.

-snip-

...and that's how Reagan broke the USSR's back. He knew they couldn't keep this going on forever.
This has nothing to do with Reagan. Brezhnev, Andropov, and Chernenko would have spent the same amount of money if the US had elected Ted Kennedy in 1980.

And Gorbachev started to reduce the army spending in 1985, the first significant cuts (significant in Soviet terms--hundreds of thousands of troops, that is) were made in 1988.

Er... what?
Carter couldn't achieve it. Reagans was a VERY different, hardline policy. It wasn't a continuation, it was a blatent, calculated escallation.
We were spending like hell in 1977-1981, too... All those SS-20s, the blue-water navy, etc...

He was pretty central, military Keynesian. Some would say much like Reagan in that respect as well. Nazism did, after all, originate as a reaction to communism, as right-wingers never tire of pointing out. Anyway, the point is not that you should never do anything that Hitler did, but that you can't judge a man on military spending alone.

Hitler's economic policies were borderline socialist. And Keynesian economics go hand in hand with socialism. I do agree with you in your last sentence, though.

He should've let his military commanders run the war and not done it himself. That hurt the German war effort more than the Soviet Union did.

Bad military commander he was. Economically.....I don't know. However, he gets low marks for the extermination of the jews. No leader should go on a rampage of genocide.

So let me get this straight:

Book burning, poltical assassination and killing off the disabled: Not a problem.

World conquest: Poorly executed but not in itself a bad thing.

The Holocaust: Likely to hurt your average, but doesn't actually disqualify you from considerations of greatness straight out.

Please say that your joking? Because if you not you just said that it's okay for a state to commit genocide. The US committed genocide against the native american tribes. Remember we gave them blankets with small pox to kill them and we led calvary raids into their villages and killed men, women and children. The ones we didn't kill we tried to force them to assimilate to american culture, thus trying to kill their culture. Any And the Indians are now the poorest and worst off minority group in American. The legacy of what our ancestors did to them lives one.
While other nations have done that it in no way justifies what the us did. I actually find what we did to the Indians to be as shamefully as our legacy of slavery.

Of course its not okay to commit genocide, but you have to understand, its SOOOO much easier to look back on it and say, "Oh that was evil". We thought we were superior to Indians, which is why we killed them and took their land, the same thing that happend to blacks in Africa, and the same thing with slavery. And the thing is, yeah now its not acceptable to think this way, but back then THIS WAS THE NORM. EVERYONE thought this way, because no one thought it was wrong. People didnt view blacks/indians as equal to Whites. Was it right what we did, no, but did it happen, YES. Everywhere, in all European/White Nations. Now I know some idiot is going to try to compare this to the holocaust, so let me just say this. The Holocaust was 60 years ago, this stuff was HUNDERDS of years ago. It wasnt mainstream and norm to view Jews or non Jewish Slavs/Soviets/Poles...etc in this manner, but it was the norm to view blacks/indians in this manner hundreds of years ago. Thats what was normal back then, just as if in 300 years people think that something we do now is totally unacceptable, but it is still acceptable for our day in age.

I'm sorry about the typos in here, I typed it really fast. lol

Genocide's sort of a hot button for me. :)

I voted Lincoln because he's the only one I really know of his policies that wasn't an asshole on certain issues. Bush is most definatly the worst, but I was too young to know if Clinton was good or as bad as my parents said. Regan was a Republican of the twentieth century, that makes him automatically an asshole in my book. Lincoln fought for what he thought was right, so that makes him admirable. I think we still await the best in years to come.

We were spending like hell in 1977-1981, too... All those SS-20s, the blue-water navy, etc...

Thus how the USSR was bankrupted... the 1981-1985 spending (and the possibility of having to counter Star Wars) was the end.

Thats what was normal back then, just as if in 300 years people think that something we do now is totally unacceptable, but it is still acceptable for our day in age.

Yeah, I think the point is that we're meant to be trying to reach a stage where we don't have to wait 300 years to say genocide was bad.

Genocide based on religion is really horrible. We should tell Bush that.

Yeah, I think the point is that we're meant to be trying to reach a stage where we don't have to wait 300 years to say genocide was bad.
Ok, yeah, that still has nothing to do with what I was saying, but still yes. I dont like genocides any more than the next person.

BUSH ALL THE FREAKIN WAY BABY.....too bad presidents can only serve two terms. Well we have to make sure we dont elect Hillary Clinton! GO CONDOLEEZA FOR PRESIDENT '08!

I voted Lincoln because he's the only one I really know of his policies that wasn't an asshole on certain issues. Bush is most definatly the worst, but I was too young to know if Clinton was good or as bad as my parents said. Regan was a Republican of the twentieth century, that makes him automatically an asshole in my book. Lincoln fought for what he thought was right, so that makes him admirable. I think we still await the best in years to come.

Are you joking? That's your political analysis?

1. Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus in Maryland. Lincoln wasn't an abolitionist. He freely admitted that he'd do anything to unite the North and the South again, even if that meant tolerating the continued existence of slavery.

2. I'd argue with your assessment about Reagan, but you didn't technically make one.

3. Bush isn't the worst, trust me. And even if he were, it's too early in his presidency to make a determination like that.

Thus how the USSR was bankrupted... the 1981-1985 spending (and the possibility of having to counter Star Wars) was the end.
I repeat: if Ted Kennedy had been elected President in 1980, we would have spent the same staggering amount of money for our army. Maybe even more, remembering 1962 when we tried to 'burn' his brother.

I voted Lincoln because he's the only one I really know of his policies that wasn't an asshole on certain issues. Bush is most definatly the worst, but I was too young to know if Clinton was good or as bad as my parents said. Regan was a Republican of the twentieth century, that makes him automatically an asshole in my book. Lincoln fought for what he thought was right, so that makes him admirable. I think we still await the best in years to come.

I'm about to tear you apart. Bush is fighting for what he beleives is right, does that make him admirable?

So let me get this straight:

Book burning, poltical assassination and killing off the disabled: Not a problem.

World conquest: Poorly executed but not in itself a bad thing.

The Holocaust: Likely to hurt your average, but doesn't actually disqualify you from considerations of greatness straight out.

The battle plans were brillent however, some bad decisions as well as his own decisions cost them greatly.

As for everything else, point to me where I've stated that he was a great leader?

Genocide's sort of a hot button for me. :)
Unfortunatly, the best way to win a guerilla war is to kill the supporters of the guerillas. This has nothing to do with the original question of "best president", but as we are engaged in a guerilla war it is something that has to be considered. Saddam understood this and controlled his nation this way. When we tried it in Nam it started to work, but the US didn't have the stomach for it.

