Your top 5 US Presidents

[Guest #22]

[quote name='CrazyIrishman5' date='Apr 20 2005, 07:12 AM']1. Forced Khrushchev to remove Soviet missiles from Cuba and stop a nuclear holocaust from happening!!!!!!
2. Establishes goal of landing a man on the moon.
3. He also established the Peace Corps (1961) and advocated civil rights reform.
[right][post="78431"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]
JFK was an average president while in office. All of these thing were destined to happen.
Granted, he was a better answer than Nixon I (and damn better than Barry Goldwater), but he didn't do too much.

[quote]No, but it was brutal and morally wrong. Soviet Communism was going strong for years, up until the early 1980s. The Democrats into the early 80s thought the Soviet Union would ALWAYS be with us. They didn't want to fight communism, and wanted to placate them. Why else did they oppose Reagan so strongly?[/quote]
It really wouldn't have mattered. A series of democratic revolutions from Soviet Satellites (coupled with the internal strife) brought the whole thing down.
I will admit that Reagan did pressure the Soviets (but, with a failing gov't, they could have nuked us too), but his role is overstated.

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='#22' date='Apr 19 2005, 06:07 PM'][b]1.) Franklin Delano Roosevelt. New Deal brought the U.S. out of depression. Ended Socialist party in the US by undermining their efficiency. Entered WWII at just the right time, saved the free world, etc. Co-founded Liberalism. Didn't live in New York for TOO long.[/b]
2.) Thomas Jefferson. Populist revolutionary. Genius. Liked "dark meat."
3.) Abraham Lincoln. Fought to preserve the Union. Had a mean lay-up.
4.) Herbert Hoover. Basically didn't screw up FDR's legacy.
(No five). Maybe LBJ, but he was an adorable cuddly wuddly teddy bear and kept us in Vietnam for too long.
Honorable Mention:
6.) Huey Long. Would have been a sweet president who represented the people's needs.

Worst five:
1.) U.S. Grant. Drunk General, figurehead. 
2.) Herbert Hoover. Sunk the nation deep into debt; founded Conservatism; never thought anything was wrong. (Might be at #1).
3.) Al Gore. Did nothing. Sat around for whole 4 years, got fat, grew beard. Came up with crazu tv show. Finally gave up in '04, letting Bush run the country for a whole 8 years instead of 4. Also, Tipper is the slut.
4.) Ronald Reagan. Tripled the national debt, did as much to end Soviet Communism as the Pope did- Very little.
5.) Woodrow Wilson. 14 points enraged Germany, horrible idea for reconstruction. Led us up to Great Depression. From New York.
SPECIAL MENTION:
6.) Alexander Hamilton. Not president. Whereas Jefferson wanted to put power in the hands of the farmers and the people who made the country great, Hamilton favored a sick aristocratical gov't where the "nobility" ruled the country. Glad he was killed.
[right][post="78174"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

"1.) Franklin Delano Roosevelt. New Deal brought the U.S. out of depression. Ended Socialist party in the US by undermining their efficiency. Entered WWII at just the right time, saved the free world, etc. Co-founded Liberalism. Didn't live in New York for TOO long"

you mean he stopped the socialsit party, WHILE he started up social security, which is a form of a socialist program... right...

[Jason]

[quote name='#22' date='Apr 19 2005, 07:07 PM'][b]1.) Franklin Delano Roosevelt. New Deal brought the U.S. out of depression. Ended Socialist party in the US by undermining their efficiency. Entered WWII at just the right time, saved the free world, etc. Co-founded Liberalism. Didn't live in New York for TOO long.[/b]
2.) Thomas Jefferson. Populist revolutionary. Genius. Liked "dark meat."
3.) Abraham Lincoln. Fought to preserve the Union. Had a mean lay-up.
4.) Herbert Hoover. Basically didn't screw up FDR's legacy.
(No five). Maybe LBJ, but he was an adorable cuddly wuddly teddy bear and kept us in Vietnam for too long.
Honorable Mention:
6.) Huey Long. Would have been a sweet president who represented the people's needs.

