Which President will history treat kinder, Bush Jnr or Clinton?

[Annie]

An interesting comparison for which president would be treated better in history: Richard Nixon vs George W.

You seem obsessed with projecting yourself as a 'moderate Republican'. 1. If you were American, you do not fit the definition. 2. You are not American, you are Canadian.

I thought you a child. Why are you stuck in the 1970's, so often?

 

[Big Blue Machin]

You seem obsessed with projecting yourself as a 'moderate Republican'. 1. If you were American, you do not fit the definition. 2. You are not American, you are Canadian.

I thought you a child. Why are you stuck in the 1970's, so often?

It's called Freedom of Speech, isn't it?

And how do I not fit the defintion of a moderate republican?

 

[Annie]

It's called Freedom of Speech, isn't it?

And how do I not fit the defintion of a moderate republican?

It's just weird to act like you are American. It would be very weird for me to try and pretend I know what Canadians should do, heck I've messed up with great Canadians by not stating that I know 'nothing' really about the politics up there, other than what I glean from other sources.

Why are you so disinterested in your own system? Where do you fall on Canadian scale of right and left?

The very fact that you ask me to explain why you would not fit the definition, is emblematic of the problem you have.

 

[jillian]

Oversimplified.

Slavery WAS an economic issue. Abolitionists were an extremist fringe group. IT was just a convenient and usefull tactic for the North to try and toss morality into the issue after the fact.

Look at some of the Northern laws in regards to blacks from the day. They are repressive and "Jim Crow" as it gets.

The fact is, rich northern industrialists wanted to control the government and the economy, and were being checked by a bunch of "backwards-assed Southerners."

Oh, btw, Lincold "freed the slaves" following the Battle of Antietem as a tactic of war rather than any moral concern. His thinking was it would cause insurrection and draw front-line troops off the battlefield to provide rear-area security. He only freed slaves in states in rebellion.

And lastly, it truly was a war of US imperialism (War of Northern Aggression). The states entered into a voluntary agreement to try as an experiment, "the United States." Nothing legally precluded any state from withdrawing if they so desired.

The US took by force of arms what they could NEVER win in a courtroom today.

It couldn't, by definition, have been a war of imperialism. Imperialism is defined as:

The practice of one country extending its control over the territory, political system, or economic life of another country. Political opposition to this foreign domination is called "anti-imperialism."

www2.truman.edu/~marc/resources/terms.html

I would also point out that the Dred Scott decision moved the country way closer to civil war, way more quickly, than might otherwise have happened if the divided Court, led by its southern Chief Justice, didn't try to extend slavery into the new territories. Otherwise, it just might have run its course.

I think this is a pretty balanced analysis.... It actually agrees with you on the use of force versus the courtroom argument.

http://www.swcivilwar.com/cw_causes.html

 

[Annie]

It couldn't, by definition, have been a war of imperialism. Imperialism is defined as:



The practice of one country extending its control over the territory, political system, or economic life of another country. Political opposition to this foreign domination is called "anti-imperialism."

www2.truman.edu/~marc/resources/terms.html

I would also point out that the Dred Scott decision moved the country way closer to civil war, way more quickly, than might otherwise have happened if the divided Court, led by its southern Chief Justice, didn't try to extend slavery into the new territories. Otherwise, it just might have run its course.

A pretty balanced analysis.... It actually agrees with you on the use of force versus the courtroom argument.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?p=417642#post417642

Care to respond to mine? This one:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=417587&postcount=17

and the one above it?

 

[jillian]

Care to respond to mine? This one:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=417587&postcount=17

and the one above it?

I fixed the link in my last response. I think that responds to your posts, if I'm not mistaken.

I am kind of curious, though, about why no one wants to discuss Bush's legacy and the thread has taken a left turn.

Not trying to be the "thread police", just wondering.

 

[jillian]

An interesting comparison for which president would be treated better in history: Richard Nixon vs George W.