Ok, yeah, that still has nothing to do with what I was saying, but still yes. I dont like genocides any more than the next person.

I get what you're saying. Hitler lived in a different world than did Andrew Jackson - worlds with different ethical values. I know you're not questioning the absolute and universal assertion that genocide's wrong, only that Andrew Jackson didn't have the benefit of historical hindsight like we do.

*Edit: And that you need to appreciate the historical circumstances and judge figures within their historical contexts as well as by your own moral standards.

I get what you're saying. Hitler lived in a different world than did Andrew Jackson - worlds with different ethical values. I know you're not questioning the absolute and universal assertion that genocide's wrong, only that Andrew Jackson didn't have the benefit of historical hindsight like we do.

OMG, will you marry me???

but I was too young to know if Clinton was good or as bad as my parents said.

And just what have they said regarding Clinton?

Regan was a Republican of the twentieth century, that makes him automatically an asshole in my book.

Nice to see someone that is brainwashed. I take it your parents are democrats?

Lincoln fought for what he thought was right, so that makes him admirable. I think we still await the best in years to come.

I will agree with this.

OMG, will you marry me???

Just kidding, I'm not gay...Im just soo glad that somone on here finally got it. :)

This has nothing to do with Reagan. Brezhnev, Andropov, and Chernenko would have spent the same amount of money if the US had elected Ted Kennedy in 1980.

And Gorbachev started to reduce the army spending in 1985, the first significant cuts (significant in Soviet terms--hundreds of thousands of troops, that is) were made in 1988.

You keep making my case:

From where do you get this insight? You read dead men's thoughts? :rolleyes:

Of course he cut in 1985. He HAD to. Afghanistan was going badly, and the budget was failing horribly.

Genocide based on religion is really horrible. We should tell Bush that.

What genocide is Bush committing?

The answer: none!

I get what you're saying. Hitler lived in a different world than did Andrew Jackson - worlds with different ethical values. I know you're not questioning the absolute and universal assertion that genocide's wrong, only that Andrew Jackson didn't have the benefit of historical hindsight like we do.

*Edit: And that you need to appreciate the historical circumstances and judge figures within their historical contexts as well as by your own moral standards.

OMG I love you even more.....CAN I HAVE YOUR BABIES!!!!

OMG I love you even more.....CAN I HAVE YOUR BABIES!!!!

Hahah.

I repeat: if Ted Kennedy had been elected President in 1980, we would have spent the same staggering amount of money for our army. Maybe even more, remembering 1962 when we tried to 'burn' his brother.

I repeat: you've yet to make this into a convincing arguement.

And when the Politburo came to it's senses and smacked Khrushev...

The battle plans were brillent however, some bad decisions as well as his own decisions cost them greatly.

As for everything else, point to me where I've stated that he was a great leader?

And If you dont think the Blietzkreig (Spelling?) is one of the most amazing things ever thought up by man, weither you like the Nazis or not (hopefully not), you, no offense, are probably a woman.

You keep making my case:

From where do you get this insight? You read dead men's thoughts? :rolleyes:

Of course he cut in 1985. He HAD to. Afghanistan was going badly, and the budget was failing horribly.
The USSR wasn't in the habit of cutting military spending since Khrushchev in 1960. Do you remember what happened to him four years later? I fail to see how someone from the 'old guard' could've ordered military cuts.

Why Gorbachev did it? 1) He had to. But, well, reality is a small stumbling block for a true Marxist-Leninist. So we have to come to 2) 2) In December 1984, the 'founding father' of the Soviet military-industrial complex passed away. Marshal Ustinov would have died before allowing a single rouble to be cut. His death probably helped Gorbachev to win the 'conclave' of 1985 (Grishin or Romanov were 'old guard' to the core) and availed Gorbachev of an opportunity to make some reductions.

The battle plans were brillent however, some bad decisions as well as his own decisions cost them greatly.

As for everything else, point to me where I've stated that he was a great leader?

Didn't say you did. It was just the general flavour of the post.

"Quick, Corneliu, what do you think about Hitlerin the great leader stakes?"

"Uh, nice battle plans, poorly executed, shame about the Holocaust."

I just find it a little odd that nothing else struck you as important, and that salient feature of the battle plans was how good they looked on paper."

I repeat: you've yet to make this into a convincing arguement.

And when the Politburo came to it's senses and smacked Khrushev...
It was much more complicated than that. He was dismissed both for 'adventurism' in Cuba and for 'voluntaristic' military cuts.

The USSR wasn't in the habit of cutting military spending since Khrushchev in 1960. Do you remember what happened to him four years later? I fail to see how someone from the 'old guard' could've ordered military cuts.

Why Gorbachev did it? 1) He had to. But, well, reality is a small stumbling block for a true Marxist-Leninist. So we have to come to 2) 2) In December 1984, the 'founding father' of the Soviet military-industrial complex passed away. Marshal Ustinov would have died before allowing a single rouble to be cut. His death probably helped Gorbachev to win the 'conclave' of 1985 (Grishin or Romanov were 'old guard' to the core) and availed Gorbachev of an opportunity to make some reductions.

So, to sum up: Massive military spending on the USSR's side was hurting the economy, then when they had to spend more because of Reagan's buildup, the system basically collapsed under Gorby's watch.

Thanks.
/done.

And If you dont think the Blietzkreig (Spelling?) is one of the most amazing things ever thought up by man, weither you like the Nazis or not (hopefully not), you, no offense, are probably a woman.

No, and no. Clever yes. In terms of pound-for-pound effective military strategies, though, I'd have to go with the Vo Nguyen Giap.

And so long as we're leaving ethical considerations out, I think we'd all have to agree that Genghis Khan using piles of human skulls as a negotiating tactic, coupled with the whole cavalry-archer-thing, was sufficiently awesome to leave the Blitzkrieg for dust.

And its Blitzkrieg.

Has anyone on here read Mein Kampf? I'm just asking because there is ALWAYS talk about WWII and Hitler on these threads. I am currently reading the book and I find it VERY interesting. I mean come on, who wouldnt want to get inside the mind of one of the most imporant men in history....And, contrary to popular beleif (this is addressed to those liberals out there), you DONT have to be a Neo-Nazi to read it.

So, to sum up: Massive military spending on the USSR's side was hurting the economy, then when they had to spend more because of Reagan's buildup, the system basically collapsed under Gorby's watch.

Thanks.
/done.
Now the burden of proof is upon you. What, if any, increases in our military spending do you attribute to the specific Soviet response to Reagan's military buildup?

