• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Who should be added to Mount Rushmore?

Would you ad anyone else?

  • Franklin Roosevelt

    Votes: 12 28.6%

  • Ronald Reagan

    Votes: 10 23.8%

  • John F. Kennedy

    Votes: 4 9.5%

  • Dwight D. Eisenhower

    Votes: 3 7.1%

  • Other

    Votes: 18 42.9%
  • Total voters
    42
I think it should stay the way it currently is.
 
It ought to stay the same. Do not alter the masterpiece.
 
Nobody yet of Rushmore caliber. Leave it as is.
 
Elvis





.

..
 
If we had to add someone, FDR should be on it. He brought us back from the Great Depression, and lead us through WW2.
 
Stay the same works, unless it's going to be modified by private donation, in which case the donors would get to choose the head, pending Congressional approval.


Reagan clearly is the only candidate suitable on the list.

FDR, among other things, imposed the world's biggest Ponzi Scheme on the American people and totally shredded the Constitution. He made the Depression worse, and gave birth to the Nanny State.

JFK abandoned troops he sent to Cuba, for political expediency. Not to mention he almost started a nuclear war.

Eisenhower built some road/airstrips all over the place. Should his role in WWII count? No.

Reagan restored America, and forced the Soviet Union to die without risking a nuclear war. As the third greatest president ever, clearly Reagan would be The One if Keanu Reeves didn't already have the title.
 
Your Star said:
If we had to add someone, FDR should be on it. He brought us back from the Great Depression, and lead us through WW2.
Click to expand...

Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Kennedy, Reagan are other typical favorites.

But I'd be afraid to embrace one, for fear of promoting "imperialism and subjugation of other peoples" :screwy :roll:
 
Mayor Snorkum said:
Stay the same works, unless it's going to be modified by private donation, in which case the donors would get to choose the head, pending Congressional approval.
Click to expand...

Pretty good idea if we're going to change it, but I think it should stay the same.

Mayor Snorkum said:
FDR, among other things, imposed the world's biggest Ponzi Scheme on the American people and totally shredded the Constitution. He made the Depression worse, and gave birth to the Nanny State.
Click to expand...

If I seem to recall, many of the acts that "shredded the Constitution" were either upheld, or repealed by the SC. So, the Constitution is still intact.

Mayor Snorkum said:
JFK abandoned troops he sent to Cuba, for political expediency. Not to mention he almost started a nuclear war.
Click to expand...

Yeah, because we all know he was raring for a fight with the Commies over Cuba right?

Mayor Snorkum said:
Eisenhower built some road/airstrips all over the place. Should his role in WWII count? No.
Click to expand...

Why not? Eisenhower did great things for the country, in a very moderate way.

Mayor Snorkum said:
Reagan restored America, and forced the Soviet Union to die without risking a nuclear war. As the third greatest president ever, clearly Reagan would be The One if Keanu Reeves didn't already have the title.
Click to expand...

And set up many of the deregulatory practices that recently nearly destroyed America. He didn't force them to die, they were doing it on their own just fine. He did make them die earlier than they might have otherwise.
 
Fiddytree said:
It ought to stay the same. Do not alter the masterpiece.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't mind it being completed according to the original design...with private funding of course, if we ever get enough to do it.
 
repeter said:
Pretty good idea if we're going to change it, but I think it should stay the same.
Click to expand...

The Mayor sees no reason to change it.

If I seem to recall, many of the acts that "shredded the Constitution" were either upheld, or repealed by the SC. So, the Constitution is still intact.
Click to expand...

Ah. Another person who believes certain judges speak with Papal infallibity and integrity.

Yeah, because we all know he was raring for a fight with the Commies over Cuba right?
Click to expand...

Your comment does not in any way alter the fact that JFK sent men into battle, men were promised air cover by him, and that he then withheld the needed air support and thousands of men died for his broken promise. What's the mantra the Left loves so much? Oh, yeah. He lied, people died.

Funny how you people never apply it where it really means something.

Why not? Eisenhower did great things for the country, in a very moderate way.
Click to expand...

