Who is the best US President, in your opinion?

[orange]

Originally posted by Richard Bruns
James Knox Polk. He did his job well and he didn't puff himself up. Overall a good president and a good person.

As far as keeping to his word...our most honest president ever.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by orange
Giancarlo - you little ****bag. I asked politely for where those charts came from and you still have yet to show me where. And you wonder why this forum hates you...right, left, communist, republican. This is why. You are a complete ******* in every sense.

Watch your mouth bud, I never saw that request. It happens. I am just human you idiot.

A) I'm not a communist, nor do I claim to be. I'm a moderate socialist at best. "self-proclaimed communist" indeed. Man...you need to get a life pal.

That is sad. You need to look at the Republican perspective of the world where eveyone prospers

B) I never even referred to the collapse of the Soviet Union!

Oh yes, I am sure about that. I took the words out of your mouth.

yeah ok, you'll have to excuse me for a moment, my comrades and I are going to go burn some American flags and then quote excerpts from the Manifesto.

And then fall like all the other communist leaders. Castro and Kim Jong Il are the only fat communist cats we are waiting to either be: kicked out of office or die. Castro is close to dying, and I wonder why everybody is running away from him? Oh the wonders of socialism... everybody runs away because the crooked system fleeces them of all their private valuables and things they live by. Oh the idiocy!

In regards to what??

Almost everything Clinton did was wrong.

Not I. I personally think the man was one of our lower presidents, I agree with what Imran said on the subject...so why exactly are you yelling at me for it?

Well I think he is the best leader ever. My opinion.

Have you had your medicine today?

Hey that is what they said on some movie on television having to do with Consipiracies. They said the mob help fix election results in West Virginia and several other states for Kennedy.

I'm sure it happened more than that, buddy boy. If it were a liberal falling asleep at the meetings, you'd be spewing your pro-Republican propoganda.

No. If this person fell asleep like twice in eight years I can't blame them. Pro Republican propaganda? It isn't as bad your Socialist Propaganda that tries to steal from the people and rob them of their possessions.

I consider myself neither of the two.

Did I say you were jack ass? No I didn't. I said you were anti-western and anti-neo-classicist.

Again Giancarlo, incase it isn't clear to you, you are an *******. Good day.

And you are a ****ing pig who smokes big cuban cigars and who does not give a rat ass about the prosperity of all freedom loving nations.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Wraith
How many other Presidents have required Constitutional Amendments after their time in office designed to prevent specific abuses of power they had performed?

I assume this is a reference to term limits (which amendment is that? 22?) How is this designed to prevent abuse of power? Though, admittedly, if it was, that would explain why both the Nixon and Reagan administrations looked into trying to rescind it.

--"Next, I would put FDR, since he saved democracy and capitalism."

If what FDR supported was capitalism, my name's Phinneas P. Slug. And it isn't.

Hey Phinneas! Of course it was capitalism -- not laissez-faire, to be sure, but capitalism nevertheless. The thing to ask is, if it hadn't been for FDR and the New Deal -- if, for example, the policies of Hoover had been continued past 1932 -- how long would it have been before the US had another revolution on its hands, and gone either fascist or commie? This is not unthinkable; even with Roosevelt in power, both home-grown fascism and home-grown socialism/communism had significant followings in the 30s.

--"Let's not forget the savings and loan collapses and subsequent bailouts under his watch."

The whole S&L crisis was inevitable once the government started interfering in banking, so you can tie the root cause of this far further back than Reagan.
I mean, honestly. The government starts insuring investments, what else is going to happen but a lot of people taking advantage of it to make risky investments? It had to topple sooner or later.

Um, no. The folks who regulated the banking industry also regulated the investments of the banking industry, forseeing exactly this possiblity. Guess which drooling moron who called his wife "Mommy" pushed to have those investment regulations lifted? And, in fairness, guess which party of craven cowards, in control of Congress at the time, gave him his wish? S&L deregulation was a bi-partisan debacle, but it doesn't pre-date Reagan -- and while the Dems voted for it because they're spineless weasels, Reagan's people actually thought it was a good idea.

[Imran Siddiqui]

if, for example, the policies of Hoover had been continued past 1932 -- how long would it have been before the US had another revolution on its hands, and gone either fascist or commie?

Seeing that Hoover's Reconstruction Finance Commission (RFC) was the precursor to Roosevelt's New Deal programs (in fact Roosevelt yelled at Hoover for the debt his RFC caused in the election), I don't think the US would have had a revolution at all.

