- Joined
- Nov 24, 2009
- Messages
- 2,443
- Reaction score
- 733
- Location
- San Francisco
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
… people are so blinded by their partisan hackery …
No need for name calling.
The plurality of voting members chose George W. Bush as the worst president in American history and why not? His administration was a catastrophe for this country. 9-11. Iraq. Katrina. The 2008 recession. To name just a few.
Imposing arbitrary standards on when someone can legitimately vote for Bush as the worst president is bogus. Doctor cure thyself.
Define "finish"...we still have troops in Germany, Japan, Korea, Bosnia...
Kennedy...but then that wasnt REALLY his choice...Johnson...thats two...
The 'war' against Afghanistan and Iraq were over in 2003. I know you are too busy dabbing at the drool to recognize that...but...true story. See...we are actually allied with the Iraqi and Afgahni government now. I now thats hard for you to accept, but its true. The 'war' wasnt the problem. Where Bush did a lousy job was after the war ended.
lol, Bush single handily was the worst president.. led America into war in Iraq over bull**** Intel... while squandering away any chance of having success in Afghanistan. Literally throwing trillions of dollars away chasing after bin laden. Led the US in the worst recession since the great depression. Increased national debt by double and turned the surplus he gained from Clinton into massive deficits. He single headedly destroyed america's reputation globally and should be regarded as a national embarrassment. You conservatives stroking yourselves over bush are really living in another world.
Perhaps, then, a better poll question would have been something along these lines:No need for name calling.
The plurality of voting members chose George W. Bush as the worst president in American history and why not? His administration was a catastrophe for this country. 9-11. Iraq. Katrina. The 2008 recession. To name just a few.
Imposing arbitrary standards on when someone can legitimately vote for Bush as the worst president is bogus. Doctor cure thyself.
I REALLY hope it wasn't you, American who messed with the vote.
One or more people spammed the "Obama" option, if my understanding of the situation is accurate.Did someone mess with the vote?
One or more people spammed the "Obama" option, if my understanding of the situation is accurate.
I briefly considered spamming the "Other" option, after it was blatantly obvious the poll had been spammed already, just to mess with people.
But I'm too lazy. :mrgreen:
See this post for my take on even having Obama as a poll option: http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/82680-worst-american-presidents-16.html#post1059019761I guess I'm naive, since I believe Obama is a piece of **** and probably got all those votes.
You are obviously not familiar with Wilson and FDR. More importantly, Wilson, who got us into two of the deadliest wars ever.
We'd still have a massive debt and bureaucracy, because Republicans encourage that, too, including Saint Ronald McReagan.
FDR was one of the better presidents. Flawed, indecisive, yes. Evil? No. A lot of good came out of the New Deal, and it's been the agenda of the Extreme Right to destroy all progress and regress the United States to the free for all of the 19th centuy. If anything, FDR was too conservative in some ways.
what good?
destruction of the tenth amendment
milions of entitlement addicts who have become a self generating and expanding cost
prolonged the depression
ignored warnings about an imminent Japanese attack
what good?
destruction of the tenth amendment
milions of entitlement addicts who have become a self generating and expanding cost
prolonged the depression
ignored warnings about an imminent Japanese attack
Don't forget confiscation of gold with a penalty of up to 10 years in prison for those who did not obey, attempting to stack the Supreme Court, burning of agriculture/farm animals, Japanese internment camps, and falling in love with Stalin. What a guy...
True, he did some bad things, and no one's disagreeing with what you specifically said (mostly). Then again, so much is true also of the American Right's darlings, such as Saint Ronald von Reagan: a massive chickenhawk, deficit spender, friend of friendly dictators, and terrorist financier. Yet, for some bizarre reason, none on the Right ever condemn Reagan, nor do they use his bad points to ignore any of the supposedly good things they believe he did. He's seen as a Saint in the Right's political religion.
I guess I'm naive, since I believe Obama is a piece of **** and probably got all those votes.
Also, terrorist financer is a bit misleading since we gave organizations weapons to fight the USSR.
FDR did not save capitalism in America. Capitalism had been dead long before FDR became President.
Is Social Security a success? I think that can be debated. And I don't think the New Deal was a success at all. It did nothing to help the economy. But don't take my word for it, listen to Henry Morganthau...
"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong ... somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises ... I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started ... And an enormous debt to boot!"
-Henry Morganthau, May 1939
We helped fund and supply the same people who later attacked us. Reagan did that. You see, Americans had no problem funding terrorists, so long as the terrorists were attacking someone else far, far away.
But I am not talking about the Soviet thing anyway. Reagan sold weapons to terrorists, so he could clandestinely fund terrorists in S. America to overthrow governments.
