Who was the best US president?

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

Quote

I'm not saying it a was failure, just could have been handled diffeently. Winninf isn't everything, the way you win is also important.

Truman was a mixed bag for the above reasons, FDR was far better.

Um dude, in war winning IS everything.

Unless you are satisfied with the outcome of coming in second.

NO, winning by way of paying teh piper later on is a superficial victory. Japan won the South Pacific, but lost the rest. Germany won the invasion of Austria, Poland and others, but lost the grand war. So we win some little invasion, but the world gets sick of us and wipes our asses; did we win? The world cuts us off (embargo), did we win? In order to win, you nust actually win for a while, not just today.

We started the atomic/nuclear era, I'll tell you if we won in the future.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Maybe a fiscally advantaged person would feel that way, but the average citizen was so benefitted by FDR. If the feds don't intervene in a capitalist-controlled economy, we will have tyranny.

Three points - first, the average person DID NOT benefit from prolonging a depression. Believe it or not, when the Depression happened, it was because the wealthy lost their worth. Guess what? Because the wealthy no longer had any money, they couldn't afford to hire anybody. Thus, the poor were really screwed.

Point two - FDR to the rescue, right? I pointed this out to you a couple of months ago (http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2396550#2396550):

Quote

FDR that he helped create the Civilian Conservation Corps, where single men between the ages of 18 and 25 got jobs developing new parks, building bridges, planting trees, and helpin with flood control projects. For this work they got one whole dollar each day.

Adjusting for inflation, that works out to about 14.00 dollars per day in 2005 dollars (assuming 1935 for the $1.00 pay). Assuming only a four-hour work day, that would be present pay of $1.75 per hour.

So, for the honor of sweating your ass off in the desert, you worked out to $1.75 per hour in present-day wages. All that happened was you had a different tyrant - a federal government that had no problem using the poor to do its bidding.

THat's tyranny.

Point three - fiscaly advantaged? Let's compare net worths. I'm presently in about $300,000 of unsecured debt, and in about $475,000 of secured debt. I've probably got assets of $100,000 (my business) which didn't even pay for itself last month. I reckon that the bum on the fucking street has a higher worth than I have.

Fiscally advantaged? The okie wearing a potato sack was worth more than me.

Quote

FDR took a piece of garbage economy, even worse than Clinton inherited and turned it into a gem.

The economy improved between 1934 and 1937. It nosedived to below 1934 levels in 1938. Even despite the war machine created in 1942, the US economy did not again eclipse the 1934 level until 1946 - AFTER FDR DIED. FDR did not turn the US economy into a "gem." He should be rotting in hell for what he did to the American worker and family - keot them down for far longer and far worse than they should have been.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,150]

Funny how these people FDR screwed kept re-electing him, isn't it?

How would YOU have dealt with the depression?

...

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

[NCclimber 0]

Funny how Bush was elected while the Clinton/Gore White House was enjoying (arguably) the biggest bull market of all time.... and then he was re-elected after showing the country who he was for four years.

How are you going to explain that to your grandchildren?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Maybe a fiscally advantaged person would feel that way, but the average citizen was so benefitted by FDR. If the feds don't intervene in a capitalist-controlled economy, we will have tyranny.

My parents grew up during the Depression...and both cursed FDR's name. Unfortunately, I never thought to ask *why* they both hated him so much.

It made writing history papers in school...interesting, to say the least.

Well 2 people are a slim sample size. You never said why they hated him.

There are still people who thing GW Bush is doing a good job and that he is the best pres ever, so you can find anomolies everywhere, especially in thr form of opinions.

FDR is thought of as one of the best presidents ever by far more than 1/2 the current historians.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

he set the model for the Presidential bully pulpit and the expansion/intrusion of the federal government into everyone's lives.

I disagree. Lincoln was really the first to set that ball in motion. His crashing blows to civil rights during his term and the war are monsterous. Yes he "freed the slaves" however, that was the only good thing he did for civil liberties. The rest of the changes he did "for the war" are scary beyond reason. Especially considering how the country operated back then.

Interesting thought and probably true, but a certain amount of federalism is neccessary or we have 50 individual countries within the the US, which we have to a degree now.

[rehmwa 2]

I think the explanations analogous. Strong PR and fear of the alternative.