I'm mixed on Andrew Jackson. On one hand, I'm glad he told the Supreme Court to enforce it's own rulings. I think more Presidents should do that. But on the other, it's sad that the decision he ignored had such devastating consequences for American Indians.
So you admire Jackson for not doing his job? The Executive Branch carries out the law. Jackson refused to do so.

and its Blitzkrieg.[/QUOTE]
Thanks lol....My german has left me generations ago lol.


And so long as we're leaving ethical considerations out, I think we'd all have to agree that Genghis Khan using piles of human skulls as a negotiating tactic, coupled with the whole cavalry-archer-thing, was sufficiently awesome to leave the Blitzkrieg for dust.

Dude, the blitzkrieg would destory any group of skull holding, arrow shooting, horseback riding mongol...ANY DAY.

It was much more complicated than that. He was dismissed both for 'adventurism' in Cuba and for 'voluntaristic' military cuts.

1. Played chicken with Kennedy over Cuba.
2. Had to withdraw, given the blocade. Politburo NOT willing to launch the nukes over bases in Cuba.
3. Khrushchev is deposed from power not quite 2 years later.
4. Stays under house arrest for seven years, then is dead at 77.

Seems pretty straightforward to me. He also really messed with the economy, made the Soviet Space Program take crazy risks to get "firsts", built the Berlin Wall and invaded Hungary.

Aside from de-Stalinization, I don't see what there is to like.

I would find it hard to rank them all in order and prefer to place them in groups.

Abraham Lincoln, IMO, was probably the best of the elite group that included FDR and Washington.

The next group would be Teddy Roosevelt and Jefferson. Both great men but not quite worthy enough to be considered to be members of the 1st group.

This would be followed by Jackson, Polk, Wilson and maybe JFK, Ike, Truman and Reagan.

LBJ and Nixon are hard to place because while they accomplished much, they also had Vietnam (LBJ and Nixon) and Watergate (Nixon).

Clinton had the tools to be a very good to great President but he prefered to triangulate and his penchant for getting hummers from women other then his wife prevented it.

Carter may lead the class of a large group of competent Presidents which include Arthur, Madison, Monroe, Coolidge, Cleveland, Adams, John Quincy Adams, Ford, Taft, Bush41, Benjamin Harrison, Hoover (the Great Depression wasn't his fault), Tyler, McKinley, and Hayes.

Then we come to the least group which is Harding, Grant, Andrew Johnson, Pierce, Buchanan and Fillmore.

Garfield, William Harrison and Taylor didn't serve long enough to get a rating IMO.

Has anyone on here read Mein Kampf? I'm just asking because there is ALWAYS talk about WWII and Hitler on these threads. I am currently reading the book and I find it VERY interesting. I mean come on, who wouldnt want to get inside the mind of one of the most imporant men in history....And, contrary to popular beleif (this is addressed to those liberals out there), you DONT have to be a Neo-Nazi to read it.

You should also download some films that Leni Riefenstahl made for Hitler during his reign. Brilliant and frightening.

You should also download some films that Leni Riefenstahl made for Hitler during his reign. Brilliant and frightening.

Thanks, Ill def look into it.

As i am not american, but i dont want to tick off any one. wat ticked ME off so much were the Cold War Presidents. The "Red Scare"? Please. They just about suppressed every communist coup attempt there was. The Sadinistas, Grenadian marxists, the list goes on. they wanted to "Preserve freedom". (whatever). Bush is trying to "Preserve freedom" O_o. Afganistan and Iraq WERE NOT nessicary.

Has anyone on here read Mein Kampf? I'm just asking because there is ALWAYS talk about WWII and Hitler on these threads. I am currently reading the book and I find it VERY interesting. I mean come on, who wouldnt want to get inside the mind of one of the most imporant men in history....And, contrary to popular beleif (this is addressed to those liberals out there), you DONT have to be a Neo-Nazi to read it.

Having read a bit, I do feel you'd have to be a neo-Nazi to FINISH it. Or just very interested in Nazi history, which I guess someone has to be. Frankly I feel there are more interesting periods.

clinton
8 years of peace and a roaring economy

yeah roaring until the dot.com bubble burst :rolleyes:

As i am not american, but i dont want to tick off any one. wat ticked ME off so much were the Cold War Presidents. The "Red Scare"? Please. They just about suppressed every communist coup attempt there was. The Sadinistas, Grenadian marxists, the list goes on. they wanted to "Preserve freedom". (whatever). Bush is trying to "Preserve freedom" O_o. Afganistan and Iraq WERE NOT nessicary.

Omg....Im about to send someone to Europe to snipe you right now...This is what pisses me off.

I'm not gonna talk about the Cold War Presidents because we have already been doing that but let me say this.
Even though I am fully for the war in Iraq, I can see why many people arnt. But if you arnt for the war in Afganistan....Then I legally hate you.....Your a moron and I hope your just trolling...I hope I, along with every other American, I hope, dont have to tell you why we are in Afganastan...Your an idiot....Like I said to someone earlier...Go get a horse, move to the mountains, and dont bother anyone.

Has anyone on here read Mein Kampf? I'm just asking because there is ALWAYS talk about WWII and Hitler on these threads. I am currently reading the book and I find it VERY interesting. I mean come on, who wouldnt want to get inside the mind of one of the most imporant men in history....And, contrary to popular beleif (this is addressed to those liberals out there), you DONT have to be a Neo-Nazi to read it.


I read it while in high school for extra credit in my WWII ERA class.

Having read a bit, I do feel you'd have to be a neo-Nazi to FINISH it. Or just very interested in Nazi history, which I guess someone has to be. Frankly I feel there are more interesting periods.

Oh I knew it. God forbid someone wanted to read a book to further his interest in one of the most talked about periods of time in history. This is why I hate liberals. You dont have to be a Neo-Nazi to start, read, or finish it. You have to be a Neo-Nazi to admire it. And as for being very interested in that time period. Your right, I am very interested in that period. It is my favorite time in history to study.

Omg....Im about to send someone to Europe to snipe you right now...This is what pisses me off.

I'm not gonna talk about the Cold War Presidents because we have already been doing that but let me say this.
Even though I am fully for the war in Iraq, I can see why many people arnt. But if you arnt for the war in Afganistan....Then I legally hate you.....Your a moron and I hope your just trolling...I hope I, along with every other American, I hope, dont have to tell you why we are in Afganastan...Your an idiot....Like I said to someone earlier...Go get a horse, move to the mountains, and dont bother anyone.

No, really, explain to me why you're in Afghanistan. It strikes me that if the plan was to get Osama bin Laden, there must have been cheaper ways.

I read it while in high school for extra credit in my WWII ERA class.

How did you find it?

