partier9
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2007
- Messages
- 972
- Reaction score
- 158
- Location
- A town in a country, on a planet
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
Who are your top 5 greatest presidents in US history and why?
1. Lincoln (hard to argue with that)
2. Washington (again, hard to argue)
3. Eisenhower (didn't mess with the economy too much, built the interstate highway system, and wasn't afraid to side with blacks in Civil Rights)
4. Clinton (actually lowered government spending as a portion of GDP, got the US in a surplus for the first time in decades, and didn't mess up a well-functioning economy)
5. Jackson (except for the Indian Removal Act, did a good job of maintaining national unity and keeping government in check)
Clinton #4, .....really? Bill Jeff Clinton.....same guy married to Hillary, right? Number 4? Uh,........................................ :boom
Clinton got federal finances in the best shape they'd been in for decades, lowered federal spending as a percentage of GDP, expanded free trade, and even lessened some government regulations. The man was pretty good from a libertarian point of view, in many ways even better than Reagan.
Clinton got federal finances in the best shape they'd been in for decades, lowered federal spending as a percentage of GDP, expanded free trade, and even lessened some government regulations. The man was pretty good from a libertarian point of view, in many ways even better than Reagan.
As for Jackson, yea the Indian Removal Act sucked pretty hard, but this was also the man who was a Southerner and kept a lid on the first rumblings of secession in the South after the Tariff of Abominations. Also I have a hard time picking another president. FDR greatly expanded the role of government, Teddy Roosevelt was an unashamed imperialist and started the first rumblings of government intervention in the Progressive movement (trust-busting alone wasn't bad, but Taft did a better job of it frankly), Jefferson's embargo of both France and Britain was an economic disaster and failed to prevent war (which would come later in 1812), and Reagan ran up the deficit, played the god card too much, and failed to put a significant dent in government spending as a part of GDP. Some of these guys get fairly high up on my list but its hard to pick a number five without running into a serious flaw from my perspective.
Clinton signed NAFTA into law, paving the way for American Businesses to flee to other nations in search of cheap labor.
He pushed through the largest list of military base closings in recent history, putting thousands of military personnel and govt. contractors out of work and helping to weaken our national defense. He cut healthcare benefits for miltary retirees,
played the saxaphone on MTV ............oh yeah, AND got caught boffing the Whitehouse interns, lied under oath, cried about it on national TV,................oops did I forget to mention IMPEACHMENT TRIAL? LOL :lol:
this was the same attitude in the years prior to the US Civil War, World War I, and Vietnam....all three required unpopular Draft Laws to be instituted to build up our defenses (is this REALLY how we should go about bolstering our National Defense....in a REactive not a PROactive manner? Think about it long and hard before you answer)Like I said, he lowered federal spending. That's a good thing. Frankly in the aftermath of the Cold War we needed to reduce the size of our military. And to who exactly were we at threat from in the Clinton years? The military bases we closed under Clinton wouldn't have stopped 9/11 and frankly we haven't needed them. If there was any point in modern US history where it made sense to decrease the military's budget a lot it was the 90s so I don't see where national security was a real issue beyond paranoia.
He lied UNDER OATH, during a Senate hearing. In our country this is called PERJURY, and it is was a Federal Offense. Did you know that according to federal law, if it can be shown that a defendant falsely testified in his/her own behalf ....... the court is required to automatically increase the sentence.......this means MANDATORY prison sentence. You can sweep it under the rug all you like, but what Clinton did under oath was no trivial thing.He was an adulterer and lied about it. Frankly so what.
I have a question, though: How comes that an almost irrational hatred or praise seems to exist in America that's focusing on one, not very important detail of a Presidency, while ignoring the big picture? At least that's how it seems to me sometimes. Think of Carter: If you believe conventional wisdom, he was the worst President ever. But I wonder, what did he do so horribly bad, except messing up this hostage business? Apart from that, it seems he did an ok job, neither outstanding nor horrible, and he wasn't involved in dirty scandals.