That's a huge exaggeration. We still are largely capitalist today according to any credible economic organization. We have a mixed economy. We never had a 'pure' system. Our system is one of, but not the most, "capitalitst" in the world.
FDR was important because the New Deal prevented something much, much worse and radical from taking over.
SS was definitly a huge success. One of the most successful anti poverty mechanisms in American History, and its function can be saved with intelligent resource use, redirection, plannng, etc.
The New Deal actually was improving the economy, so it's incorrect to say it did nothing. It was just doing it slowly. What actually set back the New Deal was FDR's reluctance to carry things through to the extent that they needed to, hence the slow progress an te 1937 setback. Conservatives actually convinced him to abandon projects early and then try to balance the budget, which cauesd the Depression's 37 recession. You can thank the Republicans for making things worse again. FDR did not spend enough, long enough. A legit criticism is that too much was going on, and FDR didn't actually trust any of it, so right when progress was made, a programme was cut, declared unconstitutional, or funding was cut (already when it wasn't nearly enough).
The New Deal had a tremendous success, despite not ending the Depression. In its historical form, it failed to do that, partly because of obstructionists and FDR's conservative feelings about applying Kenysianism, but it did plenty else.
That is deceptive for many reasons. One problem with the New Deal is that progress was slow an hampered by FDR's, and his oppositions, behaviour. There was an improvement from beginninig until 1937, when opposition became almost impossible to overcome, leading to a cut in efforts, funding, and a balancing of the budget too early, which undid a lot of progress.
The New Deal also did not spend enough, fast enough. FDR had a big problem: hew as inherently conservative and did not try things long enough. That was a legitimate problem of the New Deal. It was often too little, not long enough.
We can see what happened in WW2. The spending dwarfed the New Deal, then America got a competition free market after spending primed the pump, solving the problem.
But the best legacy of the New Deal is the prevention of more radical systems from taking over as well as regulatory mechanisms and the social safety net. I really couldn't care less if it "solved" the Depression. The amount of suffering it alleviated and the institutions it put into place are worth it.
We helped fund and supply the same people who later attacked us. Reagan did that. You see, Americans had no problem funding terrorists, so long as the terrorists were attacking someone else far, far away.
But I am not talking about the Soviet thing anyway. Reagan sold weapons to terrorists, so he could clandestinely fund terrorists in S. America to overthrow governments.
That's a huge exaggeration. We still are largely capitalist today according to any credible economic organization. We have a mixed economy. We never had a 'pure' system. Our system is one of, but not the most, "capitalitst" in the world.
FDR was important because the New Deal prevented something much, much worse and radical from taking over.
SS was definitly a huge success. One of the most successful anti poverty mechanisms in American History, and its function can be saved with intelligent resource use, redirection, plannng, etc.
The New Deal actually was improving the economy, so it's incorrect to say it did nothing. It was just doing it slowly. What actually set back the New Deal was FDR's reluctance to carry things through to the extent that they needed to, hence the slow progress an te 1937 setback. Conservatives actually convinced him to abandon projects early and then try to balance the budget, which cauesd the Depression's 37 recession. You can thank the Republicans for making things worse again. FDR did not spend enough, long enough. A legit criticism is that too much was going on, and FDR didn't actually trust any of it, so right when progress was made, a programme was cut, declared unconstitutional, or funding was cut (already when it wasn't nearly enough).
The New Deal had a tremendous success, despite not ending the Depression. In its historical form, it failed to do that, partly because of obstructionists and FDR's conservative feelings about applying Kenysianism, but it did plenty else.
That is deceptive for many reasons. One problem with the New Deal is that progress was slow an hampered by FDR's, and his oppositions, behaviour. There was an improvement from beginninig until 1937, when opposition became almost impossible to overcome, leading to a cut in efforts, funding, and a balancing of the budget too early, which undid a lot of progress.
The New Deal also did not spend enough, fast enough. FDR had a big problem: hew as inherently conservative and did not try things long enough. That was a legitimate problem of the New Deal. It was often too little, not long enough.
We can see what happened in WW2. The spending dwarfed the New Deal, then America got a competition free market after spending primed the pump, solving the problem.
But the best legacy of the New Deal is the prevention of more radical systems from taking over as well as regulatory mechanisms and the social safety net. I really couldn't care less if it "solved" the Depression. The amount of suffering it alleviated and the institutions it put into place are worth it.
I guess "hurt them" is a matter of ideological interpretation. I see many of the progammes as stavng off worse systems and the addition of a safety net, regulatory mechanisms, assistrance programmes that gave people moeny, and worker protections as positive attributes. Not saying the New Deal solved the depression or was universally good.
Other - Reagan. Directly responsible for most of our current problems.
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?