[orange]

Originally posted by Giancarlo
Watch your mouth bud, I never saw that request. It happens. I am just human you idiot.

Doesn't matter if you saw it or not, alls you did was jump on me from the moment you saw my handle. You didn't care what I said or what my thoughts were, you just wanted to flame. And still trolling away, so it would seem...

That is sad. You need to look at the Republican perspective of the world where eveyone prospers

Socialists have the same perspective, otherwise they wouldn't believe in that system. I'm sorry, I'm not a rightist. I tend to disagree with Republicans. If you can't accept that, then don't respond to my posts.

Oh yes, I am sure about that. I took the words out of your mouth.

Find a quote from me in this thread where I mention the fall of the Soviet Union (and not this one or the one where I responded to your accusation )

And then fall like all the other communist leaders. Castro and Kim Jong Il are the only fat communist cats we are waiting to either be: kicked out of office or die. Castro is close to dying, and I wonder why everybody is running away from him? Oh the wonders of socialism... everybody runs away because the crooked system fleeces them of all their private valuables and things they live by. Oh the idiocy!

Sarcasm you idiot. SARCASM!

Almost everything Clinton did was wrong.

That's just ignorant. At least I have the confidence in my views to say that Reagan was not 100% bad, even though he is the president that I dislike most.

Well I think he is the best leader ever. My opinion.

You think John Kennedy is the greatest leader ever? You don't even know what you're quoting! You just want to come off as disagreeing with everything I say! You are a moron!

Hey that is what they said on some movie on television having to do with Consipiracies. They said the mob help fix election results in West Virginia and several other states for Kennedy.

What ARE you talking about now??

No. If this person fell asleep like twice in eight years I can't blame them. Pro Republican propaganda? It isn't as bad your Socialist Propaganda that tries to steal from the people and rob them of their possessions.

Did I say you were jack ass? No I didn't. I said you were anti-western and anti-neo-classicist.

BUH! Gah! YOU JUST DID! In this very quote where you say that you didn't call me either, you call me both! Are you simply trying to make it easy for me to prove how stupid you're being?

And you are a ****ing pig who smokes big cuban cigars and who does not give a rat ass about the prosperity of all freedom loving nations.

That's a keeper.

Btw: I don't smoke

[Berzerker]

Orange - those charts came from the Cato Institute, a very trustworthy organization that criticizes Republicans as well as Democrats. They aren't partisans...

For those who want "hard proof" of the theory concerning Reagan's arms deals with the Iranians and the election of 1980, try the book "October Surprise" by Gary ????. He was a top official in the Carter administration. I see you just dismissed the "coincidences" that the hostages were released minutes after Reagan took office and that arms started heading for Iran shortly afterward. How many red flags do you need? Btw, I voted for Reagan so don't hand me that Pravda crap.

[orange]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Orange - those charts came from the Cato Institute, a very trustworthy organization that criticizes Republicans as well as Democrats. They aren't partisans...

Thank you. That's all I wanted. Though the site they came from was given earlier...

For those who want "hard proof" of the theory concerning Reagan's arms deals with the Iranians and the election of 1980, try the book "October Surprise" by Gary ????. He was a top official in the Carter administration. I see you just dismissed the "coincidences" that the hostages were released minutes after Reagan took office and that arms started heading for Iran shortly afterward. How many red flags do you need? Btw, I voted for Reagan so don't hand me that Pravda crap.

I can't tell if you're for or against Reagan, but from what you've said, yeah...it was obviously formed by Reagan and co.

[Hoek]

Hoover was an utter failure no matter how you put it. (Laissez-Faire is a dream, not a reality) society can not exist if the upper class repeatedly represses the lower and middle classes. FDR most certainly did save capitalism. By instituting welfare measures, he saved private entrepeneurship from collapsing on itself. Only the welfare state could have survived the dueling pressures of communism and fascism.

The Cuban missile crisis was very real, and JFK found a way to resolve it without nuclear holocaust, which earns him a place in the top of the history books. No president has had so much at stake and ended up with such a result in history. He deserves our respect for preventing nuclear holocaust; more than truman, more than eisenhower, more than nixon, more than ford, more than carter, more than reagan, more than Bush, JFK was able to save the world from destruction.

Reagan was a jerk.

[Wraith]

--"How is this designed to prevent abuse of power?"

