Tweet
Results are the best measure of competency.
-
-
Then by that measure of competency Stalin must have been the most competent leader ever, because damn if he didn't get results
Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/DaveDaDouche
Read my seldom updated blog where I talk to myself: http://davedadouche.blogspot.com/Comment
-
If he didn't get his results, he would send one million more to die...Originally posted by David Floyd
Then by that measure of competency Stalin must have been the most competent leader ever, because damn if he didn't get results
For there is [another] kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions -- indifference, inaction, and decay. This is the violence that afflicts the poor, that poisons relations between men because their skin has different colors. - Bobby Kennedy (Mindless Menance of Violence)Comment
-
No, David, your logical fallacies won't work for this one
When I say I look at results as a good measure of a president, I do not mean whether he got everything that he wanted or not, I mean what did he accomplish. Did FDR do things that alleviated poverty and misery? You bet. Did FDR win a war? You bet. He did alot to address the problem this country faced, and he wasn't just a mouthpiece, he did what was needed. Pull yourself out of the 18th century
"The only dangerous amount of alcohol is none"-Homer SimpsonComment
-
Not the most competent, but still pretty good. Otherwise, he wouldn't be able to kill 50% of Red Army's officer corp and still led his country to a super power after 4 years of war.Originally posted by David Floyd
Then by that measure of competency Stalin must have been the most competent leader ever, because damn if he didn't get results
Same with Ghengis Khan, Tamerlane, and Hitler: they were competent, too, but very nasty.
Competency alone doesn't guarantee a great and benevolent leader. But a great and benevolent leader always needs competency. That's why Jimmy Carter failed.Comment
-
Correction: FDR's the New Deal did not take the US out of depression, WWII did.Originally posted by Hoek
No, David, your logical fallacies won't work for this one
When I say I look at results as a good measure of a president, I do not mean whether he got everything that he wanted or not, I mean what did he accomplish. Did FDR do things that alleviated poverty and misery? You bet. Did FDR win a war? You bet. He did alot to address the problem this country faced, and he wasn't just a mouthpiece, he did what was needed. Pull yourself out of the 18th century
For there is [another] kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions -- indifference, inaction, and decay. This is the violence that afflicts the poor, that poisons relations between men because their skin has different colors. - Bobby Kennedy (Mindless Menance of Violence)Comment
-
Jimmy Carter's presidency was just a curse. Everything failed. 1979 was a big failure for him.Originally posted by Transcend
Competency alone doesn't guarantee a great and benevolent leader. But a great and benevolent leader always needs competency. That's why Jimmy Carter failed.For there is [another] kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions -- indifference, inaction, and decay. This is the violence that afflicts the poor, that poisons relations between men because their skin has different colors. - Bobby Kennedy (Mindless Menance of Violence)Comment
-
Again, I'm taking "pro-business" to mean pro-all businesses, not simply individual firms.Ramo, do you know anything about economics? Tariffs have ALWAYS been a pro-business measure. If it wasn't then why are domestic businesses the ones supporting it? It is a very, very pro-business idea. To say otherwise just seems crazy."Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-BokononComment
-
--"Because domestic business doesn't have to compete. Making more money (less into R&D)."
Imram, I'm surprised at you. Surely you haven't forgotten opportunity cost or efficency. Protective tarrifs allow domestic companies to operate more inefficently than they otherwise would have, which is a long-term problem economically. Why else has the US steel industry had so many problems over the years?
--"FDR at least got stuff done."
See the tagline. Sorry, but the ends never justify the means.
--"I don't see why a government that is supposed to be for the people and of the people should not try to alleviate some of the worst ravages of laissez-faire capitalism."
Because the "worst ravages" weren't caused by capitalism, but by the government standing in the way of capitalism. It's amazing how easy it is for the government to create a giant mess and then blame it on something else and then get credit for partially fixing what it broke in the first place.
--"while FDR was elected 4 times"
Reagan was re-elected as well, and if not for a little term limitation problem probably wouldn't have had a whole lot of trouble with another term or two. You sure you want to use this as the basis of a sucessful Presidency?
You should also note that this just goes to show my point. FDR was power-hungry, not a great statesman.
--"If it wasn't then why are domestic businesses the ones supporting it?"
Because domestic businesses are very lazy. They don't like to do work they don't have to, like upgrading their smelters to efficent ones. Instead they use government, when they can, to stamp out their competition and keep coasting along.
--"Did FDR do things that alleviated poverty and misery?"
Nope. His policies help extend the Great Depression by several years.
--". Did FDR win a war?"
It's a bit much to give him credit for that. Hasn't this been repeatedly covered in the numerous "The US saved your ASSES!" threads?
Wraith
"Necessity is the plea of every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves"
- William PittComment
-
Yet another joke that people think I was serious about, re: the Stalin thing
If I make a 2 line post in a thread like this, as a general rule, I'm probably either trolling or kidding
Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/DaveDaDouche
Read my seldom updated blog where I talk to myself: http://davedadouche.blogspot.com/Comment
-
Imram, I'm surprised at you. Surely you haven't forgotten opportunity cost or efficency. Protective tarrifs allow domestic companies to operate more inefficently than they otherwise would have, which is a long-term problem economically. Why else has the US steel industry had so many problems over the years?
I haven't forgotten, but a tariff, allowing business to operate inefficiently, is a pro-business measure! Business support tariffs in order so that they can continue inefficiently.
To be efficient requires costs that businesses don't want to do.“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
- John 13:34-35 (NRSV)Comment
-
It's a pro-certain businesses measure, not all businesses."Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-BokononComment
-
Regardless of semantics, tariffs are poor economic policy.
Though WWII brough us out of the depression, FDR's New Deal still did alot of good for alot of people. If it hadn't been for America, does anybody doubt that Britain and Russia would have lost?"The only dangerous amount of alcohol is none"-Homer SimpsonComment
-
I don't know if anyone is claiming tarriffs to be anti business, but if so, it simply doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
David Floyd, though speaking in jest, brings up an important point. Just because a person accomplishes a lot of what they want to accomplish doesn't mean that they are a great President. And even still, you ignore the means of how that change came about. FDR alone was NOT responsible for bringing us out of the depression. Hoover alone was NOT responsible for getting us into it. Both played minimal roles in the situations. Make sense?
I believe Nazi Germany would have had to many internal problems to continue, yes. I can't see them taking Britain...I really can't...though Japan would have done extremely well without the US opposition...Originally posted by Hoek
Regardless of semantics, tariffs are poor economic policy.
Though WWII brough us out of the depression, FDR's New Deal still did alot of good for alot of people. If it hadn't been for America, does anybody doubt that Britain and Russia would have lost?"Chegitz, still angry about the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991?
You provide no source. You PROVIDE NOTHING! And yet you want to destroy capitalism.. you criminal..." - Fez
"I was hoping for a Communist utopia that would last forever." - Imran SiddiquiComment
-
I would say Lincoln, he was president during America's greatest war. He did a good job overall during that time, many other presidents would have cracked. He also issued 3 of the most important ammendmants to the constitution.Talk and chat in the Freebie and Webmaster Discussion ForumsComment
Comment