He simply does no stand out as anything special. Neither really good nor really bad, he presided over a nation who's economy couldn't help but grow...the US was the only supplier with intact factories...and yet, his foolishness of sending military "advisors" to Viet Nam set the stage for a terrible war that no one has ever managed to fully justify.

And set up many of the deregulatory practices that recently nearly destroyed America. He didn't force them to die, they were doing it on their own just fine. He did make them die earlier than they might have otherwise.
Click to expand...

Yes, the treatment for cancer is often painful, always unpleasant, and never certain. Because subsequent presidents refused to continue the treatment, the cancer returned and a major metastasization occured in 2008, precisely because the nation returned to the failed policies of the socialist past.
 
repeter said:
I wouldn't mind it being completed according to the original design...with private funding of course, if we ever get enough to do it.
Click to expand...

Okay, that's interesting. The Mayor has to go now, but he would appreciate a link to the orignal proposals...


...they ever going to finish Crazy Horse?
 
Mayor Snorkum said:
Ah. Another person who believes certain judges speak with Papal infallibity and integrity.
Click to expand...

Not at all, I just think that these policies and laws have been around long enough that if they were challengable, they would have been challenged by now.

Mayor Snorkum said:
Your comment does not in any way alter the fact that JFK sent men into battle, men were promised air cover by him, and that he then withheld the needed air support and thousands of men died for his broken promise. What's the mantra the Left loves so much? Oh, yeah. He lied, people died.
Funny how you people never apply it where it really means something.
Click to expand...

He shouldn't have backed them at all. It was a disaster, but look at the bigger picture, if he had supported them like he could have, we would have had WWIII and the Nuclear Holocaust on our hands.

Mayor Snorkum said:
He simply does no stand out as anything special. Neither really good nor really bad, he presided over a nation who's economy couldn't help but grow...the US was the only supplier with intact factories...and yet, his foolishness of sending military "advisors" to Viet Nam set the stage for a terrible war that no one has ever managed to fully justify.
Click to expand...

I can agree with that.

Mayor Snorkum said:
Yes, the treatment for cancer is often painful, always unpleasant, and never certain. Because subsequent presidents refused to continue the treatment, the cancer returned and a major metastasization occured in 2008, precisely because the nation returned to the failed policies of the socialist past.
Click to expand...

Presidents Bush Sr., Clinton, and Bush Jr. continued the path of deregulation, and especially Congress under Clinton (who signed it in too), with the essential repeal of Glass-Steagall by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.

And Obama didn't fix any of the problems with the recent financial regulatory "overhaul", IMO.
 
Congress approved the addition of Susan B. Anthony to the Rushmore sculpture in 1937 but project was abandoned in 1941 due to lack of funding. If funding is ever restored to the Rushmore project the 1937 Congressional Act would mandate Susan Anthony as the next subject. The last face completed on Rushmore was Teddy Roosevelt which was finished in 1939.

There were a couple of controversies surrounding the Mount Rushmore project. The Treaty of Fort Laramie from 1868 had previously granted the Black Hills to the Lakota in perpetuity & then the United States government seized the land from the Lakotas at the end of the Great Sioux War, 10 years later in 1878. The Lakota nation objected to Rushmore project but you know how that ended. The other controversy was the sculptor, Gutzon Borglum, was an enthusiastic member of the Ku Klux Klan which didn't sit so well with many Americans.

It's unlikely that federal funding to the Rushmore project will ever be restored because both Gutzon Borglum & his son Louis who took over the project in 1941 are both dead and a new sculptor's work would likely be in conflict with the artistic continuity of the original Borglum sculptures. Any attempt to expand the Rushmore project with private funds is likely to run into roadblocks because the sculpture is on a National Park site & you can't start chiseling away at Mount Rushmore without an act of Congress, which is as difficult to obtain as a interview with God.
 
Last edited:
repeter said:
Not at all, I just think that these policies and laws have been around long enough that if they were challengable, they would have been challenged by now.
Click to expand...

Quote Plessy v Fergusson was "settled law" for over half a century. If you're basing your argument on simple duration, it should never have been overturned.

He shouldn't have backed them at all. It was a disaster, but look at the bigger picture, if he had supported them like he could have, we would have had WWIII and the Nuclear Holocaust on our hands.
Click to expand...