I vote for... NotBush.
Why not any president of any party should be respected for what they are going through right now, kinda like the southerners and Lincoln

No, really, explain to me why you're in Afghanistan. It strikes me that if the plan was to get Osama bin Laden, there must have been cheaper ways.

Its not just him....Its all the other terrorits they were harboring...You could officially say that was a terrorist country.

How did you find it?

It was interesting to read and he clearly spells out EXACTLY what he wants to accomplish.

It was interesting to read and he clearly spells out EXACTLY what he wants to accomplish.

Yeah...Its funny (well funny isnt the word for it) that all the stuff he talks about doing he actually ends up doing. I dont understand how there can be any Nazi/holocaust revisionists after reading that. You know what I mean?

No, really, explain to me why you're in Afghanistan. It strikes me that if the plan was to get Osama bin Laden, there must have been cheaper ways.


:rolleyes: Like when the Saudis offered him up to Bill Clinton in I think it was late 1999 or early 2000 and he said no.

:rolleyes: Like when the Saudis offered him up to Bill Clinton in I think it was late 1999 or early 2000 and he said no.

Haha...I like this guy already...Good post. I beleive Clinton didnt accept him because he didnt do anything bad yet. I guess it depends on your definition of the word "terrorist" ;)

The amount of people who voted for Ronald Regen bothers me.

Oh I knew it. God forbid someone wanted to read a book to further his interest in one of the most talked about periods of time in history. This is why I hate liberals. You dont have to be a Neo-Nazi to start, read, or finish it. You have to be a Neo-Nazi to admire it. And as for being very interested in that time period. Your right, I am very interested in that period. It is my favorite time in history to study.

We're all forced to read commie garbage like the Communist Manifesto sooner or later in college, so I don't see the problem with reading Mein Kampf to educate yourself about one of the most important (and evil) figures of the 20th century. You're not reading Mein Kampf to pick up ideas; you're treating his book as a historical primary document. God, some people are such weirdos.

Yeah...Its funny (well funny isnt the word for it) that all the stuff he talks about doing he actually ends up doing. I dont understand how there can be any Nazi/holocaust revisionists after reading that. You know what I mean?


Well because some people just don't like to face facts. I mean lets face it. The movie Schindlers List was made because teenagers thought that the Holocaust couldn't have happened.

The amount of people who voted for Ronald Regen bothers me.

You, along with the rest of liberalism bother me.

:rolleyes: Like when the Saudis offered him up to Bill Clinton in I think it was late 1999 or early 2000 and he said no.
That never happened. You're referring to some guy from either the Sudan or Somalia or some other African country who claimed to have ObL. Clinton followed it up, but the government of that country had no knowledge of it. All possible leads were followed, but none led to ObL.

If you wish to claim otherwise, provide a source, seeing as how the burden of proof rests on you.

Edit: It was the Sudan, and the man's name was Mansoor Ijaz.

Oh I knew it. God forbid someone wanted to read a book to further his interest in one of the most talked about periods of time in history. This is why I hate liberals. You dont have to be a Neo-Nazi to start, read, or finish it. You have to be a Neo-Nazi to admire it. And as for being very interested in that time period. Your right, I am very interested in that period. It is my favorite time in history to study.

Easy there. I did start reading the damn thing. It just struck be as over-blown, pompous, badly thought out and too damn long. I s'pose one could possibly add masochist to my list of people who would be willing to read it, though. If you're fascinated by historical texts and Mein Kampf is one of many primary sources about WWII that you keep on the bookshelf, then fair enough. If you're the sort of WWII nut who still spells Blitzkrieg "Blietzkeig" (or whatever) but find you can trundle all the way through Hitler's ramblings, however...

Well because some people just don't like to face facts. I mean lets face it. The movie Schindlers List was made because teenagers thought that the Holocaust couldn't have happened.

WHAT??!!! I never heard that???? No way.....wow.

I'm sorry, but a poll on the best President of the United States is ludicrous. It would be like discussing the best Prime Ministers of the UK. Do you go with Pitt the Elder, Pitt the Younger, Palmerston, Peel, Gladstone, Disraeli, Lloyd George, Churchill, etc. Each did a good job duirng their era, with the challenges facing them.

To me, I look at three eras in U.S. history, the early republic, the 19th centruy and the 20th century. In these, three men stand out.

George Washington: Set the standard by which all presidents have been measured. Created the office of the presidency, set precedents followed to this day, enforced the Constitution in its infancy.

Abraham Lincoln: Preserved the Union. That is more than enought, but then he also heped to righta great wrong in American society by transforming the Civil War into a war to end slavery.

Franklin D. Roosevelt: How either Roosevelt coul dbe left off this poll tells me the author is either a conservative Republican, or does not know enough U.S. history. FDR preserved capitalism in the U.S. by restoring hope during the Great Depression. Certainly his New Deal policies did not end the Depression, but by providing relief, he helped people see things through, adn the reforms he ushered in have prevented similar depressions from striking the U.S. to this day. Similarly, his efforts in preparing and then leading the U.S. into the Second World War prove him to be one of the greatest presidents ever seen.

Haha...I like this guy already...Good post. I beleive Clinton didnt accept him because he didnt do anything bad yet. I guess it depends on your definition of the word "terrorist" ;)


:D That is so true. Although if you think about it. Why the heck would the Saudi's have offered him up if he wasn't a bad seed in the first place? ;)

We're all forced to read commie garbage like the Communist Manifesto sooner or later in college, so I don't see the problem with reading Mein Kampf to educate yourself about one of the most important (and evil) figures of the 20th century. You're not reading Mein Kampf to pick up ideas; you're treating his book as a historical primary document. God, some people are such weirdos.

I want to have your babies even more than I did 20 min ago...BTW I am also reading Communist Manifesto. So to the liberals, that stamps out me being a Neo-Nazi because I am reading Mein Kampf.

We're all forced to read commie garbage like the Communist Manifesto sooner or later in college, so I don't see the problem with reading Mein Kampf to educate yourself about one of the most important (and evil) figures of the 20th century. You're not reading Mein Kampf to pick up ideas; you're treating his book as a historical primary document. God, some people are such weirdos.

Marx, like him or not, was a good economist, and wasn't a soviet leader or much of a fan of genocide. Reading Marx is like reading Neitzsche. No-one made you read anything by Stalin in school, I assume.

Its not just him....Its all the other terrorits they were harboring...You could officially say that was a terrorist country.

what? OMG. Y can't u see though what bush is saying. the Taliban was a political party like the theocracy of iran

WHAT??!!! I never heard that???? No way.....wow.


Are you serious? Steven Spielberg went around the country after it was made and said that. He was very upset by the lack of knowledge of the subject. I think it is on the DVD version of the film. If not I'm sure a google search would turn it up. Also to honor those that died of course.

