The best president
| Author | Topic: The best president |
|---|---|
|
Infiltrator
Member # 1877
|
written Thursday, November 20 2003 02:02
Profile
Who would be the best president of these three? Poll Information This poll contains 1 question(s). 42 user(s) have voted. You may not view the results of this poll without voting. function launch_voter () { launch_window("http://www.ironycentral.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=poll;d=vote;pollid=dfopkrDGDalh"); return true; } // end launch_voter function launch_viewer () { launch_window("http://www.ironycentral.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=poll;d=view;pollid=dfopkrDGDalh"); return true; } // end launch_viewer function launch_window (url) { preview = window.open( url, "preview", "width=550,height=300,toolbar=no,location=no,directories=no,status,menubar=no,scrollbars,resizable,copyhistory=no" ); window.preview.focus(); return preview; } // end launch_window  [/url]  [/url]-------------------- MDNZZZ ZMMMBIS WBLOONZ 33111-CRUSADER-4849 Posts: 662 | Registered: Friday, September 13 2002 07:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 2104
|
written Thursday, November 20 2003 03:05
Profile
Homepage
I've never really liked any presidents. The more I learned about politics, the presidents, and the government, the more I hated 'em. Hmm... goblin with alzheimer... sounds good.  [ Thursday, November 20, 2003 03:06: Message edited by: Jonnie Zolohahni ] -------------------- Professor Frost gives me ideas. Professor Frost has many an eye. Professor Frost always foils my plans. Posts: 549 | Registered: Thursday, October 17 2002 07:00 |
|
BANNED
Member # 4
|
written Thursday, November 20 2003 05:42
Profile
Homepage
BAKA BAKA BAKA BAKA BAKA etc. [ Thursday, November 20, 2003 15:01: Message edited by: Alorael ] -------------------- We're all amazed but not amused By all the things that you said you'd do. You're much concerned but not involved by Decisions that are made by you But we are sick and tired of hearing your song, Telling us how you are going to change right from wrong, 'Cause if you really want to hear our views, You haven't done nothin'. Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 1877
|
written Thursday, November 20 2003 09:02
Profile
Right, BAKA. Wathever. [ Thursday, November 20, 2003 09:44: Message edited by: Sauron T Deciever ] -------------------- MDNZZZ ZMMMBIS WBLOONZ 33111-CRUSADER-4849 Posts: 662 | Registered: Friday, September 13 2002 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 2984
|
written Thursday, November 20 2003 09:29
Profile
Homepage
George W. Bush obviously doesn't qualify. The plant might win, if it wasn't a bush. So the goblin with Alzheimer it is.  And TM, Motrax came up with a more original way of spamming an anti-Bush topic, if that's what you've got in mind. Things like that are best forgotten, but history shouldn't repeat itself, should it? [ Thursday, November 20, 2003 09:32: Message edited by: Arancaytar ] -------------------- "And all should cry, Beware, Beware! His Flashing eyes, his Floating hair!" S. T. Coleridge --- "It is as if everyone had lost their sense Consigned themselves to downfall and decadence And a wisp it is they have chosen as their beacon." Reinhard Mey. --- Quote of the Week: "I have a high opinion of myself, which makes up for my total lack of intelligence." Anon. Posts: 8752 | Registered: Wednesday, May 14 2003 07:00 |
|
Shake Before Using
Member # 75
|
written Thursday, November 20 2003 10:49
Profile
TM is not defending Bush. Posts: 3234 | Registered: Thursday, October 4 2001 07:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 2104
|
written Thursday, November 20 2003 12:26
Profile
Homepage
Who would? -------------------- Professor Frost gives me ideas. Professor Frost has many an eye. Professor Frost always foils my plans. Posts: 549 | Registered: Thursday, October 17 2002 07:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 3239
|
written Thursday, November 20 2003 15:14
Profile
Well, out of all the presidents that we have had so far, Theodore Roosevelt would probably be one of the top, but as for right now, a rose bush.  EDIT: Thank you, Stughalf, for clarifying my mistake. [ Friday, November 21, 2003 16:32: Message edited by: Reality Corp. & RealityManiac ] -------------------- I AM TEH BOOGEYMAN CORP. -------------------- And since the stupid link won't work, I'll use this one: Chance Forums Posts: 203 | Registered: Saturday, July 19 2003 07:00 |
|
Guardian
Member # 3521
|
written Thursday, November 20 2003 15:46
Profile
HEAR THE SCRATCHING ON YOUR DOOR? THESE ARE THE ATTACK FERRETS, AND THEY DISLIKE YUO This topic would be much more appropriate as an ordinary discussion, not a poll. And the best American president of all time is Theodore Roosevelt, not Franklin. -------------------- "Let a man find himself, in distinction from others, on top of two wheels with a chain- at least in a poor country like Russia- and his vanity begins to swell out like his tires. In America it takes an automobile to produce this effect."- Leon Trotsky Posts: 1798 | Registered: Sunday, October 5 2003 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 27
|
written Thursday, November 20 2003 15:57
Profile
 Yes anyone would make a better president than Bush... EDIT: Wow, I think the two look quite alike each other. [ Thursday, November 20, 2003 16:04: Message edited by: Incorrigible Slith ] -------------------- "Wow, fish." Hahahaha, I crack myself up. Posts: 1233 | Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 798
|
written Thursday, November 20 2003 16:57
Profile
Homepage
Hey does anyone realize JFK was shot two days from today forty years ago. Ohh And This is JF's Ghosts, BOO. *sigh* sanity [ Thursday, November 20, 2003 17:41: Message edited by: Imban ] -------------------- Look Ma, I'm banned! Posts: 1046 | Registered: Friday, March 22 2002 08:00 |
|
Babelicious
Member # 3149
|
written Thursday, November 20 2003 17:43
Profile
Homepage
A goblin with Alzheimer's?  A vegetable?  Posts: 999 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |
|
Apprentice
Member # 3469
|
written Friday, November 21 2003 05:05
Profile
Homepage
Of all American presidents... the best renowned ones in France are without any doubt Abraham Lincoln for he fighted slavery. And Georges Washington too (even if he is less known). However, you may easily guess who is the most disparaged american president nowadays  I might have to say that these recent days many newspapers have written articles against Lyndon Johnson. -------------------- À très bientôt! Goodbye fellows Posts: 20 | Registered: Saturday, September 20 2003 07:00 |
|
BANNED
Member # 4
|
written Friday, November 21 2003 05:50
Profile
Homepage
Abraham Lincoln did not fight slavery- he fought against state's rights, and only slavery when it became convenient from an internationally political standpoint, which would have never had the chance to happen if his generals near the start of the war were more competent. -------------------- We're all amazed but not amused By all the things that you said you'd do. You're much concerned but not involved by Decisions that are made by you But we are sick and tired of hearing your song, Telling us how you are going to change right from wrong, 'Cause if you really want to hear our views, You haven't done nothin'. Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Apprentice
Member # 3469
|
written Friday, November 21 2003 06:11
Profile
Homepage
True, he was mostly fighting for civil rights and embraced slavery fight only in order to make people abroad think he was on the "right side". But the fact is that everybody now is convinced he was rebelling against slavery. -------------------- À très bientôt! Goodbye fellows Posts: 20 | Registered: Saturday, September 20 2003 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 496
|
written Friday, November 21 2003 08:17
Profile
Lincoln was opportunitistic in his opposition to slavery and the idealistic abolitionists also just served to facilitate the industrial North's domination of the South by taking away its agricultural labour. Similarly, in Africa, attacks on slavery were de facto attacks on Islam, the colonising European's main competition on the continent. Obviously, I'm not pro-slavery, but the discussion is more complex (and cynical) than it first appears. Note, also, that Lincoln assumed near-dictatorial powers during and AFTER the Civil War - hardly a good precident under current circumstances. Posts: 2333 | Registered: Monday, January 7 2002 08:00 |
|
Guardian
Member # 3521
|
written Friday, November 21 2003 10:14
Profile
It is true that Lincoln only embraced a public antislavery stance when it became politically expedient. However, many of his private writings indicate that he personally did abhor slavery, considering it morally wrong. As many of his political allies were powerful, influential centrists such as Montgomery Blair, he could ill afford to broadcast his antislavery views early in his political career for fear of alienating huge numbers of his supporters. As for the North's "domination" of the South, it is true that tariff laws and the like were quite damaging to the livelihood of southerners. However, I consider fugitive slave laws to have been far more repugnant than tariff laws. Making it a northerner's legal obligation to return all captured escaped slaves may not have done much damage to the economy of the North, but laws which force citizens to act against their moral beliefs in order to avoid breaking the law of the land are horrid laws, indeed. And as for Lincoln's willingness to assume "near-dictatorial" powers, I believe that he acted appropriately in this regard. He may have assumed powers which were not his to take, but he did so when the country was in dire straits. In a desperate situation, he used whatever means he had at his disposal to save the unity of the nation. This was a civil war, remember, not some ill-advised foreign venture. Although his methods were nonstandard, they worked, and that is what counted. -------------------- "Let a man find himself, in distinction from others, on top of two wheels with a chain- at least in a poor country like Russia- and his vanity begins to swell out like his tires. In America it takes an automobile to produce this effect."- Leon Trotsky Posts: 1798 | Registered: Sunday, October 5 2003 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 27
|
written Friday, November 21 2003 15:14
Profile
Many confederates did not own slaves, it is a common misconception that the civil war was over slaves. The settlements, which had evolved into states, were feudalistic and they had relied on themselves for many years. Then the federals tried to unite these states and control them. The south felt that they were being oppressed, hence a war. [ Friday, November 21, 2003 15:16: Message edited by: Incorrigible Slith ] -------------------- "Wow, fish." Hahahaha, I crack myself up. Posts: 1233 | Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00 |
|