Which leads me to Reagan, on the other side, who is worshipped by many as a Messiah, which is just as difficult to understand for me. After all, he was involved in the Iran Contra affair, and true, he did cut taxes, but his economic policies were hardly that genious, for example he didn't cut spending as well. And the early 80s' recession was almost over all by itself when he entered office, yet it seems many believe he solved it.
Clinton, on the other side, is responsible for the first budget surplus in decades and probably did an even better job on the economy than Reagan, at least if you believe the numbers. Yet everybody seems to remember this Lewinski scandal, which I fail to understand why it's supposedly important at all (what difference does it make for America where he puts his d*ck? It's not that he's married to the public).
Just wondering.
Well that is quite obvious from the rest of your post.It's interesting to read this debate. Naturally, as non-American, I don't have so strong opinions (and certainly not the knowledge of the details) on the different Presidents to make such a list.
I think you would have had to have lived in America in the late 70's to understand. Gasoline rationing is no fun. That recession you talk about later, Carter's financial policies were pretty much the major cause of it.I have a question, though: How comes that an almost irrational hatred or praise seems to exist in America that's focusing on one, not very important detail of a Presidency, while ignoring the big picture? At least that's how it seems to me sometimes. Think of Carter: If you believe conventional wisdom, he was the worst President ever. But I wonder, what did he do so horribly bad, except messing up this hostage business? Apart from that, it seems he did an ok job, neither outstanding nor horrible, and he wasn't involved in dirty scandals.
.Which leads me to Reagan, on the other side, who is worshipped by many as a Messiah, which is just as difficult to understand for me. After all, he was involved in the Iran Contra affair, and true, he did cut taxes, but his economic policies were hardly that genious, for example he didn't cut spending as well. And the early 80s' recession was almost over all by itself when he entered office, yet it seems many believe he solved it
I really don't care where he sticks his "little willy" either. But that's not really the issue now, is it? See my previous post.......it's perjury, plain and simple, a Federal Offense in our country...and he got off scott free. I do give him credit for the budget surplus and do not believe he was one of our worst. I would classify his Administration as perhaps slightly above average. He just got a little too "cocky" :mrgreen:Clinton, on the other side, is responsible for the first budget surplus in decades and probably did an even better job on the economy than Reagan, at least if you believe the numbers. Yet everybody seems to remember this Lewinski scandal, which I fail to understand why it's supposedly important at all (what difference does it make for America where he puts his d*ck? It's not that he's married to the public).
Just wondering.
Well that is quite obvious from the rest of your post.
I think you would have had to have lived in America in the late 70's to understand. Gasoline rationing is no fun. That recession you talk about later, Carter's financial policies were pretty much the major cause of it.
.
He stood up to Communist agression and the Soviet Union when no one else would, not West Germany, not the UK, no one (except maybe the mujahadeen). Also, Reagan was elected in 1980, trust me the recession was still in full swing.
I really don't care where he sticks his "little willy" either. But that's not really the issue now, is it? See my previous post.......it's perjury, plain and simple, a Federal Offense in our country...and he got off scott free. I do give him credit for the budget surplus and do not believe he was one of our worst. I would classify his Administration as perhaps slightly above average. He just got a little too "cocky" :mrgreen:
I think you would have had to have lived in America in the late 70's to understand. Gasoline rationing is no fun.
That recession you talk about later, Carter's financial policies were pretty much the major cause of it.
He stood up to Communist agression and the Soviet Union when no one else would, not West Germany, not the UK, no one (except maybe the mujahadeen). Also, Reagan was elected in 1980, trust me the recession was still in full swing.