Easy there. I did start reading the damn thing. It just struck be as over-blown, pompous, badly thought out and too damn long. I s'pose one could possibly add masochist to my list of people who would be willing to read it, though. If you're fascinated by historical texts and Mein Kampf is one of many primary sources about WWII that you keep on the bookshelf, then fair enough. If you're the sort of WWII nut who still spells Blitzkrieg "Blietzkeig" (or whatever) but find you can trundle all the way through Hitler's ramblings, however...

Oh I see, so you base my whole intellegence on my mispelling of two letters...You must be one of those who think Bush is a retard because he doesnt give great speeches....

Now the burden of proof is upon you. What, if any, increases in our military spending do you attribute to the specific Soviet response to Reagan's military buildup?

Sigh. You've backed up nothing you've said yet, and the burden of proof is on ME? Okay, fine:

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/au-18/au180040.htm

The USSR's economy had very modest growth, they were already spending a ton on military, they had to level it off JUST AS Reagan was accelerating US spending. Thus in 1985 Gorby saw he was sitting at the end game.

Marx, like him or not, was a good economist, and wasn't a soviet leader or much of a fan of genocide. Reading Marx is like reading Neitzsche. No-one made you read anything by Stalin in school, I assume.
I dont like Marx's views...Wealth distribution and the like...I think thats bullshit...You work hard and earn your money, you should be able to keep it. Not give it to some crack head who doesnt want to work and just cashes in his welfare check every month.

:D That is so true. Although if you think about it. Why the heck would the Saudi's have offered him up if he wasn't a bad seed in the first place? ;)

Go figure... :) lol Democrats are strange people.

Marx, like him or not, was a good economist, and wasn't a soviet leader or much of a fan of genocide. Reading Marx is like reading Neitzsche. No-one made you read anything by Stalin in school, I assume.

How do you define a good economist? Successes? Predictions? 'Cause I'd say he failed on both fronts. I had to read Nietzsche in school. Didn't particularly enjoy his philosophy. I actually did read some of Stalin's speeches because I took a Post-Russian Revolution history course my junior year of college.

I like Lincoln and Clinton best. But that's just me.

Reagan PWNS ALL!!!! :mp5: :sniper: :mp5:

Are you serious? Steven Spielberg went around the country after it was made and said that. He was very upset by the lack of knowledge of the subject. I think it is on the DVD version of the film. If not I'm sure a google search would turn it up. Also to honor those that died of course.

I believe you, Im just saying Iv never heard of it before. Nothing pisses me off more than people who dont know about the holocaust in school....Well almost nothing...Liberals come VERY close. And Gothic kids lol, and wiggers lol.

Oh I see, so you base my whole intellegence on my mispelling of two letters...You must be one of those who think Bush is a retard because he doesnt give great speeches....

No, but come on. If the Blitzkrieg is the coolest thing ever, and you're a WWII nut, you'd think that either that one would have sunk in, or you're enthusiasm for a book that's pretty much like reading War and Peace but without the redeeming features would have dwindled...

Go figure... :) lol Democrats are strange people.

Shh my uncle is a democrat and so was my grandfather. If he wasn't dead he would be when he found out I have been voting republican. That's not to say I will not vote for a democrat. I vote for the lesser of two or three evils. I mean I vote CARL LEVIN for senator :)

Shh my uncle is a democrat and so was my grandfather. If he wasn't dead he would be when he found out I have been voting republican. That's not to say I will not vote for a democrat. I vote for the lesser of two or three evils. I mean I vote CARL LEVIN for senator :)

My mistake, not all Democrats are strange...I really admire FDR and he was a democrat....I was talking about present day democrats...mainly liberals.

Marx, like him or not, was a good economist, and wasn't a soviet leader or much of a fan of genocide. Reading Marx is like reading Neitzsche. No-one made you read anything by Stalin in school, I assume.

A good economist wouldn't assume that people would be willing to put themselves second to the state. :D

And I've read the Manifesto at least 6 times...

LBJ

i saw a thing on him the other day on the History Channel andhe has got to be the best president ever...he did so much for civil rights and tried his hardest to not be a war president(although he failed) and he also tried to broker peace with the VietCong

that drinking game....

"president - ahole"



Otherwise I'd have chosen 'none of the above'

I believe you, Im just saying Iv never heard of it before. Nothing pisses me off more than people who dont know about the holocaust in school....Well almost nothing...Liberals come VERY close. And Gothic kids lol, and wiggers lol.


Okay I have to make a wee correction. Part of the reason the movie was made was because teenagers in some countries as well as adults didn't believe it happened. It was also to honor those that died. After the movie was made in 1993, a group of high schoolers in the USA a few years later were watching the movie and broke out laughing. Spielberg actually met with the students and explained what was going on. I found this on my old message board that someone posted.

"A group high school kids watching a screening of the movie Schlinder's List began laughing duing especially harsh periods of the movie . When Steven Spielberg heard of it he met with the students and spoke with them about the movie. He told them what it meant to him and said how he felt when he heard that they had laughed during the screening. They apologised and said that they were uncomfortable dealing with the painful scenes and that the only response they were capable of was to laugh."

Has to be FDR. He got us out of the Great Depression, even if he was a little too Socialist for lots of people (not for me ;) so suck it up). He proved that increasing government spending and subsidizing for industries that were doing badly really can work. We need more presidents like FDR.

And for God's sakes, the man walked even though he was a cripple, just to keep moral up. That's a real man for you.

My mistake, not all Democrats are strange...I really admire FDR and he was a democrat....I was talking about present day democrats...mainly liberals.


Well both of the main parties have some really "OUT THERE" people. Some scare the hell out of me. :(

How do you define a good economist? Successes? Predictions? 'Cause I'd say he failed on both fronts. I had to read Nietzsche in school. Didn't particularly enjoy his philosophy. I actually did read some of Stalin's speeches because I took a Post-Russian Revolution history course my junior year of college.

Actually, compared to guys like Smith, Marx's economics wasn't too bad [edit: with regards to predictions. Smith was a first class theorist] The labour theory of value has a few problems but the prediction that businesses would get larger and larger and the system would be inherently crisis-prone was pretty good for a guy living before the rise of the corporation and the Great Depression. He also really started the idea of history being driven by economics, which is something done by a lot more than just Marxist historians nowadays.

Anyway, the point is that he's important because he was studied by a lot of other economists, social theorists. Like him or loathe him, you can't really understand a lot of social theory without knowing a little about Marx.

Same reason people get made to study Freud. Not much as a scientist, but a lot of people make reference to his theories in a lot of important academic work, so you have to know what he was talking about.