I think it would have been a slam dunk.... Had Nixon not getting caught up by his own paranoia, resulting in Watergate, he'd have been considered a great president. He opened China, ended the Vietnam War, was an environmentalist... He was re-elected by some ridiculously huge majority. Speaks to the fact that both sides of the aisle felt he represented them... or at least were okay with the status quo.

 

[Annie]

I fixed the link in my last response. I think that responds to your posts, if I'm not mistaken.

I am kind of curious, though, about why no one wants to discuss Bush's legacy and the thread has taken a left turn.

Not trying to be the "thread police", just wondering.

I don't know, personally I was responding to the 'slavery' as cause. Much better link and take. Slavery was tangentially related to almost all issues, but in and of itself, not until 1863.

Feel free to respond to the actual topic.

My opinion, Clinton is going to be remembered, along with Bush 1 as detached from the growing issue of his day, terrorism. Whether or not character is mentioned, will be determined by the mores of the future, no telling with that.

Bush Jr., will be recognized for the WOT, for better or worse. If the immigration works out the way I think it will, he will ultimately be found as blind as that issue as Clinton and Bush 1 were on terrorism.

 

[jillian]

I don't know, personally I was responding to the 'slavery' as cause. Much better link and take. Slavery was tangentially related to almost all issues, but in and of itself, not until 1863.

Feel free to respond to the actual topic.

My opinion, Clinton is going to be remembered, along with Bush 1 as detached from the growing issue of his day, terrorism. Whether or not character is mentioned, will be determined by the mores of the future, no telling with that.

Bush Jr., will be recognized for the WOT, for better or worse. If the immigration works out the way I think it will, he will ultimately be found as blind as that issue as Clinton and Bush 1 were on terrorism.

I thought the link was a pretty fair analysis. Though I think that the issue of slavery began to truly fester with the Dred Scott case in 1857.

I think Bush I will be remembered for being out of tune with the needs of the American people during a time of recession.

I think Clinton will be remembered as a good president who was hampered by Congress.

I think Bush, Jr., will be remembered for confusing Iraq with the WOT. I'm hoping that's what he's remembered for anyway. All the noise about tactical nukes and Iran doesn't bode well, IMO.

 

[Redhots]

IT was just a convenient and usefull tactic for the North to try and toss morality into the issue after the fact.

Kind of like what our current administration did with Iraq, right?

Funny how wars of agression throughout history have so many similarities.

 

[Annie]

He fails. Loser.

Kind of like what our current administration did with Iraq, right?

Funny how wars of agression throughout history have so many similarities.

Whole post

Oversimplified.

Slavery WAS an economic issue. Abolitionists were an extremist fringe group. IT was just a convenient and usefull tactic for the North to try and toss morality into the issue after the fact.

Look at some of the Northern laws in regards to blacks from the day. They are repressive and "Jim Crow" as it gets.

The fact is, rich northern industrialists wanted to control the government and the economy, and were being checked by a bunch of "backwards-assed Southerners."

Oh, btw, Lincold "freed the slaves" following the Battle of Antietem as a tactic of war rather than any moral concern. His thinking was it would cause insurrection and draw front-line troops off the battlefield to provide rear-area security. He only freed slaves in states in rebellion.

And lastly, it truly was a war of US imperialism (War of Northern Aggression). The states entered into a voluntary agreement to try as an experiment, "the United States." Nothing legally precluded any state from withdrawing if they so desired.

The US took by force of arms what they could NEVER win in a courtroom today.[/COLOR]

 

[Avatar4321]

To get back to the subject at hand, we're talking about presidential greatness. The people who seemed to have achieved that were, in fact, all of the things that the article said. They truly were "uniters, not dividers, unlike the current occupant of the White House who says the words and then makes the most divisive choices possible.

I think history is going to be very unkind to GWB.