I really don't care where he sticks his "little willy" either. But that's not really the issue now, is it? See my previous post.......it's perjury, plain and simple, a Federal Offense in our country...and he got off scott free. I do give him credit for the budget surplus and do not believe he was one of our worst. I would classify his Administration as perhaps slightly above average. He just got a little too "cocky" :mrgreen:
Carter imposed higher taxes in an attempt to discourage energy consumption. That was his plan to combat the OPEC oil embargo. Coupled with the way he handled the hostage situation and taking into consideration that this was the only period of peacetime inflation in American history, I'd have to say Carter falls well short of the mark for even an average president. He did teach Sunday school classes though, and his brother liked the Libyans :lol:Sure. But it's not that Carter could do much about it. It was the oil states cartell that didn't leave much choice. But of course I understand leaders often get blamed for things they can't do much about it. For example, I think Bush received a lot of unfair blame because of that hurricane. So does Obama because of the oil spill.
Hm, I haven't heard that before, but then, I am hardly an expert on economics in general or this recession in particular. Maybe it's also common that in the sources I read about it here, the political implications and blame was not much of a topic. Naturally, Americans are more interested in this aspect, to know how they can judge the responsibility of politics.
Carter imposed higher taxes in an attempt to discourage energy consumption. That was his plan to combat the OPEC oil embargo. Coupled with the way he handled the hostage situation and taking into consideration that this was the only period of peacetime inflation in American history, I'd have to say Carter falls well short of the mark for even an average president. He did teach Sunday school classes though, and his brother liked the Libyans :lol:
.
Well, I guess I have to take your word on it. And yes, that does make him look pretty bad.
What about Iran Contra? For me, this looks at least as bad as Clinton lying under oath. But I guess it's normal that left-leaning people will rather forgive Clinton, but not Reagan, and right-leaning vice versa.
this was the same attitude in the years prior to the US Civil War, World War I, and Vietnam....all three required unpopular Draft Laws to be instituted to build up our defenses (is this REALLY how we should go about bolstering our National Defense....in a REactive not a PROactive manner? Think about it long and hard before you answer)
He lied UNDER OATH, during a Senate hearing. In our country this is called PERJURY, and it is was a Federal Offense. Did you know that according to federal law, if it can be shown that a defendant falsely testified in his/her own behalf ....... the court is required to automatically increase the sentence.......this means MANDATORY prison sentence. You can sweep it under the rug all you like, but what Clinton did under oath was no trivial thing.
One more question, what would have happened to you or I if we'd been caught giving false testimony and obstructing a Federal Investigation? Just wondering.
You really SHOULD get your facts straight. Reagan was never under oath, nor was it proven during a hearing or trial that he lied about anything. Clinton WAS NOT under investigation for adultery nor was he impeached for it, rather for WILLFUL OBSTRUCTION OF A FEDERAL INVESTIGATION. Seems to me that you are the one believing the tabloid-esque left-wing talking points. Defend Clinton all you'd like, but if you or I were put on trial for obstructing a federal investigation and were then caught perjuring ourselves on the witness stand, I really doubt either of us would get a pass.You seem to give Reagan a pass on your list despite lying about Iran-Contra, which was an issue that actually pertained to Reagan's performance as president as opposed to Clinton's investigation which was just a tabloid-esque circus about his sex life.
As for what would happen to you or me, we wouldn't be under federal investigation for adultery because adultery is not a federal crime. None of these women were claiming rape which leads to the question of why would you have this investigation in the first place (sure it started over a legitimate issue with Whitewater, which the president was never convicted of, but that's not the point that Clinton perjured himself at). If the Congress was going to make a mockery of the law by having a legal investigation into something that is not even a crime at their level of jurisdiction, then I have no problems with a president or anyone making a mockery of the investigation by lying to it.
You really SHOULD get your facts straight. Reagan was never under oath, nor was it proven during a hearing or trial that he lied about anything.
Clinton WAS NOT under investigation for adultery nor was he impeached for it, rather for WILLFUL OBSTRUCTION OF A FEDERAL INVESTIGATION.
Seems to me that you are the one believing the tabloid-esque left-wing talking points. Defend Clinton all you'd like, but if you or I were put on trial for obstructing a federal investigation and were then caught perjuring ourselves on the witness stand, I really doubt either of us would get a pass.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?