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
|
written Friday, November 21 2003 15:27
Profile
Homepage
To be honest, if a president wins a war, we love him, and if he loses one, we hate him. If the Civil War had been lost in 1862 or 63 (as it had all rights to be, with the way things were going), Lincoln would have gone down as one of the worst presidents in American history, abolitionist leanings or no. AH scenario: Taft fails to grow a spine in 1912 and the Bull Moose Progressive venture never happens. Roosevelt thoroughly trounces Wilson. The war breaks out mid-term. We all know the difference between Teddy and Woody -- one was a staunch hawk, another was an isolationist. Northern-western jingo clashing with southern-eastern reserve. If this had happened, Roosevelt would have probably declared war on Germany before 1914 was out. Historically, America had zero (0) impact on the first World War from a tactical perspective. We contributed a few million, but numbers were meaningless in that war -- it was effective strength that mattered. The Americans were an incredible morale booster, and won the war for the Allies, despite having poor coordination and abominable tactics. Had they entered Pas-de-Calais with the French in 1914, their morale would have sunk like a stone. Americans in that period were notoriously parochial, and the idea of fighting a war that didn't really affect them on Mr. Roosevelt's behalf would have stunk after a while. 1916. Without any significant shift in the war -- the front is a bit closer to Berlin than to Paris in this scenario, but not under any circumstances in German soil -- the American people have grown resentful, and they want out. Roosevelt and the Republicans have become indelibly tarred with the war. The 1916 presidential race is between the Democrats and the Socialists, and Roosevelt goes down as the worst president in American history, rather than one of the best. But that's just how war is when you're talking about electorate politics. On the track I wanted to go before I digressed horribly: I consider Johnson one of the better presidents. Here's how the blame goes: FDR, very late in his life, made a promise of nonintervention in SE Asia; Truman sorta sat on the issue; Eisenhower reversed FDR's commitment, as well as cementing the 'domino theory' used to justify US imperialism in Asia; Kennedy, for all intents and purposes, got the ball rolling with increased American presence in Vietnam; Johnson was the sorry sap who got drawn into the war. FDR made this commitment in '45. America entered the war, what? '68? If you look beyond the war, LBJ was the most liberal president the US has had in the 20th century. He wanted to eliminate poverty and race discrimination. If Vietnam hadn't jumped on him like it did, chances are that he'd go down as one of the best president (at least outside of insane neoconservatives). [ Friday, November 21, 2003 15:35: Message edited by: Saishuu Heiki Custer ] -------------------- In a word, gay. --Bob the Impaler Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |
|
Babelicious
Member # 3149
|
written Saturday, November 22 2003 08:42
Profile
Homepage
The problem is that FDR made his promise personally to Ho Chi Minh and didn't tell anyone who might have needed to know. Like Truman. If Truman had known about FDR's promise, he would have been bound to keep it. Sadly, FDR rarely took his last vice president into his confidence, and so hundreds of thousands of lives were lost on the lack of that communication. Posts: 999 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Saturday, November 22 2003 11:06
Profile
Homepage
Maybe I'm missing something, but since when are politicians required or even expected to keep promises? -------------------- I believe there are 15 747 724 136 275 002 577 105 653 961 181 555 468 044 717 914 527 116 709 366 231 425 076 185 631 031 296 protons in the universe, and the same number of electrons. -- Sir Arthur Eddington Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 3605
|
written Saturday, November 22 2003 12:01
Profile
Homepage
on a unrelated topic id just like to point out that most non-americans dislike or hate americans. particulary in europe, asia, africa and south america. i personally dont like american foreign policy but on a personal level i like most american's i meet. just too bad that you have such bad record/leadership/arrogance problem. maybe that sounded more anti-american than i intended. oh well. -------------------- "Is that smell glandular, or do you wallow in your own filth?" - Last Words of Fredrick the Idiot Posts: 358 | Registered: Monday, October 27 2003 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 496
|
written Saturday, November 22 2003 14:58
Profile
On Northern "domination", I'd point out how ineptly Reconstruction was handled - why Lincoln was hated so much he was assassinated and why segregationist backlash occured the minute Northern troops marched out again. Re. civil war - who says the US should have ever been a unity anyway? Somehow this is pretty relevant to the current situation in Iraq... Re. European 'anti-Americanism', I find ignorance is a hell of a bigger problem than arrogance. The vast majority of US citizens still can't place Iraq on a map of the world and 10% apparently can't even find the US on such a map! I blame an over-rewarding and parochial education system and a media degenerated into sensationalism, localism and one sentence 'news' stories. Posts: 2333 | Registered: Monday, January 7 2002 08:00 |