Most evil American political leader ever?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Sorry, to disappoint you Davey, but I'm pretty sure I know a tad bit more about history as you, considering my minor in it at DePaul University.

And Chris is a PHD in history. What's your point?

And Sava, you are utterly moronic aren't you? An attack on FDR an attack on our soldiers in WW2? Floyd is right.. it is EXACTLY like saying an attack on Bush is an attack on soldiers in the WoT. Shi was right on the money, Sava is a plain stupid person. At least Boris makes some good points now and then (but I'd take Chris's view most of the time over his anyway).

As for the question, no one was truely EVIL (in the right definition of the word), but Kennedy sucked more than most.

[joseph1944]

Kennedy did not suck. He made the Soviets back down, that is OK in my book. Castro wanted local control on the missiles, so he could decide when to fired them. I keep telling most of you, until you live the time period, you do not know what it was like in 1962. I do, I was in the Navy in 62.

[Dis]

Yes but Kennedy was wrong to let his brother handle so many situations. Namely Cuba.

He was a strong president, and it was nice having a strong president. But he handled many Cuba operations poorly. Although I do agree with his handling of the Cuban missle crisis. But every other foreign policy I have problems with.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Kennedy did not suck. He made the Soviets back down, that is OK in my book.

There are better ways to make the Soviets back down. Kennedy did what Bush is doing. Things that any president might have done, but in the worst way possible, ignoring diplomacy and using a lot of bluster and in the process got Krushchev sacked and replaced by the much worse Breznev.

[David Floyd]

Floyd is right..

Whoa, when's the last time you heard Imran say that?

[Imran Siddiqui]

[David Floyd]

Probably not again for a while, either, unless I say something like "Reagan was DA MAN!"

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Probably not again for a while, either, unless I say something like "Reagan was DA MAN!"

Yeah, but when would you ever say something like that? You may have some whacked ideas, but you've never seemed crazy before!

[David Floyd]

Good point

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Chris - yeah, I forgot about JFK. In addition to having some of the looser morals compared to other Presidents, he could have caused nuclear war.

Honestly, what was wrong with Russian missiles in Cuba? For crying out loud we had them in Turkey and Germany - what's the difference?

What's the difference between me holding a gun to your head, and you holding one to mine?

The difference is that we used the nuclear threat to offset a massive superiority in manpower and materiel in conventional forces in Europe. US nuclear forces are obviously offensive weapons, but were employed for purposes of strategic defence, in lieu of massively increased manpower and economic appropriations to counterbalance the Soviet ground forces.

The Soviet deployment of missiles in Cuba was intended to give a pre-emptive first strike ability and to neutralize the US nuclear deterrent in Europe, giving the Soviets the strategic advantage in any confrontation in Europe.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Now if you did say 'Reagan was DA MAN!" you'd get another 'Floyd is right' without a doubt .

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Not a huge fan of them, especially Jefferson, who had good ideas prior to being President, but somewhere along the line apparently decided he liked power. He wasn't a huge fan of the Supreme Court, that's for sure.

Perhaps because the Supreme Court created it's "right" of "judicial review" of legislative and executive acts out of extra-constitutional thin air?

Show me in the Constitution where the Supreme Court is empowered to void acts of either of the other two branches of government.

[David Floyd]

The difference is that we used the nuclear threat to offset a massive superiority in manpower and materiel in conventional forces in Europe.
US nuclear forces are obviously offensive weapons, but were employed for purposes of strategic defence, in lieu of massively increased manpower and economic appropriations to counterbalance the Soviet ground forces.

From the Soviet Union's point of view, they would never have attacked, and were themselves worried about NATO aggression. Both sides feared the other, and both sides believed they were acting defensively while the other side's actions were provocative.

The Soviet deployment of missiles in Cuba was intended to give a pre-emptive first strike ability and to neutralize the US nuclear deterrent in Europe, giving the Soviets the strategic advantage in any confrontation in Europe.

Of course, the US already had strategic first strike capability in terms of ballistic missile submarines. No side was any different in this regard, really, because both sides believed they were acting defensively against the other.

Of course, both sides acted quite offensively at times - the Soviets in the case of Afghanistan and putting down anti-Communist revolts in Poland, Hungary, the Czechoslovakia, and the US in places such as Vietnam, Nicaragua, Grenada, and Panama.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Show me in the Constitution where the Supreme Court is empowered to void acts of either of the other two branches of government.

It isn't there. Marshall decided it would be nice and no one challenged him over it.

[David Floyd]

Perhaps because the Supreme Court created it's "right" of "judicial review" of legislative and executive acts out of extra-constitutional thin air?

Show me in the Constitution where the Supreme Court is empowered to void acts of either of the other two branches of government.

Well, Article III Section 2, which states:

"Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects."

Seems to imply that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over cases arising under the Constitution. Judicial review kicks in when a law is passed that someone believes violates the Constitution, and that person sues to have the law removed. Since Congress is granted certain powers by the Constitution, if someone sues on Constitution grounds, then it seems that it would be a case of law arising under the Constitution, right?

This seems to give the Supreme Court jurisdiction over the case.