April 20, 200422 yr Someone picked JFK? :plain Reagan. Ignored the AIDS epidemic, crack infiltrated the streets, etc. If he payed attention to "gay cancer" :plain , we might've found a cure by now.
April 20, 200422 yr I only voted for the 3 that I actually have payed attention to ... which are Bush ... Clinton and Bush the sequel. and I say Bush the sequel, because of the situation we are in, and i haven't agreed to ONE of his descisions. and if you can give me one reason to hate on Clinton id like to hear it
April 20, 200422 yr I would say the historical integrity in this board is seriously questioned by the opinions of some. People voted for Bush Sr., who was by far not the worst unless you think attempting to balance a budget is bad, people voted for Bush Jr, and he didn't even leave office yet and we cannot intelligently gauge him at this time, and hopefully no one picked Clinton, but I cannot remember. Terrible Presidents: Lyndon Johnson and JFK JFK did not accomplish anything. In fact, he is nothing but an image with nothing backing it. Everything we think he stands for happened after Johnson. LBJ was a lying crook, career politician but the second richest president in history. Something is obviously not right. Nonetheless, his "great society" programs concerning urban renewal were expensive failures, his medicare/medicaid is a huge waste of money, Vietnam was another drastic waste, and the only positive thing I give him credit for is project head start. The absolute worst was FDR and for the following reasons: -he made the depression worse (unsound economic policies, inefficient and stupid allocation of federal spending, increased taxing) -he was against the constitution (packing the court scheme, trying to purge democrats in congress) -he lied to the American people about neutrality when he was openly attacking Nazi submarines and invading Iceland -set a precedent for an executive government to curb our basic human rights via increased bureaucracy and government intervention in our private lives This man didn't do anything good. He made the depression WORSE, he didn't get us out of it. He robbed us of our rights as individuals and was a virtual dictator. The man was terrible. Now the guy who gets no respect: Nixon. He was a good president, did all the same illegal stuff pioneered by LBJ and JFK (like manipulating the IRS), but got caught doing a poorly executed and idiotic break in. I guess Nixon's paranoia got the best of him. However, foreign relations wise he was superb. He got us out of nam with some respect, he eased massive cold war tensions, and he toppled a soviet backed (democratically elected however) administration in Chile. Domestically he started affirmative action (when it was actually necessary), pushed for the EPA, and used a price-wage freeze in an attempt to stop inflation. What I do not like was his belief the executive branch is a monarchy over the people, it's power being supreme. What he accomplished made him great. And Reagan stunk, friggin' spendocrat.
April 20, 200422 yr Author JFK wins this going away... Took the US to the brink of Nuclear war (twice) Responsible for Vietnam Nepotist Botched Bay of Pigs JFK didn't do anything while in office, unless you count "doing" several dozens of women. JFK is more proof that the best career move any politician or entertainer can make is to die.
April 20, 200422 yr I did a topic on this a while back, although I included all of the 20th century. I'll see if I can find it, because I am willing to bet that thoughts are simlar in both.
April 20, 200422 yr I would say the historical integrity in this board is seriously questioned by the opinions of some. I would say in response to that.... simply not everyone here is a historian only giving their opinions. and as far as historical integrity...you proved that you have none and fail to follow proper protocal back when you presented your thesis that Italians had it worse than blacks...with a failure to cite sources for your thesis, especially since it was so against the 'accepted norm'
April 20, 200422 yr JFK wins this going away... Took the US to the brink of Nuclear war (twice) Responsible for Vietnam Nepotist Botched Bay of Pigs JFK didn't do anything while in office, unless you count "doing" several dozens of women. JFK is more proof that the best career move any politician or entertainer can make is to die. wow....wow. :blink: he toppled a soviet backed (democratically elected however) administration in Chile. Be wary of expressing that opinion to a person from Chile. Pinochet was a monster, as bad as Hussein and Kim Jong Il. To defend a sabatoge of democracy because one doesnt agree with the results of an election is just plain wrong. Our policies in S. America have been atrocious. -he was against the constitution (packing the court scheme, trying to purge democrats in congress) How was the court packing scheme agaisnt the Constitution? Yes it was questionable activity but it was in no way unconstitutional. He would be acting under his given powers and so would Congress. The size of the court changes all the time. It might be a pretext but it is not against the Constiution. ----------------------------------------------------- On a side note, fish fillet, may I ask where you went to law school(I think I remember you said you did)?
April 20, 200422 yr You forget that FDR created the New Deal, which was critical to the end of the Depression. I still say Dubya is by far the worst. Kennedy wasn't that bad, but Bush is like Carter, Ford, and Nixon combined into one paranoid, bumbling fool.
April 20, 200422 yr You forget that FDR created the New Deal, which was critical to the end of the Depression. I still say Dubya is by far the worst. Kennedy wasn't that bad, but Bush is like Carter, Ford, and Nixon combined into one paranoid, bumbling fool. The New deal did not get us out, it made it GO LONGER.
April 20, 200422 yr You forget that FDR created the New Deal, which was critical to the end of the Depression. I still say Dubya is by far the worst. Kennedy wasn't that bad, but Bush is like Carter, Ford, and Nixon combined into one paranoid, bumbling fool. Im sure you will now incur the wrath of sorianofan. But the new deal didnt necessarily end the GD. WW2 mostly. But the all the shots people take at the new deal are wrong. It created the necessary safety net and programs this country needed. People who despise the mere presence of government love to hate on it.
April 20, 200422 yr and as far as historical integrity...you proved that you have none and fail to follow proper protocal back when you presented your thesis that Italians had it worse than blacks...with a failure to cite sources for your thesis, especially since it was so against the 'accepted norm' Immigrants did have it worse than blacks and I did back this with sources. I have professors that agree with me, because child labor was predominantly a problem with immigrants. This is undeniable, you can deny all you want, but that's the truth. Now if you want to DISCUSS this issue (and muckraker journalism) PM me. The "Accepted norm" is simply not backed by sources, because it is not true. You can't make black child laborers exist. Concerning Chile, Allende was becoming a dictator as well (in latin america, big surprise) so it was trading one for another.
April 20, 200422 yr Concerning Chile, Allende was becoming a dictator as well (in latin america, big surprise) so it was trading one for another. Big difference is he didnt have the military staunchly behind him so he was beind held in check. Nothing held Pinochet in check. The things Pinochet did and the US role in them cant be justifed. Its besides the point. They elected him. We tout democracy here. But we have undermined it for our own personal views. It was their right to vote for who they wanted. It is not up to us to decide who should rule Chile. "The US has no vital national interests within Chile. ? The world military balance of power would not be significantly altered by an Allende government. ? An Allende victory would represent a definite psychological set-back to the US and a definite psychological advantage for the Marxist idea." ? CIA study, 9/7/70 "The Communist-dominated unions, especially those which follow the Moscow line, now generally accept the peaceful road as a viable alternative." ? report of the US Senate Foreign Committee, 7/15/68 "I don?t see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist because of the irresponsibility of its own people." ? Henry Kissinger, "national security" adviser to Nixon, referring to Chilean voters in 1970
April 20, 200422 yr I would say the historical integrity in this board is seriously questioned by the opinions of some. People voted for Bush Sr., who was by far not the worst unless you think attempting to balance a budget is bad, people voted for Bush Jr, and he didn't even leave office yet and we cannot intelligently gauge him at this time, and hopefully no one picked Clinton, but I cannot remember. Terrible Presidents: Lyndon Johnson and JFK JFK did not accomplish anything. In fact, he is nothing but an image with nothing backing it. Everything we think he stands for happened after Johnson. LBJ was a lying crook, career politician but the second richest president in history. Something is obviously not right. Nonetheless, his "great society" programs concerning urban renewal were expensive failures, his medicare/medicaid is a huge waste of money, Vietnam was another drastic waste, and the only positive thing I give him credit for is project head start. The absolute worst was FDR and for the following reasons: -he made the depression worse (unsound economic policies, inefficient and stupid allocation of federal spending, increased taxing) -he was against the constitution (packing the court scheme, trying to purge democrats in congress) -he lied to the American people about neutrality when he was openly attacking submarines and invading Iceland -set a precedent for an executive government to curb our basic human rights via increased bureaucracy and government intervention in our private lives This man didn't do anything good. He made the depression WORSE, he didn't get us out of it. He robbed us of our rights as individuals and was a virtual dictator. The man was terrible. Now the guy who gets no respect: Nixon. He was a good president, did all the same illegal stuff pioneered by LBJ and JFK (like manipulating the IRS), but got caught doing a poorly executed and idiotic break in. I guess Nixon's paranoia got the best of him. However, foreign relations wise he was superb. He got us out of nam with some respect, he eased massive cold war tensions, and he toppled a soviet backed (democratically elected however) administration in Chile. Domestically he started affirmative action (when it was actually necessary), pushed for the EPA, and used a price-wage freeze in an attempt to stop inflation. What I do not like was his belief the executive branch is a monarchy over the people, it's power being supreme. What he accomplished made him great. And Reagan stunk, friggin' spendocrat. I agree. I voted FDR. I'm a capitalist, he wasn't.
April 20, 200422 yr Allende was elected by a 30% margin and started claiming dictatorial powers and nationalizing industries. In my honest opinion, Latin America has coups all the time with or without US involvement. In 1930, Latin America had 31 coups, not one supported by America. So it isn't a matter whether or not a coup would happen, when a man is elected by 30% of his people, the military is against him, he tries to be a dictator, and starts his communist agenda people are going to overthrow you. America took the side of the non-communists, because in the cold war, you took the side that supported your economic philosophy. The coup was inevitable, America invested a big 50 thousand dollars to the conspirators and the rest fell into place. I'm not defending Pinochet or saying Allende was worse. Quite frankly, I do not know enough about the two men. However, Chile was an example of successful foreign policy. Whether or not you disagree with America's actions morally is another matter. Personally, I am a fan of detante and isolationism, but if the strategy at the time was tit for tat Nixon was indeed successful.
April 21, 200422 yr Author I'd say Nixon was the worst now that I think about it. Nixon may of been one of the best, actually. Everyone makes a big deal out of Watergate, but in comparison to the scandals of current day Watergate is hardly a huge issue anymore. Nixon slapped the Soviets around like Beeyotches and opened up China, which may turn out to be the most significant developement of the last 75 years. He effectively ended the Vietnam debacle, ended the draft, and pretty much created modern enviromental policy.
April 21, 200422 yr I already gave the Nixon "hurah" speech, but Nixon rules (for what he accomplished), but not what he stood for (too much executive power.)
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.