In a depression, the regular man will accept a big brother government because they are desparate. Even if that government harms more than it helps. One could also draw an analogy to this administration if it helps.

FDR had one of the most socialists agendas in history. Those that are closet socialists (those that can't bear to move to a socialist country, rather they'd change the US instead, apparently the socialist countries out there aren't good enough for them, but THIS time it'll go better) will love him regardless and actually believe it.

Someone more strongly capitalist will not appreciate FDR and also believe they are right.

they both are.....

so hard to argue that FDR pushed in one direction without shame, though he pretended to be an individualist, he really was big brother personified

So there's no point in discussing it. It's not about FDR, it's about personal social bias that's too basic to find consensus.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I'm not saying it a was failure, just could have been handled diffeently. Winninf isn't everything, the way you win is also important.

Truman was a mixed bag for the above reasons, FDR was far better.

Um dude, in war winning IS everything.

Unless you are satisfied with the outcome of coming in second.

NO, winning by way of paying teh piper later on is a superficial victory. Japan won the South Pacific, but lost the rest. Germany won the invasion of Austria, Poland and others, but lost the grand war. So we win some little invasion, but the world gets sick of us and wipes our asses; did we win? The world cuts us off (embargo), did we win? In order to win, you nust actually win for a while, not just today.

We started the atomic/nuclear era, I'll tell you if we won in the future.

Oh, gee how quaint.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Funny how these people FDR screwed kept re-electing him, isn't it?

How would YOU have dealt with the depression?

If I were president? Honestly, probably the same way. Much like Bush dealt with the Iraq war - if the war was going so badly then why was he re-elected?

I'd like to think that I'd stick to principles - don't let a recession become a depression. A recession is, in my opinion (just my opinion) a market correction. How is it that the tech stock crash of the late 90's, early 2000's didn't cause a depression? Because Clinton and Bush and Congress just decided to let it happen and move on with a minimum of intervention. People lost a lot of money in their retirements from it, and most of that money has been built back.

When the stock market crashed in 1987, we didn't see a depression. Unlike FDR, businesses weren't blamed. We didn't punish business (the group that could get us out of a recession by circulating money) as FDR did.

Why didn't the real estate bust of the mid-80's cause a depression? Because we let it happen.

Property values skyrocketed over the last several years. There will probably be a market correction coming soon (we are in the midst of one). Will the POTUS who is in charge while this is going on simply allow it to happen? Or, will the POTUS launch on an FDR style rhetorical campaign blaming business and punishing business for it?

What I'd like to think I'd do is let failing businesses fail. I'd let a failing market fail. I'd let failing practices fail. I'd let failing products fail. It's what I call the 90/10 rule - 90 percent of your problems are caused by 10 percent of your activities. We got rid of the 10 percent of clients who were causing problems. It has made our lives much easier.

So, let those businesses that can't cut it die - they'll quit holding back the economy in the long run.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

How are you going to explain that to your grandchildren?

Stupid fucking people buying into his righteousness and fear of the evil terrorists that were going to blow them all up any second if the Man from GOD was not re-electd.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

How are you going to explain that to your grandchildren?

Stupid fucking people buying into his righteousness and fear of the evil terrorists that were going to blow them all up any second if the Man from GOD was not re-electd.

Bitter, much?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Amazon 7]

Hoodwinked much???

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Hoodwinked much???

Seeing as how I'm pretty much a straight up (small "L") Libertarian....nope, not usually.

Of course, since I'm not blindly bashing everything Bush does, and blindly cheering everything the Dems do, I *must* be one o' them thar "re-PUBE-icans" redneck hicks....right?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Amazon 7]

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Hoodwinked much???

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


Seeing as how I'm pretty much a straight up (small "L") Libertarian....nope, not usually.

Of course, since I'm not blindly bashing everything Bush does, and blindly cheering everything the Dems do, I *must* be one o' them thar "re-PUBE-icans" redneck hicks....right?

Perhaps a read thru my posts would be in order.. once again.

Afghanistan.. go after the people who attacked us... good

Iraq.. go after someone the neo-cons did not like to justify their grab for oil.. BAD.... told you so...then and still now. Oh and lets not forget.. so King George can have the appearance of a larger penis than his father.

Churches in peoples bedrooms... bad... but the rePUBICans love trying to legislate morality.. so I guess you are in with the crowd who thinks all that is a good idea.. morality dictated from the pulpit and supported by the MAN from GOD.

