History Buffs..

[ltdiver 3]

Quote

White House

Quote

"After the failure in his second year of a huge program of health care reform,"

Well, I'm glad that the historians got this part right. You speak of unemployment vs job growth affecting you this year. Well, Hillary, through her health care reform debacle, put ALOT of medical practitioners out of business and people in need of care at risk. For instance....I was unemployed for 18 months before landing another job in my industry. Chew on that for a real-life example.

ltdiver

Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon

[crzjp20 0]

1. Regan-- once again cold war, reform of armed services
2. Bush-- 9-11 and after effects
3. FDR-- WWII, however he was very weak and caved to his advisores, and political presure.
4. Truman-- after effects of WWII
5. .... dont know im trying to thik back to far.

--------------------------------------------------
Fear is not a confession of weakness, it is an oportunity for courage.

[karenmeal 0]

Aced my final... thanks!

"Life is a temporary victory over the causes which induce death." - Sylvester Graham

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Aced my final... thanks!

Which presidents did you pick?

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[kallend 2,112]

Quote

Exactly, that's what I'm doing, I'm proving my point about two people on the list. One that should be on there and one that should not be on there. You just happened to give me the proper platform to express my views of history, which this thread is specifically about.

You haven't "proved" anything at all except that you are biased and have an unsound grasp of economics and military need.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[karenmeal 0]

Well... I picked them in this order: FDR because he was elected four times and many of his reform policies are still in action today. JFK (my teacher likes him) because either he got lucky with the cuban missile crisis or he has mad-crazy diplomatic skills. Then Truman, he was a strong leader during the end of WWII and the korean war and other things. Then Eisenhower because of a bunch of things mainly the interstate system I guess.. Then TR because he embodied the American spirit of his time and set the stage for us to become a major world power...

Obviously there was no right or wrong for the ranking.. just had to back up our opinion.

I better go skydive now....

-Karen

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

You haven't "proved" anything at all except that you are biased and have an unsound grasp of economics and military need.

Once again, you post in response to a post I made only to try to belittle me. I love getting these almost personal attacks from you.

If you think I'm incorrect, post it with proof. Also, post it with "unbiased" information. The problem is, you can't, especially since history as a whole is not unbiased. I gave my opinion in what I believe to be an unbiased manner, but it will always be biased due to my life experiences, my sources of information and my belief structure. Every single historian is that way (just like any other source of information, i.e. the news media, the government, etc).

IF you don't want to or can't actually do that, then go ahead and blast away with your quasi personal attacks.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[tbrown 26]

1.) Franklin Roosevelt - saw our nation through its two greatest crises of the 20th century, the Great Depression and World War II (basically saving the world from the forces of evil, not to be overly dramatic, but there it is).

2.) JFK for averting a nuclear holocaust, though not for much else really.

3.) Nixon, even though I hated the sonofabitch. He opened up relations with China, worked on building a relationship with the Soviets, negotiated the first SALT treaty (Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty) with the Soviets, established the EPA and the Artic Wildlife Preserve, signed the Endangered Species Act. Actually if it weren't for Vietnam and Watergate, and that he was basically a dipshit, Nixon had some surprisingly progressive ideas. I recently made peace with the fucker, standing at his & Pat's graves in Yorba Linda.

4.) Teddy Roosevelt - Panama Canal, Sherman Anti-Trust Act and just 'cuz he was so cool. Made America a world power AND won the Nobel Peace Pize for negotiating an end to the Sino-Russian War. Also Pure Food & Drug Act, as well as established the National Parks System.

5.) Harry Truman - for bringing WWII to a QUICK end (by nuking Japan, who had it coming, all their whining aside...). Then he rebuilt the world out of the smoldering wreckage and contained Stalin's ambitions for Soviet domination, without another world war.

Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity !

[kallend 2,112]

Quote

Quote

You haven't "proved" anything at all except that you are biased and have an unsound grasp of economics and military need.

Once again, you post in response to a post I made only to try to belittle me. I love getting these almost personal attacks from you.

If you think I'm incorrect, post it with proof. Also, post it with "unbiased" information. The problem is, you can't, especially since history as a whole is not unbiased. I gave my opinion in what I believe to be an unbiased manner, but it will always be biased due to my life experiences, my sources of information and my belief structure. Every single historian is that way (just like any other source of information, i.e. the news media, the government, etc).

IF you don't want to or can't actually do that, then go ahead and blast away with your quasi personal attacks.

In rebuttal to Quade, you posted an opinion about economics (which you admit above), and claimed it was a proof. To be precise, you wrote: "I'm proving my point ".

It wasn't a proof, and the fact that you claimed it was, and now ask me to prove the contrary, only illustrates that you don't know what constitutes proof and that you don't know what you're writing about.

You have a very thin skin if you think pointing out your error was an attack. I hope you never have to defend a PhD thesis.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.