Worst five:
1.) U.S. Grant. Drunk General, figurehead. 
2.) Herbert Hoover. Sunk the nation deep into debt; founded Conservatism; never thought anything was wrong. (Might be at #1).
3.) Al Gore. Did nothing. Sat around for whole 4 years, got fat, grew beard. Came up with crazu tv show. Finally gave up in '04, letting Bush run the country for a whole 8 years instead of 4. Also, Tipper is the slut.
4.) Ronald Reagan. Tripled the national debt, did as much to end Soviet Communism as the Pope did- Very little.
5.) Woodrow Wilson. 14 points enraged Germany, horrible idea for reconstruction. Led us up to Great Depression. From New York.
SPECIAL MENTION:
6.) Alexander Hamilton. Not president. Whereas Jefferson wanted to put power in the hands of the farmers and the people who made the country great, Hamilton favored a sick aristocratical gov't where the "nobility" ruled the country. Glad he was killed.
[right][post="78174"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

FDR's New Deal did not end the depression. WWII ended the depression. And it would be more appropriate to say the Democrats absorbed the Socialist party than to say he eliminated it. Yeah, there are a few extreme socialists left, but many of the socialist creeds are part of the Democrat platform. The progressive tax code, and welfare being prime examples of that. "From those who have the ability to those who have the need."

[Guest #22]

If you look at American history, every time a third party has come up, one of two different things happened.

1.)It became popular enough that it replaced one of the original two parties.
2.)It had just enough popularity to have some of its view emulated and restated by a main party.

Now, in the late 1920's and early 1930's, a socialist movement had gained a lot of ground, in part because of the likeability of Eugene Debs, who had died in 1926 (?), and because what people perceived as the global failings of capitalism. The new U.S.S.R. was making enough money now to remain solvent (and prospering compared to the Tzarist period), but every other European country was in the grips of a depression similar to ours.
If Hoover or another conservative movement would have been elected, the Socialists would have almost undoubtedly replaced the uneffective democrats (or, at the very least, grew with the public's increasing hatred of Hoover).
FDR became elected when the nation was in severe crisis, and willing to try anything. by borrowing key elements of the American socialist movement (a movement which he despised), he both destroyed the last remnants of the party, and propelled the country forward.

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='Jason' date='Apr 20 2005, 09:22 AM']FDR's New Deal did not end the depression.  WWII ended the depression.  And it would be more appropriate to say the Democrats absorbed the Socialist party than to say he eliminated it.  Yeah, there are a few extreme socialists left, but many of the socialist creeds are part of the Democrat platform.  The progressive tax code, and welfare being prime examples of that.  "From those who have the ability to those who have the need."
[right][post="78464"][/post][/right][/quote]

well said...

i'll have to start to just point at your posts, and say "what he said!!"

[Jason]

[quote name='bengalrick' date='Apr 20 2005, 10:25 AM']well said...

i'll have to start to just point at your posts, and say "what he said!!" 
[right][post="78467"][/post][/right][/quote]

Thanks, BengalRick. You have made some good points as well.

[Jason]

[quote name='#22' date='Apr 19 2005, 09:59 PM']I would assume you would agree with me in saying that the system of Soviet Communism was inefficient and stupid.
Everyone from Hobbes to Locke to Marx has stated the obvious before: Governing bodies that are inefficiant and don't suit the needs of the people are bound to fall.
Breshnev and Liver Spot were clearly not Geniuses, and they facilitated the process by being either too firm (Breshnev) or too flexible (Gorbachev).
Reagan was inflexible and made it rough on the Soviet Union, but he did nothing to actively send it to its downfall. It did that on its own.
[right][post="78268"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

While it may be true that the Soviet Union would have eventually failed anyway, Reagan was one of the few world leaders to have the insight to understand that. As I said in another post, most of the Democrats thought it would be around forever. And they MAY have been right had Reagan not done what he did. Afterall, China is still around as a communist nation. But Reagan at least had the insight to believe it could be defeated it, and did so. Had the Democrats had their way, I firmly believe the Soviet Union would still exist. He put the economic pressure on the Soviets so that they could not sustain keeping up with us militarily, and stil maintain infrastructure.

[Jamie_B]

In reference to FDR and Regan, I think probally the truth lies in the middle.... by itself the New Deal didnt bring us out of the depression, nor did WW2 by itself...they went hand in hand.... Regan by himself did not end comunism....but neither was it just going to fall....the arms race did help...along with the internal strife within mother russia. I think to say 1 person or 1 event changed things is a bit overzelous...its a combination of events and people that has made these changes.

[BengalsCat]

[quote name='#22' date='Apr 19 2005, 07:07 PM']Worst five:
1.) U.S. Grant. Drunk General, figurehead. 
2.) Herbert Hoover. Sunk the nation deep into debt; founded Conservatism; never thought anything was wrong. (Might be at #1).
3.) Al Gore. Did nothing. Sat around for whole 4 years, got fat, grew beard. Came up with crazu tv show. Finally gave up in '04, letting Bush run the country for a whole 8 years instead of 4. Also, Tipper is the slut.
4.) Ronald Reagan. Tripled the national debt, did as much to end Soviet Communism as the Pope did- Very little.
5.) Woodrow Wilson. 14 points enraged Germany, horrible idea for reconstruction. Led us up to Great Depression. From New York.
SPECIAL MENTION:
6.) Alexander Hamilton. Not president. Whereas Jefferson wanted to put power in the hands of the farmers and the people who made the country great, Hamilton favored a sick aristocratical gov't where the "nobility" ruled the country. Glad he was killed.
[right][post="78174"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

[BengalsCat]

[quote name='#22' date='Apr 19 2005, 07:07 PM']Worst five:
1.) U.S. Grant. Drunk General, figurehead. 
2.) Herbert Hoover. Sunk the nation deep into debt; founded Conservatism; never thought anything was wrong. (Might be at #1).
3.) Al Gore. Did nothing. Sat around for whole 4 years, got fat, grew beard. Came up with crazu tv show. Finally gave up in '04, letting Bush run the country for a whole 8 years instead of 4. Also, Tipper is the slut.
4.) Ronald Reagan. Tripled the national debt, did as much to end Soviet Communism as the Pope did- Very little.
5.) Woodrow Wilson. 14 points enraged Germany, horrible idea for reconstruction. Led us up to Great Depression. From New York.
SPECIAL MENTION:
6.) Alexander Hamilton. Not president. Whereas Jefferson wanted to put power in the hands of the farmers and the people who made the country great, Hamilton favored a sick aristocratical gov't where the "nobility" ruled the country. Glad he was killed.
[right][post="78174"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]


U have to be kidding??? alexander hamilton and ronald regan were some of the best things to ever happen to america... and al gore was a bitch and wouldnt won his party's nomination even if he tried agaisnt bo-tox boy.........

[Homer_Rice]

my two bits...

On Socialism in the US:

Folks should keep in mind the different flavors that floated around in the early decades of the last century: Social Democracy (Fabianism), the Trotskyites, and the Communists. There were significant differences among them. Also, there was a populist component tracing back to the farmer movements of the late 19th c, a la WJ Bryan, as well as disputes over hard and soft money policies.

Debs had pretty much been destroyed (by the Wilsonians, btw) during WWI and the key national socialist figure in the early 30s was Norman Thomas. If you don't know much about him, he is worth a little time getting to know. Good man, honest impulses, and was disturbed by FDR as a factor in co-opting some of the socialist program. FDR and Thomas had a few meetings (I believe), some public and private correspondence, and some back-channel stuff going on. One of the points in contention was FDR and how he handled the remnants of the Tammany machine in NYC during his governorship and election campaigns for the Presidency. They respected each other, but were also wary of each other.

BTW, while one can make lucid arguments for both positions regarding the end of the Depression, (i.e. was it the New Deal or the buildup to the War?,) here is what is important. Both occured under FDR's leadership. Had the Hooverites and the faction which FDR described as the "economic royalists" been in power, we would most likely have had a fascist government along the model of Mussolini. I'll leave it to you all to consider how subsequent history might have been different.

On Reagan and the downfall of the Soviet Union:

The period from 68 to 80 saw the Republicans create a new coalition, and the Democrats destroy the one molded by FDR. Many conservative Democrats tended to move towards the Repubs on cultural values, even though this meant significantly changing their perceived economic interests. Nixon's southern strategy had a lot to do with this, but the dismantling of the New Deal coalition played a part, too. The McGovern reforms in 72 gutted the Democrats and a new coalition arose: Greenies, a neutered Civil Rights movement, and other cultural "single issue" groups such as the ERA/women's rights movement, the gay rights movement, etc... came into positions of influence within the party. The old machines in NY, Philly, Chicago, etc... were under attack and became less prominent, as did labor (except for their money!)

Strategic foreign and military policy at the time centered around "mutual assured destruction" and this was a part of the dance that the US and the Soviets engaged in for a long time. Reagan was aware that both US and Soviet economies were in troublesome straits. The purpose of SDI (Star Wars) was to shift the strategic context and to put pressure on the Soviet economy. It worked. The Soviets knew they could not keep pace on both guns and butter, which led to the first impulse to go hardline after Breznev's death with Andropov, then when that did not seem to do the trick for them, an internal struggle within the USSR led to Gorbachev's rise to power.