Fiscal responsibility.. the repukicans make me violently ill with the deficits that Bush and his sycophants have foisted on the American people...you.. your kids.. your grand kids.. their grandkids will be living with the fallout from this incompetent buffoon.... BUT he and the rest of the neo-cons have done quite nicely financially...

Support for some the of things the dems do... WRONG...but someone from the far right has some severe blinders on when they think all socially progressive policies HAVE to support ALL things socialist or communist... DUDE.. the cold war is over... we COULD be taking care of our people.. making life better for all of them... not just a few in the upper classes.. while the middle class shrinks and struggles.. instead of having substandard education compared to the rest of the world... having a medical system that is a very bad joke for 1/3 of out people... but VAST amounts of corporate welfare to support wars of convenience.

Quote

, I *must* be one o' them thar "re-PUBE-icans" redneck hicks....right?

I will not comment.. Billvon would ban me.

[mnealtx 0]

I *have* read through your posts... unfortunately, most of your posts consist of variations of this:

Quote

Churches in peoples bedrooms... bad... but the rePUBICans love trying to legislate morality.. so I guess you are in with the crowd who thinks all that is a good idea.. morality dictated from the pulpit and supported by the MAN from GOD.

The whole "you don't bash what he does, so you MUST be in the same camp" schtick... which is unfortunate, because when you DO hold on to your temper, you bring up some good points to think on...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Amazon 7]

But when most of the right wing posters continually make excuses for his excesses and incompetence.....its hard NOT to lump most of them into it....just as you lump anyone who does not agree with your brand of politics into the leftie liberal pinko commie crowd...sad really.

And as far as bashing goes... I would have LOVED to see the REAL Right wingers on this website continual bashing of Clinton DURING his presidency.. wow that would have been fun.. but it was not around then..BUT all of you make up for it now.. OVER 6 years after he left office..

Interesting what YOU guys got upset about.. as opposed to what MOST of the world gets upset about King George.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Perhaps a read thru my posts would be in order.. once again.

Afghanistan.. go after the people who attacked us... good

Iraq.. go after someone the neo-cons did not like to justify their grab for oil.. BAD.... told you so...then and still now. Oh and lets not forget.. so King George can have the appearance of a larger penis than his father.

I've noticed you like to (incorrectly) cite Tommy Franks, when it comes to the prospect of Marshall Law being imposed.

Are you interested in his take on Iraqi WMDs?

This is from an interview last year:

Quote

When it was Colmes' turn again, he went back to the WMD issue. Franks blamed the CIA. He said "no one was more surprised than I that we didn't find (WMD's)." He suggested we ought to "place ourselves in the position of the president." The way he explained the scenario is that after we were attacked on 9/11, Bush had "reason to believe - because the intelligence community has given him - the president - reason to believe that there are weapons of mass destruction on - and on the soil of a rogue state which has had occasion to be shooting at American airmen for 10 years."

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Afghanistan.. go after the people who attacked us... good

They didn't attack us. A multinational group of Islamic militants attacked us.

Quote

Iraq.. go after someone the neo-cons did not like to justify their grab for oil.. BAD.... told you so...then and still now. Oh and lets not forget.. so King George can have the appearance of a larger penis than his father.

I'm gonna post a poll about this. Oil? Yes, part of it. A failed experiment on fixing "broken windows?" Another part of it. Just getting SH out? Another part of it.

Quote

Churches in peoples bedrooms... bad... but the rePUBICans love trying to legislate morality.. so I guess you are in with the crowd who thinks all that is a good idea.. morality dictated from the pulpit and supported by the MAN from GOD.

Legislating morality? All sides do it. ALL SIDES DO IT. ALL SIDES DO IT. Liberals just legislate their own viewpoints of morality. For example, killing somebody in the course of a robbery, revenge, etc., is a bad thing but can be excused. Killing somebody on the basis of race is bad and deserves the harshest sentence possible. Burning churches is horrible, too - especially certain kinds.

Legislating "morality" is what "political correctness" is. Think about it - "correct versus incorrect" translates into "right versus wrong." It's an attempt to legislate and penalize thought processes and not actions.

It is equally insidious on both sides.