FDR had some amazing power at the time (see the court packing threats). His third and fourth terms were basically won on the strength of his use of the federal government to buy the votes of much of the country. Bread and circuses. I can understand how people wouldn't see the extra terms as abusing power, but to my eyes it very much is.

--"Of course it was capitalism -- not laissez-faire, to be sure, but capitalism nevertheless."

Well, you are arguing with me. Laissez-faire is the only capitalism. Everything else is, well, not. What FDR was advocating (and getting) was a mix of capitalism, socialism, and corpratism. Just because there are capitalist elements does not make it capitalism any more than some socialist elements make it socialist.

--"The thing to ask is, if it hadn't been for FDR and the New Deal -- if, for example, the policies of Hoover had been continued past 1932"

Well, this is actually kind of my point. It was government policies that got us into that mess in the first place, and it was government policies that were delaying us getting out of it. FDR actually retarted the end of the Great Depression by a bit (although much of that is more Hoover's fault).
So no, any economy that has that much government control over it is not capitalist.

--"S&L deregulation was a bi-partisan debacle, but it doesn't pre-date Reagan"

Deregulation in and of itself would not have been an issue. It was the deregulation combined with things like the FDIC.
However, like most government "deregulations", it really wasn't.

--"By instituting welfare measures, he saved private entrepeneurship from collapsing on itself."

You're assuming capitalism needs to be "saved" from itself, which is not the case. It not the lack of a welfare state causing problems in the US during this time, but the government interference and (mis)management of the economy.

Wraith
"The federal government knows how to break your legs, hand you a crutch, and then say, 'If it weren't for the government, you wouldn't be able to walk.'"
-- Harry Browne

[Jac de Molay]

Lincoln because he was honest and CIVILIZED (remember that word?). Lincoln because he deceived supporters and detractors alike with his intelligence and ability to pull the country through easily its toughest time. Lincoln because he portrayed a sense of empathy with the citizenry as opposed to leadership, which I think was a valuable asset at the time. Lincoln because he's probably the only leader I would in charge in these times of trouble, as opposed to Overgrown Frat Boy..

Just, well, Lincoln..

[orange]

Originally posted by Hoek
Hoover was an utter failure no matter how you put it.

I really wouldn't say that. Hoover did do a LOT once the depression hit, but it was just to little to late. FDR didn't save Capitalism in America as much as world war II did. His programs, while providing confidence, were not doing enough to reverse the tide of the depression. Hoover recieves much of the blame for the depression, but you have to look at the 20s leading up to the depression that really played a major role. It's also odd that you say FDR saved capitalism since a lot of his programs were socialistic

The Cuban missile crisis was very real, and JFK found a way to resolve it without nuclear holocaust, which earns him a place in the top of the history books. No president has had so much at stake and ended up with such a result in history. He deserves our respect for preventing nuclear holocaust; more than truman, more than eisenhower, more than nixon, more than ford, more than carter, more than reagan, more than Bush, JFK was able to save the world from destruction.

Again, are you really giving credit to where credit is due? I personally think JFK and his administration nearly caused WW3 because they were too stubborn to negotiate peacefully with the Russians. Face it, it was an ultimatum that the Russians clearly didn't have to take. What if Russia had said no? Remember, we had the fire first, ask quesitons later policy...we also had nukes in Turkey which was the equivalent of Russian nukes in Cuba.

Reagan was a jerk.

Something we can both agree on

[Bosh]

Washington for not wanting to be king/president for life/whatever, if it wasn't for that we'd probably would have had more Republics than France by now...

[Hoek]

Considering the pressure that was on JFK to just go in and bomb Cuba, I think he did pretty well. There could have very well have been a coup if JFK had done less than he did.

Hoover was a failure, not because he caused the great depression (he didn't), but because he refused to be flexible about laissez-faire policies, despite the sheer suffering going on all around him.

FDR saved private enterprise from being destroyed entirely. I'm really sick of people who say that FDR's policies were socialist. They were not in any sense of the word. Welfare measures are not socialist measures. Socialism seeks to place the government in charge of most of the economy, and is decidedly anti-private enterprise. Nothing close was ever proposed by FDR. Had FDR not instituted these measures, there would almost have surely either been a push for fascism or communism in the U.S., both of which are socialist. His measures were quite moderate. Let's not forget that every president until Clinton has accepted virtually every program FDR put through, including welfare.