Exactly. That huge and very deadly mistake eliminates JFK from eligibility. Eisenhower had a bad idea, Kennedy's decision to implement it only half way was an even worse idea.

Presidents Bush Sr., Clinton, and Bush Jr. continued the path of deregulation, and especially Congress under Clinton (who signed it in too), with the essential repeal of Glass-Steagall by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.
Click to expand...

Oh, what utter rot.

Bush implemented the largest to-date tax increase in the history of the nation, ushering in the recession that saddled us with Clinton. Bush also signed the Americans with Disabilities Act, which oversteps the federal government's constituitonal bounds and forced the smallest of small businesses to expend capital to comply with regulations the federal government didn't have the authority to enact, let alone enforce. After that, Bush signed into lawthe Wetlands Act, which made every neighborhood mosquitoe breeding ground subject to federal control. All of the above cost the taxpayer and American businessmen and Americans everywhere a ****load of money, not to mention the loss of freedom.

Clinton enacted, after two seconds of heart wrenching search for an alternative, the largest tax increase the nation had ever seen. He attempted Hillary Care, failed. Fortunately. His Commerce Department allowed the gifting of MIRV technology to the Chinese. HIs administration was the most corrupt in American history. The economic growth of the Clinton Era was due to nothing Clinton did, but was simply the inevitable maturation of the computer revolution that had been in process for decades, and for which no president can claim credit for. Clinton was impeached because he committed a felony and was caught. His policies did not help America become stronger, nor did they enhance the energy independence the nation has known it's needed since Presidents Ford and Carter showed just how stupid Presidents can be. Government got bigger.

The argument is always,from the Left, that when times are tough it's when the government has to spend more to help the needy. Unfortunately, every leftist and every leftist president, views flush times as times to umm...gee, what is the proper corollary if it's necessary to expand government in a drought? That's right, the left believes that when it's raining soup government should expand. Clinton obeyed that with devotion.

Must the Mayor mention Janet Reno and the murdered children in Waco? Clinton claimed "full responsibility" for that one. Ah, getting off the track....federal regulation grew under Clinton. The most damning example is the Gorelick Memo.

And Bush? Make the Mayor laugh, why don't ya? Bush signed the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance and Stifle the First Amendment Act. He created the Free Pills for Old People Plan. He signed the No Child Left Behind Law, which gave Teddy the Souse Kennedy what he wanted. He created the DHS and the TSA.

What Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama did not de-regulate is the absurdly restrictive licensing requirements on domestic energy production. Where are the new refineries? The new nuclear power plants? The offshore wells? The nation has a condom on is no one can conceive of extracting our own energy resources, and the lack of leadership on the top isn't giving anyone a pin.

The banks? No one can claim the banking industry was de-regulated simply because just a few rules were relaxed. The principle cause of the mortgage problem is still in effect. The government is still promising taxpayer dollars to guarantee mortgages. Nope, clearly the market is over regulated since the freedom to fail is not present.

And Obama? What a joke. The only thing he's done right is to order the SEALs in to kill Obama.

And Obama didn't fix any of the problems with the recent financial regulatory "overhaul", IMO.
Click to expand...

Nope, exactly as expected. Obama's incompetence is so severe it cannot be simple negligence and ignorance. That level of obtuseness is deliberately cultivated. US companies can't drill American oil in the Gulf because Obama won't let them, while Obama is offering to pay Brazil to drill in the Gulf so the US can buy the oil? Not possible this act is anything but corrupt.
 
GavinB said:
Congress approved the addition of Susan B. Anthony to the Rushmore sculpture in 1937 but project was abandoned in 1941 due to lack of funding. If funding is ever restored to the Rushmore project the 1937 Congressional Act would mandate Susan Anthony as the next subject. The last face completed on Rushmore was Teddy Roosevelt which was finished in 1939. ....
Click to expand...

Thank you.
 
I think we should leave it be…plus, we cannot afford to waste tax dollars on such whims.
 
No changes. No need to.
 
Why is there no "Why in the hell does there need to be another face on Rushmore?" option?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom