- Joined
- May 19, 2006
- Messages
- 156,720
- Reaction score
- 53,497
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
I can't remember that far back, you must be a bit older than me....
Time travel trancends age.
I can't remember that far back, you must be a bit older than me....
I wouldn't--Martin Sheen flunked the entrance exam into the University of Dayton
_________________________________________________________My top five worst presidents are:
1. John "I'm Thin Skinned" Adams
2. Andrew "Genocidal" Jackson
3. Abe "I'm Bigger than Jesus" Lincoln
4. Teddy "Imperialist Dictator" Roosevelt
5. Franklin "I Love Stalin and Socialism" Roosevelt
_________________________________________________________
FDR is a tough one-he was an effective leader but in reality his legacy is a disaster
so based on what lasting harm they inflicted on the country it would be
1) FDR
2)LBJ
3) WIlson
4) Jimmy Carter
5) Buchanan
Hmmm... if lasting impact would be the criteria rather than over all poor performance, for me it would be a toss up between Buchanan and Nixon. Buchanan for his inaction in working towards preventing the Civil War, and Nixon for demonstrating, blatantly, the dishonesty of politicians. Nixon did quite a bit of good in regards to foreign policy, but in regards to impact and lasting impressions, Watergate trumps everything.
I disagree on Nixon though we could argue that Nixon's idiotic coverup gave us four years of appeasement and malaise with Peanut Boy so you might have a point there. All watergate did was hurt the GOP.
I agree that if it wasn't for Nixon's coverup, we wouldn't have had Carter. Ford would have been elected. However, the rammifications of Watergate go far beyond that. It opened the floodgates for complete mistrust in politicians (which is now the default), and for the media's main focus to be to find some juicy scandal, rather than focusing on issues. It very much changed the political climate and how the average American viewed those in office.
a sound point-for those of us on the libertarian right we always distrusted government. I think it was more of a shock for the "great society" and "best and brightest crowd" who had put so much faith in the government-even when it was GOP run. since most of those whom I associated with at that time had a healthy distrust of federal activities, we weren't shocked. I can see how the old Kennedy set had their reality bitch slapped out of the arena
I think the country in general was shocked that one with the responsibility that Nixon had could and would use it so unwisely and so much for his own purposes. What those people probably failed to realize was the Nixon was just mimicking things that happened every day with "average" Americans. It was a big deal because it was the President and many expected the President to act "better".
I had the interesting experience of 5-6 years after watergate getting to meet-at different times-most of the watergate crowd including Halderman, Mitchell, G Gordon Liddy and Richard Kleindeinst when they appeared as guests of the Yale Political Union.
I think the ultimate judgement was that Nixon was paranoid after believing the 60 election had been stolen from him and was taking no chances but most of those I talked to denied that Nixon knew about the scheme until it was exposed. Then he circled the wagons.
Interesting commentary. Doesn't surprise me. I had always felt that Nixon was "late to the party", but once he was there, he partied vigorously.
Why is Andrew Jackson not the first name on that list?
That's like making a poll of the worst German leaders to date, and entirely forgetting to put Hitler on the list. Is it because everyone agrees Jackson, the Hitler of the 19th century, deserves first place, and this is really a poll for the second worst President to date? Or perhaps the poll isn't so much about history as about current politics, as fully half of the presidents on the poll were within the last 50 to 75 years?
Or... Did you just forget to put Andrew Jackson on there? XD
still smarting over the ass kicking at New Orleans?
Not really -- unlike the Americans, we can admit that we've had our share of defeats as well as victories. I could ask the same of you, though -- still smarting that such a glorious battle didn't save you from losing the war?
But, no, enough of this banter -- I'm referring to the genocide, not his military campaigns, which I can respect.
lost what war?
btw I note that despite my keen interest in English History (my mom being a professor of English history made me read all sorts of stuff-some interesting like Agincourt and how Edward the second met his end at the hands of his wife's lover Roger Mortimer) to some really boring stuff but I don't ever recall coming across many yanks on a message board constantly talking about Brit PMs or ranking the royals. yet, I see lots of Brits talking about Presidents. I guess the only think I can draw from that is you all are alot more concerned about our leaders t han we are of yours.
The War of 1812. The States lost it. A good indication that your nation's military history is warped is how the only nation that thinks the States won ever war they've ever fought... Are the States. Or, not even -- your government even admits most of the lost wars -- it's some of your unbelievably dogmatic and bigoted people.
Anyway, as for Americans taking an interest in British politics, you should try the BBC or the Guardian forums -- plenty of the posters there are American, living in the States, or immigrants from the States.
A fun fact, by the way -- ever since 2002, immigration from Europe to America has been dwarfed by immigration from America to Europe. Britain is no exception -- I see more Americans every year. And don't get me wrong, there are the nice, intelligent, respectful ones, and the idiotic, rude, arrogant ones -- we all have them. But it doesn't change the fact that your Amerocentrism is blinding you to a lot of realities about the world you live in.
Not really -- unlike the Americans, we can admit that we've had our share of defeats as well as victories. I could ask the same of you, though -- still smarting that such a glorious battle didn't save you from losing the war?
But, no, enough of this banter -- I'm referring to the genocide, not his military campaigns, which I can respect.
The War of 1812. The States lost it.
I'm really intrigued to see how you will justify the terms agreed upon in the Treaty of Ghent as a "British victory". The Brits withdrew, giving up all territorial gains made during the war and the war ended with an American victory at Plattsburg. The British offensive also did NOTHING to stem the impending tide of Manifest Destiny and the resulting Westward expansion of the American culture. :thinking
"I've cut off both your arms you bloody fool!"......................
"No you didn't....have at thee then!" :duel
And tendon...And bone...and...well, you get the idea.It's just a FLESH WOUND!!
I never quite thought of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that way before, but killing helpless Muslims with our drones, tanks, and choppers is genocide, isn't it, and contrived reasons why has nothing to do with it. Hard to believe that the ancient Christian crusade has new life.
ricksfolly