Capitalism means that people have the right to own their own property and run their own businesses and work for who they want. It doesn't mean the government has no role, and if you actually read the Wealth of Nations, you will see that Adam Smith clearly saw a role for the government in the economy (particularly in providing services that are necessary to the economy but are unprofitable if privately controlled-like building roads, running the education system, etc.). Let's not forget that he wrote in an agrarian economy, too. We are now past the industrial revolution and are in the information revolution, so the idea of the invisible hand is not truly applicable. With the advent of the corporation, you saw a perverted form of capitalist theory espousing this social darwinism baloney. Libertarianism is BS because it ignores the realities we live in today. It says the government shouldn't tax citizens, yet it seeks to erect tariffs. Governments always have an effect on the economy.

[orange]

Originally posted by Hoek
Considering the pressure that was on JFK to just go in and bomb Cuba, I think he did pretty well. There could have very well have been a coup if JFK had done less than he did.

That seems to be a drastic overstatement.

Hoover was a failure, not because he caused the great depression (he didn't), but because he refused to be flexible about laissez-faire policies, despite the sheer suffering going on all around him.

Again, I think Hoover did more than people give him credit for. He really did try, it's just, who was going to vote him back in after '29?

FDR saved private enterprise from being destroyed entirely. I'm really sick of people who say that FDR's policies were socialist. They were not in any sense of the word. Welfare measures are not socialist measures. Socialism seeks to place the government in charge of most of the economy, and is decidedly anti-private enterprise. Nothing close was ever proposed by FDR. Had FDR not instituted these measures, there would almost have surely either been a push for fascism or communism in the U.S., both of which are socialist. His measures were quite moderate. Let's not forget that every president until Clinton has accepted virtually every program FDR put through, including welfare.

FDR did create a lot of programs that were good, but he did not save America. War time economy did. His programs were superficial at best...they gave the American people the idea that government was getting us out of this mess, when in reality, it was accomplishing little more than getting a few isolated groups a step up. I don't mean to imply he was a bad president...he wasn't. I just mean he's given more credit than he deserves, IMO.

Capitalism means that people have the right to own their own property and run their own businesses and work for who they want. It doesn't mean the government has no role, and if you actually read the Wealth of Nations, you will see that Adam Smith clearly saw a role for the government in the economy (particularly in providing services that are necessary to the economy but are unprofitable if privately controlled-like building roads, running the education system, etc.). Let's not forget that he wrote in an agrarian economy, too. We are now past the industrial revolution and are in the information revolution, so the idea of the invisible hand is not truly applicable. With the advent of the corporation, you saw a perverted form of capitalist theory espousing this social darwinism baloney. Libertarianism is BS because it ignores the realities we live in today. It says the government shouldn't tax citizens, yet it seeks to erect tariffs. Governments always have an effect on the economy.

This I agree with for the most part...but some Libertarian policies aren't so bad, when they deal more with personal rights.

[Wraith]

--"Socialism seeks to place the government in charge of most of the economy"

Exactly. You might want to check on government as a percentage of GDP or GNP. And that's just direct spending, not including all the little federal blackmail projects.

--"Let's not forget that every president until Clinton has accepted virtually every program FDR put through, including welfare."

Trust me, I don't forget this. It's one of the reasons there have been no good Presidents this century.

--"Capitalism means that people have the right to own their own property and run their own businesses and work for who they want."

Yup, and I find this extremely hard to reconcile with the income tax witholding and top tax bracket of 88-94% during FDRs tenure.
Then, of course, there's that little matter of internment and where all that property ended up. Not to mention the control the government weilded over raw material allocation and production, plus the consumer goods rationing. Or the sweeping price and rent controls.

--"We are now past the industrial revolution and are in the information revolution, so the idea of the invisible hand is not truly applicable."

I don't follow. How does an industrial or information age invalidate the concept of the invisible hand?

--"With the advent of the corporation, you saw a perverted form of capitalist theory espousing this social darwinism baloney."

Please note that corporations are legal creations. They are not an inherent part of capitalism, they were something created by government law, which places them outside capitalism.

--"It says the government shouldn't tax citizens, yet it seeks to erect tariffs."

Where does it say that? The most I've seen libertarians say in that direction is that tariffs are less objectionable taxes than the income tax. I don't think I've ever seen a Libertarian advocate tarrifs, we tend towards things like contract insurance.

Wraith
I can't help thinking that the world would be a better place if everyone would listen to me