Quote

Fiscal responsibility.. the repukicans make me violently ill with the deficits that Bush and his sycophants have foisted on the American people...you.. your kids.. your grand kids.. their grandkids will be living with the fallout from this incompetent buffoon.... BUT he and the rest of the neo-cons have done quite nicely financially...

Actually, the neocons were just as responsible for a balanced budget. Presidents don't pass budgets - Congress passes budgets. Clinton didn't do shit to balance a budget in 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996 or 1997.

Perhaps in my old age I remember the government shutdown of 2005, when Republicans and Democrats (led by Clinton) battled over the budget. Clinton wanted to raise the debt ceiling, remember? The Republicans (who had just taken control of Congress) would have none of it until Clinton agreed to sign a balanced budget within seven years.

Remember the Treasury Secretary diverting Employee Retirement Trust Funds to get around the debt ceiling? Clinton's administration WANTED to let the debt grow to invest in his pet programs. Republicans wanted a balanced budget.

Don't go rewriting history to make your side look good. The Republicans have now become what they despised only ten years ago. They were a good group back then, but they sold out.

There's blame to go around everywhere.

Quote

Support for some the of things the dems do... WRONG...we COULD be taking care of our people.. making life better for all of them...

We have been since the days of FDR. Look where it's gotten them.

You say we should be taking care of these people? Jeanne - Why dont' you go ahead and take care of Mike Neal. I encourage you to take care of me. You can start by paying my rent for my office. I'd gladly accept it! Helptake care of the American people - starting with me. I've got my hands out just waiting.

Or, am I one of those people who shouldn't be taken care of? Am I one of those people who should continue to take care of everybody else? If I'm not worhty of being take care of, please tell me why.

Quote

having a medical system that is a very bad joke for 1/3 of out people... but VAST amounts of corporate welfare to support wars of convenience.

A very bad joke? Yeah. For people like me who end up footing the bill for it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Legislating morality? All sides do it. ALL SIDES DO IT. ALL SIDES DO IT.......It's an attempt to legislate and penalize thought processes and not actions.

liberal with hands over his ears "la, la, la, la, la, la, I can't hear you,,,,lalalalalalalalalal"

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Amazon 7]

Quote

I've noticed you like to (incorrectly) cite Tommy Franks, when it comes to the prospect of Marshall Law being imposed.

Hey.. he is the one who made claims about the MARTIAL Law being rolled out... So what par t of this am I mischaracterizing???
Do you personally have a dog in this hunt... I mean some people will do well under Martial Law..

Please not I uysed an APPROVED right wing news source just for you guys.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml

Gen. Franks Doubts Constitution Will Survive WMD Attack

Gen. Tommy Franks says that if the United States is hit with a weapon of mass destruction that inflicts large casualties, the Constitution will likely be discarded in favor of a military form of government.

[NCclimber 0]

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2576566#2576566

[Amazon 7]

Right and I see that you seem to be ok with Martial Law...)or is it just George Marshall Law) great... throw out the Constitution..why not.. its just an inconvienient document to the right wing as it is.. well except for the gun thing.... you will defend that to the last.. personally I want to keep ALL of it... and see a better separation of church and state.. rather than having a right wing religeous kabal with EDICTS from GOD being acted on by the MAN from GOD... in the Oval Office.

[NCclimber 0]

WOW

You do seem to read a lot into things.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

FDR - I find him for many reasons to be one of the worst presidents. No president before or since has seized such control over the nation and people as a whole as did FDR. He is nearly completely responsible for the huge federal government we have today - he set the model for the Presidential bully pulpit and the expansion/intrusion of the federal government into everyone's lives.

You and I have disagreed before on FDR. To re-state, I think FDR is to be credited for starting the sea-change in the 20th Century of the US from a cold, dog-eat-dog world into the beginnings of a humane, ethical society. He initiated policies that were seen as radical at the time, but which Americans consider to be part of the national fabric today: child labor laws, the minimum wage, Social Security for elderly retirees, fair labor standards, an advancement in safety standards in factories, etc. The conservative business community of the time fought tooth-and-nail against every one of those reforms. The country would be a much colder, crueler place today had these and similar policies never been enacted.

[Amazon 7]

WOW.. some people just listen to the propaganda and DONT look for what is REALLLY happening.

The president and the administration know what is best for the country.. they would never lie to me... they will always do what is right for me...

Sorry but that kind of thinking led to WWII