There's not a big established body of work around Mein Kampf, partly because its a pariah book but mainly because Hitler just wasn't much of an abstract thinker.

Okay I have to make a wee correction. Part of the reason the movie was made was because teenagers in some countries as well as adults didn't believe it happened. It was also to honor those that died. After the movie was made in 1993, a group of high schoolers in the USA a few years later were watching the movie and broke out laughing. Spielberg actually met with the students and explained what was going on. I found this on my old message board that someone posted.

"A group high school kids watching a screening of the movie Schlinder's List began laughing duing especially harsh periods of the movie . When Steven Spielberg heard of it he met with the students and spoke with them about the movie. He told them what it meant to him and said how he felt when he heard that they had laughed during the screening. They apologised and said that they were uncomfortable dealing with the painful scenes and that the only response they were capable of was to laugh."

Some kids are just inconsiderate morons.... I have a very interesting position in all of this Holocaust/Nazi stuff.....I am German/Austrian/Prussian/Russian and here comes the big one Jewish!! lol. So needless to say I am interested in all of it...and I have found out the good and bad on both sides...Although there was more bad, obviously, with the Nazis, the Jews were not innocent, much unlike what is taught in school. I also like reading Hitlers comments on the Aryan race because according to him, I am an Aryan (Nordic, Germanic, Austrian, German, Prussian, Russian, Blonde, greeen eyes, and 6'3) but Im Jewish which according to his "race" is impossible...I love being evidence that, that guy was full of shit.

:) I have to take off and phone in my donation to MDA and then get dinner going before Miami vs. Florida State. Hope you all have a good day, afternoon or night depending on where you live in this world. :p

:) I have to take off and phone in my donation to MDA and then get dinner going before Miami vs. Florida State. Hope you all have a good day, afternoon or night depending on where you live in this world. :p

Same, good to have some sane people on this site. Later

Actually, compared to guys like Smith, Marx's economics wasn't too bad [edit: with regards to predictions. Smith was a first class theorist] The labour theory of value has a few problems but the prediction that businesses would get larger and larger and the system would be inherently crisis-prone was pretty good for a guy living before the rise of the corporation and the Great Depression. He also really started the idea of history being driven by economics, which is something done by a lot more than just Marxist historians nowadays.

Anyway, the point is that he's important because he was studied by a lot of other economists, social theorists. Like him or loathe him, you can't really understand a lot of social theory without knowing a little about Marx.

Same reason people get made to study Freud. Not much as a scientist, but a lot of people make reference to his theories in a lot of important academic work, so you have to know what he was talking about.

There's not a big established body of work around Mein Kampf, partly because its a pariah book but mainly because Hitler just wasn't much of an abstract thinker.

Yeah, Marx is important because a lot of people follow(ed) him. That's basically what you're saying. I could point to a lot of flaws in Marxism - his ideas about overproduction, his prediction about industrialized countries succumbing to socialism first, etc. - but there's no dispute that he's widely read and widely quoted. Yeah, Hitler's important for the same reason. His politics and his philosophy, however boneheaded, should also be understood for the same reason. And by the way, my worst history professors were always the Marxist historians. Their ideas were overly simplistic and usually just incorrect. I do appreciate Marx for his classically liberal roots, but I despise him for his reactionary philosophy.

Some kids are just inconsiderate morons.... I have a very interesting position in all of this Holocaust/Nazi stuff.....I am German/Austrian/Prussian/Russian and here comes the big one Jewish!! lol. So needless to say I am interested in all of it...and I have found out the good and bad on both sides...Although there was more bad, obviously, with the Nazis, the Jews were not innocent, much unlike what is taught in school. I also like reading Hitlers comments on the Aryan race because according to him, I am an Aryan (Nordic, Germanic, Austrian, German, Prussian, Russian, Blonde, greeen eyes, and 6'3) but Im Jewish which according to his "race" is impossible...I love being evidence that, that guy was full of shit.

Ah, fair enough, I guess actually being Jewish would help you sustain a kind of morbid interest in Mein Kampf.

Ah, fair enough, I guess actually being Jewish would help you sustain a kind of morbid interest in Mein Kampf.

Am I supposed to not care why he started the greatest war the world has ever seen, killed millions of people in camps, and preached about a superior Aryan race??? Just blow it off like it didnt really matter....

Yeah, Marx is important because a lot of people follow(ed) him. That's basically what you're saying. I could point to a lot of flaws in Marxism - his ideas about overproduction, his prediction about industrialized countries succumbing to socialism first, etc. - but there's no dispute that he's widely read and widely quoted. Yeah, Hitler's important for the same reason. His politics and his philosophy, however boneheaded, should also be understood for the same reason. And by the way, my worst history professors were always the Marxist historians. Their ideas were overly simplistic and usually just incorrect. I do appreciate Marx for his classically liberal roots, but I despise him for his reactionary philosophy.

No, not the same reason. There just aren't that many derivative works from Mein Kampf. Understanding Nazism I don't have a problem with, and if you really want to go far enough down that road then you should read Mein Kampf, in the same way that the Communist Manifesto's interesting for historians of the Soviet Union. The point is a lot of Marx has much more than just historical interest, because it still informs a lot of current debate in a way that Hitler just doesn't.

Am I supposed to not care why he started the greatest war the world has ever seen, killed millions of people in camps, and preached about a superior Aryan race??? Just blow it off like it didnt really matter....

I'm really not sure you need to read the whole book. More can be learned about the causes of all those things in less time by reading other stuff. If its the personality of Hitler that's fascinating, then fine, but it's still a hell of an overblown mess.

clinton
8 years of peace and a roaring economy

dont you mean 8 years of sitting on his butt cheating, and taxes
GIT R DONE :)

personally i vote gw bush
he saved our country from towelheads, in 5 years 2 countries are either free or on the way to being free :sniper: lower taxes and more jobs
now thats gitten r done

Omg....Im about to send someone to Europe to snipe you right now...This is what pisses me off.

I'm not gonna talk about the Cold War Presidents because we have already been doing that but let me say this.
Even though I am fully for the war in Iraq, I can see why many people arnt. But if you arnt for the war in Afganistan....Then I legally hate you.....Your a moron and I hope your just trolling...I hope I, along with every other American, I hope, dont have to tell you why we are in Afganastan...Your an idiot....Like I said to someone earlier...Go get a horse, move to the mountains, and dont bother anyone.

Threats are NOT tolerated on this forum. Take a 3-day break.
The Atlantian islands: 3-Day Forumban.

And If you dont think the Blietzkreig (Spelling?) is one of the most amazing things ever thought up by man, weither you like the Nazis or not (hopefully not), you, no offense, are probably a woman.

Didn't I say the battle plans were brillent? The blitzkreig was perhaps the best strategy employed by the nazis. Didn't do them much good against the Soviet Union but it was still terrific.

Didn't I say the battle plans were brillent? The blitzkreig was perhaps the best strategy employed by the nazis. Didn't do them much good against the Soviet Union but it was still terrific.

I think that was addressed at me. Like I say, give me Genghis Khan any day.

Haha...I like this guy already...Good post. I beleive Clinton didnt accept him because he didnt do anything bad yet. I guess it depends on your definition of the word "terrorist" ;)

Embassy bombings anyone?

Anyone care to tell this person about the other Al Qaeda attacks before Osama was offered up to the US?

Embassy bombings anyone?

Anyone care to tell this person about the other Al Qaeda attacks before Osama was offered up to the US?
Need I note again that Sudan did not have possession of ObL, and was indeed unaware that a private individual was claiming to speak on behalf of them?

No flames? but I want to flame! Anyway I like abe lincoln, kennedy and Clinton, my worst after the current president would be reagan or nixon.

I think that was addressed at me. Like I say, give me Genghis Khan any day.

I'll either take Rommel, Patton, or even Monty over Genghis Khan.

Need I note again that Sudan did not have possession of ObL, and was indeed unaware that a private individual was claiming to speak on behalf of them?

I wasn't going to question it! WHy don't you answer what I asked.

I wasn't going to question it!
Sorry. Thought you were saying that Clinton didn't try to get ObL.

WHy don't you answer what I asked.
There was the WTC bombing. Not sure if the attack on the USS Cole was before or after the "offer".

Lincoln?? Where is this idea coming from? Honestly, the only thing that man did was completely necessary, he preserved the union using any method possible. That man did nothing for our country overall. However, JFK accomplished a few distinguishable things. He pounded the Cold War into those commie fiends face with the Cuban Missile Crisis. He also created himself into a truly Machiavellian, and truly great, leader. By creating a cult of personality and enabling himself to be loved by our populace he immortalized himself. Thus stated, JFK is unquestionably the greatest president our country has had.
- David Rau
Resident Rabble Rouser, Tyslan

The last scientifically literate president we had: Thomas Jefferson

(Isn't that sad?)

Sorry. Thought you were saying that Clinton didn't try to get ObL.


There was the WTC bombing. Not sure if the attack on the USS Cole was before or after the "offer".

Again, you forgot about the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. That was claimed by Al Qaeda as well.

I'll either take Rommel, Patton, or even Monty over Genghis Khan.

Well, it depends on yur preferred period of history I guess.

But I'm going to make the case anyway.

This was a guy who managed to unify a series of warring tribes, turn what had previously been skirmish warfare into a full blown military machine and defeat the armies of three very different and vastly more advanced civilizations: China, and the Muslim and Chrisitan Worlds. Any ONE of those would have been like Vietnam actually taking over and ruling America. The guy turned up outside Beijing without any knowledge of seige warfare and proceeded to capture Chinese experts, build weapons and level a place that must have been a few hundred times the size of any city he'd ever seen.

The Mongol empire was, I believe, the largest land-mass of any empire before or since (pretty sure it was larger than the British empire, which is the only other candidate). This also did a lot more for unifying East and West than Marco Polo managed.

Genghis also has the thoroughly respectable accolade of being the probable ancestor of about 16 million men currently living between the Caspian and the Pacific, making him a good candidate for studliest man in history.

Did I mention the human skulls...

Since he was never actually president of the USA, however, I guess you could say I've got a little off-topic.

Again, you forgot about the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. That was claimed by Al Qaeda as well.
You mentioned them before. I saw no need to repeat you.

This
Anyone care to tell this person about the other Al Qaeda attacks before Osama was offered up to the US?was the question I responded to. Did you want me to answer a different question that that?

You mentioned them before. I saw no need to repeat you.

This
was the question I responded to. Did you want me to answer a different question that that?

no no! Your right! Sorry my bad! I'm tired and my reading comprehension is a little off. Not to mention, I'm talking to my gf on IM

Ghenghis Khan was pretty awesome - if you ever go to southern Russia/Kasakhstan and see the immensity of the rolling steppes, stretching treeless and smooth for thousands of miles, you'll see how it was possible. The Mongol empire was smaller than the British one by land mass, and it didn't last coherently for that long, but I still think it was a more impressive accomplishment, given they were all on horseback.


My vote for President probably wouldn't go to anyone elected in the last century (and certainly not in this one...). Still FDR achieved the most, of what he wanted to, so well done to him. I respect the earliest Presidents the most. They had integrity, something that I see in few modern Presidents. And the modern ones that had integrity had no talent.

Take Reagan, who didn't understand his own famous economic policies which his staff really pushed for. He said that himself, in fact. He saw economics much more simply, and didn't really know what 'supply side' meant, and didn't really care.

No, not the same reason. There just aren't that many derivative works from Mein Kampf. Understanding Nazism I don't have a problem with, and if you really want to go far enough down that road then you should read Mein Kampf, in the same way that the Communist Manifesto's interesting for historians of the Soviet Union. The point is a lot of Marx has much more than just historical interest, because it still informs a lot of current debate in a way that Hitler just doesn't.

I maintain what I said. Marxism informs a lot of current debate because people follow him, not because Marxism's credible or time tested or proven or fabulously wonderful. Fascism's been completely discredited (except in the minds of Neo-Nazis or the National Front), which is why fascism has been resigned to history. Marxism still persists because of its popularity, not some inherent superiority to other schools of thought. It also survives because it's crossed over into so many other disciplines other than economics - history, political science, and even feminist theory. I'd say as an economy theory, it's been largely discredited, especially in economic departments at American universities. Usually what I see are people who like to blend Marxist redistribution of wealth with market theories, which produces some odd blend of market socialism. But, yeah, getting back to the point, Marxism does contribute to modern debate because people still follow it. It's widely read and believed, not because of any serious success it has had. Hitler's brand of fascism isn't so much followed anymore, but it once was, which is why it had a historical impact and is still taught.

[QUOTE=Westmorlandia]

My vote for President probably wouldn't go to anyone elected in the last century (and certainly not in this one...). Still FDR achieved the most, of what he wanted to, so well done to him. I respect the earliest Presidents the most.

Just a quick correction . . . FDR did NOT achieve the "most, of what he wanted to." This distinction actually goes to the lying sack of shit we know as: LBJ. Johnson got Congress to approve 83 of his 85 proposals. This was accomplished mostly through strong arm tactics and intimidation; but, nonetheless, LBJ wins this round.

I like Lincoln and Clinton best. But that's just me.


Where the Hell is FDR!?!?!?!

[QUOTE=Westmorlandia]

My vote for President probably wouldn't go to anyone elected in the last century (and certainly not in this one...). Still FDR achieved the most, of what he wanted to, so well done to him. I respect the earliest Presidents the most.

Just a quick correction . . . FDR did NOT achieve the "most, of what he wanted to." This distinction actually goes to the lying sack of shit we know as: LBJ. Johnson got Congress to approve 83 of his 85 proposals. This was accomplished mostly through strong arm tactics and intimidation; but, nonetheless, LBJ wins this round.


"If you have them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow..."

LBJ

Ronald Reagen and Bush are all heros

Where the Hell is FDR!?!?!?!

FDR? *vomits*

I love the Family Guy joke:

Brian: That's lamer than FDR's legs.
The Griffins: *gasp*
Brian: Too soon?

Exactly. I also forgot to mention that Abraham Lincoln really had no legal authority over the Confederate states since they had formed a separate government. In other words, he abolished slavery in a region over which he didn't preside and ignored slavery in the regions over which he DID preside. I find that hilarious. Shrewd political move, Lincoln, you rat bastard.

Also, he considered Native American's an infirior race, and the money and land he got from partaking in a particularly bloody massacre helped him win the presidency.

I'd pick none, but that's not an option. Not even Lincoln, because he didn't free the slaves just because he felt it was a good thing, he was under economical and political pressure. If you read a book entitled Don't Know Much About History by Kenneth C. Davis, you'll see that Lincoln was an outspoken racist.

You left out the greatest leader in United States history...

His Imperial Majesty Emperor Norton I, Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico. (1859-1880)

I maintain what I said. Marxism informs a lot of current debate because people follow him, not because Marxism's credible or time tested or proven or fabulously wonderful. Fascism's been completely discredited (except in the minds of Neo-Nazis or the National Front), which is why fascism has been resigned to history. Marxism still persists because of its popularity, not some inherent superiority to other schools of thought. It also survives because it's crossed over into so many other disciplines other than economics - history, political science, and even feminist theory. I'd say as an economy theory, it's been largely discredited, especially in economic departments at American universities. Usually what I see are people who like to blend Marxist redistribution of wealth with market theories, which produces some odd blend of market socialism. But, yeah, getting back to the point, Marxism does contribute to modern debate because people still follow it. It's widely read and believed, not because of any serious success it has had. Hitler's brand of fascism isn't so much followed anymore, but it once was, which is why it had a historical impact and is still taught.

OK, I think we have to distinguish a little between Marx the theorist and Marx the godhead of all things communist here. Has there been a general breakdown of capitalism? No. But then Smith said that he didn't think corporations (I believe his phrase was "joint-stock companies") could muster sufficient self-interest to ever work as serious player in a free market system. His failed predictions (and thoughts on the need for government to act as a pretty vigilant watch-dog for business activity) don't get mentioned but my feeling is it's more to do a lot of business policy advisors liking what he has to say and so funding the corresponding think-tanks about the invisible hand, rather than any actual greatness. In terms of predictions made, I'd say Marx can hold his own, although he was clearly wrong about the rapid collapse of capitalism. He got some stuff right that looks very impressive in hind-sight, got some stuff wrong, and has been an influence on everything from the study of English Literature to high-street fashion, and is up there with Shakespeare, Homer and Foucault for citations in the social sciences and humanities. What else could success mean in that context?

It's a trick question, isn't it?

So what's the punchline?

Well, to the best of my knowedge he never slept with that many impressionable undergraduates, which is the other great measure of an academic.

Sigh. You've backed up nothing you've said yet, and the burden of proof is on ME?

What do you want of me to back? I'll do it for you.

Okay, fine:

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/au-18/au180040.htm

The USSR's economy had very modest growth, they were already spending a ton on military, they had to level it off JUST AS Reagan was accelerating US spending. Thus in 1985 Gorby saw he was sitting at the end game.
And now you give me an article upon 'space wars', that states, among all things, that the Soviet ASAT programme started way before Reagan and the American programme was a response to ours. I'm afraid it proves nothing.

why in the world is Jimmy Carter on the list and FDR isn't?

It was a multiple options poll, so I clicked a bunch at random. Teddy Roosevelt and Jefferson weren’t on it, so I don’t take it seriously.

What I think of the ones in the poll.

Lincoln- He was alright. However, he only presided over war time and, while he was good at that, I don’t think that is a good condition to judge a leader in.

Eisenhower- Didn’t know what was going on in his administration.

Washington- He set a good precedent for later presidents, but he didn’t free his slaves until after he died.

Jimmy Carter- An incompetent.

John F. Kennedy- A cheat and a liar

Nixon- A communist (seriously, think price controls, plus you know he’d hate to be called it.)

Reagan- Same as Eisenhower.

Clinton- Over inflated windbag who was unbelievably ineffective.

Bush- First Bush was ineffective, jury is still out on current on (though, the verdict doesn’t look good)

Seriously, it was all about Emperor Joshua A. Norton I, the first and last Emperor of the United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_A._Norton

Better then all presidents combined!

1. George Washington - Without him there wouldn't likely be a US republic as we know it. Washington didn't just win the Revolutionary War as a commander in chief. He also kept the country from falling into chaos, anarchy, and even held the country together in many instances including the Newburg conspiracy, Constitutional Convention, Whiskey Rebellion, and the national debt crisis.

2. Thomas Jefferson - His statemanship help the country grow significantly.

3. Madison - His genius allowed for the US to have a working Constitution.

4. Abraham Lincoln - The events of his life basicly stopped American slavery and finally began the long road of real equality.

Washington
FDR
Lincoln
Clinton
Kennedy

I make this post in Honor of President Ronald Reagan,
who loved America his native land and Nancy Reagan for they loved and love each other deeply.

but I was too young to know if Clinton was good or as bad as my parents said.

i hated clinton.

What do you want of me to back? I'll do it for you.


And now you give me an article upon 'space wars', that states, among all things, that the Soviet ASAT programme started way before Reagan and the American programme was a response to ours. I'm afraid it proves nothing.

I can only say "the Soviet Union bankrupted itself spending on it's military, and ended up breaking the bank when Reagan began his buildup" so many ways. I don't speak Russian. And try though I might, I simply can't find a version of the 11th Five Year Plan in English, Spanish, Slovak, Polish or Czech. Never mind that it will no doubt be padded to hell, but at least it'd give SOME point of comparison.

Without this, I kept showing how the USSR was way overspent, but you'll have none of it. So at this point, it's pretty much a null arguement. Good day.