Favorite President

[Gunny]

Which would make their opinion an, *ahem*, opinion...am I right?

Too funny. This reminds me of an idiot that claimed some sports figure was THE BEST because a poll of ESPN viewers said so.

I wouldn't pick Carter as the best, but he certainly beats Dubya by several million miles. IMNSHO.

I'm so terribly sorry ... did I mislead you yo believe otherwise? I was under the impression that you were intelligent enough to understand that this topic, and any supporting information anyone would use IS nothing but opinion. It couldn't be anything else.

I'll try not make that assumption concerning your ability to grasp a simple no-brainer again.

 

[Gunny]

True.

In fact NiXXon was the last reasonably effective POTUS we had who actually fits the neo-cons' definition of a liberal.

Ironic, isn't it?

He only fit the definition of a liberal in some areas, the same as the current knucklehead. And I'm just LMFAO at the liberal policies he DID embrace ... like taking us off the gold standard. Sheer genius, that.

 

[Ravi]

I'm so terribly sorry ... did I mislead you yo believe otherwise? I was under the impression that you were intelligent enough to understand that this topic, and any supporting information anyone would use IS nothing but opinion. It couldn't be anything else.

I'll try not make that assumption concerning your ability to grasp a simple no-brainer again.

ha ha ha ha ha!

Trouble is, I'm not the only one that is chuckling. The way you were going on it was as if the poll was fact.

 

[Gunny]

ha ha ha ha ha!

Trouble is, I'm not the only one that is chuckling. The way you were going on it was as if the poll was fact.

Guess you're not the only one that can't read then, huh? I infact was not going on as if the poll was fact, and I addressed that little misconception already. But true to form, you'll just ignore that in favor of your usual trolling.

If you think I expected anything better from you, think again. That's about all you're worth.

 

[Ravi]

Okie dokie

 

[nomdeplume]

You asked two question, not one. You asked who was the greatest and who was your favorite.
I'd have to say the greatest president, assuming you asked a bunch of historical scholars, was probably Lincoln, with Washington a very close second.

I won't answer that because "great" is nearly imposssible to qualify. My favorite was definitely Washington. He exemplified everything a commander in chief should be.

As an interesting aside, it seems that incredible intelligence does not a great president make. Both Nixon and Carter were probably the most intelligent presidents we have ever had, yet both were poor presidents.

 

[Gunny]

The portion of this thread that veered off onto Roosevelt/WWII is now a separate thread in Education and History. This thread concerns favorite Presidents. Please post any responses to the Roosevelt/WWII topic in the appropriate thread.

Thanks.

 

[sealybobo]

brian. mccain will be crushed and thank nader and barr.

 

[jreeves]

brian. mccain will be crushed and thank nader and barr.

Obama may win, but it won't be because of Nader that's for sure. That just shows how clueless you really are.

 

[jillian]

brian. mccain will be crushed and thank nader and barr.

I don't think Nader or Barr will be factors. I am wondering, though, on what you base that analysis.

 

[Gunny]

brian. mccain will be crushed and thank nader and barr.

That's nice. Which of the 3 was your favorite President?

 

[editec]

I wasn't aware there was an earlier gas crisis.

It really was a boneheaded thing to do. Such an unnecessarily inflammatory thing.

You weren't? Now you are, then.

I recall not being able to buy more than 8 gallons at a time.

Try driving across the country under those conditions some time.

TEXAS, of course, was no problem as they weren't rationing gas.

 

[Rhys]

And, frankly, I do think it important that we work with the rest of the world, but I don't think that requires we abdicate our national interest for the privilege.

It's all well and good to want someone smart in office. It simply doesn't do us any good to have that person be unable to accomplish anything.

Just out of curiousity, were you alive in the '70's? Because I remember my dad waiting on lines for gas while Carter was president..... I just don't remember if it was on odd or even days. I also remember the countdowns every night on the news saying how many days the hostages had been held. And, if I recall correctly, it was Carter who let the Shah of Iran into the U.S. for medical treatment which is what made the Irani's crazy in the first place.

'National interest' is a bit like Gunnyl's Top of the Pops approach to greatness - at the time it merely means the benefits to be gained by those very rich who have most influence, and to hell with everyone else, particularly the future. Everyone's problems with Iran began when 'the West', particulary the UK, got rid of Mossadeq to prevent his nationalising Iranian oil and losing them profits, then replacing him with the loathsome Shah (I think the US confined itself to getting rid of the Tudeh Party), and destroying democracy. The result was that opposition moved into the mosques, giving us the problems we now have. Political interest led Carter to betray all he stood for by attacking Iran - an attack that was very possibly sabotaged - who knows?

'National interest', alas, means we are going to have more and more petrol crises as their view of US 'national interest' leads the oil companies to have the Empire spread and grow more oppressive from Palestine to Afghanistan and beyond. The British played the same game, move for move, back in the period after the First World War, and it is idiotic, like all such bullying. It broke down when Eisenhower had the guts to stop the prima-donna Eden in his fatuous Etonian tracks. 'National interest' is the interest of the nation as a whole, surely?

We pay twice as much for petrol as you do, and I have spent much more time than you queueing, jillian, I do assure you.

 

[jillian]

'National interest' is a bit like Gunnyl's Top of the Pops approach to greatness - at the time it merely means the benefits to be gained by those very rich who have most influence, and to hell with everyone else, particularly the future. Everyone's problems with Iran began when 'the West', particulary the UK, got rid of Mossadeq to prevent his nationalising Iranian oil and losing them profits, then replacing him with the loathsome Shah (I think the US confined itself to getting rid of the Tudeh Party), and destroying democracy. The result was that opposition moved into the mosques, giving us the problems we now have. Political interest led Carter to betray all he stood for by attacking Iran - an attack that was very possibly sabotaged - who knows?

'National interest', alas, means we are going to have more and more petrol crises as their view of US 'national interest' leads the oil companies to have the Empire spread and grow more oppressive from Palestine to Afghanistan and beyond. The British played the same game, move for move, back in the period after the First World War, and it is idiotic, like all such bullying. It broke down when Eisenhower had the guts to stop the prima-donna Eden in his fatuous Etonian tracks. 'National interest' is the interest of the nation as a whole, surely?

We pay twice as much for petrol as you do, and I have spent much more time than you queueing, jillian, I do assure you.

I understand what you're saying. And certainly there are valid points for discussion in your post. But that doesn't do anything to dispute the failure of Carter as a president.

BTW, the country is Israel.... not Palestine.... even the UN says so. Thanks.

 

[jillian]

And, fwiw, Iran wasn't the only time we took the side of a despot over a democratically elected government. I think a few other countries can raise the same objection.

 

[editec]

And, fwiw, Iran wasn't the only time we took the side of a despot over a democratically elected government. I think a few other countries can raise the same objection.

Only a few?

I can't think of many third world nations where we didn't support some hairbrained dictator or the other because they claimed to be anti-communist. (read because they promised not to nationalize something we wanted, already thought we owned, or otherwise believed we had the right to control)

Sometimes it worked out for the US, but it generally seldom worked out for the people living on those nations except, of course, for the dictators themselves and their quislings.

 

[jillian]

Only a few?

I can't think of many third world nations where we didn't support some hairbrained dictator or the other because they claimed to be anti-communist. (read because they promised not to nationalize something we wanted, already thought we owned, or otherwise believed we had the right to control)

Sometimes it worked out for the US, but it generally seldom worked out for the people living on those nations except, of course, for the dictators themselves and their quislings.

In the long run it tends to radicalize people anyway... so the problems end up being way larger in the long run.