Right... I am really sure Abraham Lincoln is remembered as a great President for being a uniter and not a divider:

 

[Dr Grump]

Right... I am really sure Abraham Lincoln is remembered as a great President for being a uniter and not a divider:

Comparing apples and oranges IMO..time will tell of course...

 

[jillian]

Right... I am really sure Abraham Lincoln is remembered as a great President for being a uniter and not a divider:

Lincoln didn't start the Civil War and was very careful to wait until the South fired the first shot. He did have to finish it once it started, though. Imagine how much worse things might have been if a different, less restrained person had the helm at the time.

Interestingly enough, in Doris Kearns Goodwin's recent biography of Lincoln, Team of Rivals, she chronicles how Lincoln was advised to imprison the confederate soldiers after the war and take away their weapons. He refused, believing the war was past and the country had to get it together. On the issue of weapons, he felt that every man should be able to hunt for food. He didn't believe in humiliating those who were already beaten.

Somehow I can't imagine Bush being that noble.

 

[dilloduck]

Lincoln didn't start the Civil War and was very careful to wait until the South fired the first shot. He did have to finish it once it started, though. Imagine how much worse things might have been if a different, less restrained person had the helm at the time.

Interestingly enough, in Doris Kearns Goodwin's recent biography of Lincoln, Team of Rivals, she chronicles how Lincoln was advised to imprison the confederate soldiers after the war and take away their weapons. He refused, believing the war was past and the country had to get it together. On the issue of weapons, he felt that every man should be able to hunt for food. He didn't believe in humiliating those who were already beaten.

Somehow I can't imagine Bush being that noble.

Damn---really stretching it now--how can you possibly infer what Bush would do given the same situation?

 

[Annie]

Lincoln didn't start the Civil War and was very careful to wait until the South fired the first shot. He did have to finish it once it started, though. Imagine how much worse things might have been if a different, less restrained person had the helm at the time.

Interestingly enough, in Doris Kearns Goodwin's recent biography of Lincoln, Team of Rivals, she chronicles how Lincoln was advised to imprison the confederate soldiers after the war and take away their weapons. He refused, believing the war was past and the country had to get it together. On the issue of weapons, he felt that every man should be able to hunt for food. He didn't believe in humiliating those who were already beaten.

Somehow I can't imagine Bush being that noble.

You are scaring me, Jillian. From your posts, you seem afraid that somehow down the road, Abe and GW are going to be compared. You are way ahead of the curve here.

 

[jillian]

Damn---really stretching it now--how can you possibly infer what Bush would do given the same situation?

I said I couldn't imagine it...not that it couldn't happen under any set of circumstances. :

But seriously, I haven't seen anything in him that indicates he gives quarter to his political rivals, much less people who would actually raise arms against him. Someone who puts "suspected" enemies in prison without charges doesn't seem to me to be someone who would allow his enemies to retain their arms in order to retain their dignity. Just my opinion, of course.

 

[dilloduck]

I said I couldn't imagine it...not that it couldn't happen under any set of circumstances. :

But seriously, I haven't seen anything in him that indicates he gives quarter to his political rivals, much less people who would actually raise arms against him. Someone who puts "suspected" enemies in prison without charges doesn't seem to me to be someone who would allow his enemies to retain their arms in order to retain their dignity. Just my opinion, of course.

You havent seen him carousing with Clinton?

 

[jillian]

You are scaring me, Jillian. From your posts, you seem afraid that somehow down the road, Abe and GW are going to be compared. You are way ahead of the curve here.

Actually, Avatar was the one who made the comment about Lincoln and being "a uniter not a divider". I was only responding. It never would have crossed my mind that Bush might be compared to Lincoln. :

 

[Annie]

Actually, Avatar was the one who made the comment about Lincoln and being "a uniter not a divider". I was only responding. It never would have crossed my mind that Bush might be compared to Lincoln. :

War presidents tend to be compared. In these two cases, many will question the justification of the wars. Going to happen, so Avatar is correct.

No war president, took as many presidential prerogatives as Lincoln, so I think the comparison will hold.