So, does the Reagan admin get credit for adroitly maneuvering the USSR into bankruptcy and political change? In my opinion, yes. Were the Democrats ineffectual? IMO, yes. They were forced into a position in which they had to support a crazy strategic doctrine (the Nuclear Freeze movement did nothing to get rid of MAD) and couldn't offer an alternative. The Dems are thus the party in minority today as a result, notwithstanding the Clinton years. Until they are able to articulate a coherent counterpole to the Repubs ideological posture, it'll stay that way. Thankfully, imo, the Dems seem to be waking up and it isn't an accident that we are hearing more and more references to FDR's legacy, and less about the political right to have sex with pets, rocks, or aliens.

[Guest bengalrick]

very, very good post...

i'm still trying to figure if you changed or i changed...

in the 90's, newt gingrich created the "deal w/ america" which is why republicans are still in power right now... i made a post a while back called [url="http://forum.go-bengals.com/index.php?showtopic=2892"]the democrats implosion[/url], and i'd be interested in what you think about that, if you don't mind...

i'm not going to be stupid or treat anyone else stupid, and say that i will probably be a republican voter for the most part, but don't think i won't ever vote democrat... i would have probably voted for bill clinton, and there are some democrats that i truely like right now... the problem is the far left wing keeps shining through brighter... if kennedy, clinton, dean, or kerry runs in '08, i flat out won't vote for them... if the republican doesn't sell me, i guess i won't vote (i'm not a 3rd party kind of guy)...

i would love a competition between the two main parties, b/c that is what makes each other better... i want the best commander and chief for our country... i don't care about what letter is next to their name, but i do care about their core values... if they start working on a more common sense level, i will start looking seriously at their candidates...

[Jamie_B]

[quote]in the 90's, newt gingrich created the "deal w/ america" which is why republicans are still in power right now[/quote]

Partly, imo the Dems continued ignoreing of people of faith contributed to their downfall (and I know Im opening a can of worms here) ... I believe that there was something like 29% said "Moral values" were their reasons for voiting the way they did....that 29% has existed for a while, its only now that this faith based idea is comming to be understood.


Pat Buchanan in the '92 Republican National Convention predicted that we would be having a culture war between the culture of faith and the culture of elitest humanism.....looks like he was right.

[quote]My friends, this election is about much more than who gets what. It is about who we are. It is about what we believe. It is about what we stand for as Americans. There is a religious war going on in our country for the soul of America. It is a cultural war, as critical to the kind of nation we will one day be as was the Cold War itself.[/quote]

[url="http://www.buchanan.org/pa-92-0817-rnc.html"]Buchanan's '92 RNC Speach[/url]


Edit: Also Im generalizing in Dems ignoring people of faith, not all do...but most, hopefully this election and the results and why the results were what they were, will wake them up.

[Homer_Rice]

Bengalrick and Jamie;

I read your comments, rick, and generally agree that the higher the quality of discourse, the better off we all are. As for particulars, we would possibly disagree. My opinion of Lieberman differs, for example.

Jamie brought up the 92 election and I had a flashback, which applies to both of your comments. During that election season I was a campaign coordinator for a friend of mine who was running for the State Senate in CT. I was, and am a conservative democrat (What's the joke? I'm a compassionate conservative, that's why I vote Democratic.) My pal was a Repub and I never felt comfortable with the Democratic party in CT, as I believed it was dominated too much by the far-out crowd. In any case, I had no problem working for him in a position of responsibility. As part of my assigned duties, I coordinated some of the public stuff, literature distribution, appearances, that sort of thing. I talked a few of my Democratic friends into helping out and remember having a passionate discussion with a friend who liked Clinton and hated Buchanan. I thought that Buchanan was a thinker, and we specifically went around on this culture war stuff, my defending Buchanan's general idea. I also told her that I was not a big Clinton fan, as I thought him to be a little too much a politician and not enough statesman. (BTW, I ended up respecting Clinton more over time.)

I don't think Reagan was as great as some believe him to be, but neither do I think him to be a mere automaton. I definitely think Gingrich is a snake. Knowing that we all are imperfect, and taking that into consideration, my litmus for people tends to be based on two measures: the quality of their thought and the integrity of their character. Thus, I can admire people I disagree with, and despise people who may hold a similar viewpoint as I do.

Somebody mentioned Garfield, which reminded me, another person I respect is William Henry Harrison. Would have been a pretty good prez, had he lived.

[Guest BlackJesus]

[b]The United States is not a Democracy it is a Republic

The United States does not practice Capitalism we practice Quasi Corporate Communism [/b]

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='BlackJesus' date='Apr 20 2005, 06:52 PM'][b]The United States is not a Democracy it is a Republic

The United States does not practice Capitalism we practice Quasi Corporate Communism [/b]
[right][post="78727"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]


I agree with your 1st point, im not sure I follow you on the 2nd..could you explain?

[Guest BlackJesus]

[quote]could you explain[/quote]


[b]Capitalism by definition if in its purest state would be completley unregulated where the Market place drove all decision making. There would not be laws about drinking ages, prostitution, etc.... The Marketplace through supply and demand establish a price and people would be free to do it.... Hell you could sell Kids Crack on the playground as long as they wanted to try it...

Also In "Capitalism" you be paid according to what you produce. You would get rewarded for your own labor. However you wouldn't be rewarded for birth status and inherit millions or be able to become rich off of interest rates from Banks where your money is sitting stagnant.

Companies would also be allowed to fail. They wouldn;t be bailed out by the government as a result of lobbyists. The airline industry for instance would go bankrupt and their also wouldn't be famr subsidies where we pay people not to grow food etc.....

There also wouldn;t be social security, food stamps, minimum wages, free housing etc....

What we have now is Quasi Corporate communism where the Government bends to paying interests and does not let large companies fail.... they bail them out with tax breaks, incentives etc....[/b]

[Guest BlackJesus]

Let me be clear I am not saying everything above is bad, I just think it is false to claim we are Capitalist

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='BlackJesus' date='Apr 20 2005, 07:37 PM'][b]Capitalism by definition if in its purest state would be completley unregulated where the Market place drove all decision making.  There would not be laws about drinking ages, prostitution, etc.... The Marketplace through supply and demand establish a price and people would be free to do it.... Hell you could sell Kids Crack on the playground as long as they wanted to try it...

Also In "Capitalism" you be paid according to what you produce.  You would get rewarded for your own labor.  However you wouldn't be rewarded for birth status and inherit millions or be able to become rich off of interest rates from Banks where your money is sitting stagnant. 

Companies would also be allowed to fail.  They wouldn;t be bailed out by the government as a result of lobbyists.  The airline industry for instance would go bankrupt and their also wouldn't be famr subsidies where we pay people not to grow food etc.....

There also wouldn;t be social security, food stamps, minimum wages, free housing etc....

What we have now is Quasi Corporate communism where the Government bends to paying interests and does not let large companies fail.... they bail them out with tax breaks, incentives etc....[/b]
[right][post="78757"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

Got yeah, did someone say we were in this thread? I must have skiped over that.

[Guest BlackJesus]

[quote]did domeone say we were in this thread[/quote]

[b]No not specifically I meant it in reference to the discussion on Socialism... and what I feel would be the inevitable response that we in America aren't commies [/b]

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='BlackJesus' date='Apr 20 2005, 07:46 PM'][b]No not specifically I meant it in reference to the discussion on Socialism... and what I feel would be the inevitable response that we in America aren't commies  [/b]
[right][post="78765"][/post][/right][/quote]


Got yeah.

[Guest bengalrick]

"I read your comments, rick, and generally agree that the higher the quality of discourse, the better off we all are. As for particulars, we would possibly disagree. My opinion of Lieberman differs, for example."

homer, i take this as a nice way to say, "i don't really want you to agree w/ me!"

oh well, we do disagree more than we agree, if that makes us feel better

[Homer_Rice]

BJ's right from a classical perspective.

Rick;

[quote]homer, i take this as a nice way to say, "i don't really want you to agree w/ me!"[/quote]

I don't get your point...

[|Bunghole|]

A "classical" point refers to idealogy that cannot exist within the constructs of human ideology.

Laissez Fare Capitalism is an ideal that can NEVER be accomplished. It is like pure communism, which is actually a GOOD thing for humanity, but bad for anyone with the greed or desire to make a profit.

I think our system is great. I believe some government regulation of commerce is necessary.

It is what we have. I don't buy into the idea that we have Communist tendencies...they are more Socialist in nature and the fromer USSR was more Socialist than communist as well...

[whodeybengal]

In no particular order:
Both of the Harrisons-william h. is my grandpa way down the line =P
George Washington-obvious reasons
Abe Lincoln- freed the slaves
the last spot is up in the air