bobblehead Posted June 27, 2005 Share Posted June 27, 2005 Best: ReaganWorst: Carter 368498[/snapback] That sounds right. Carter, for as good of a man that he is, he probably should not have been President. Also: The liberal answer to Reagan's work was that "the Soviet Union was going to collapse anyway." Liberals hate W so much that there's no chance they'll ever give him a fair shake no matter how things turn out. Why is it the "liberal" answer? Why do "liberals" hate W so much? BTW: who are these "liberals" anyway and why do you hate them so much? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted June 27, 2005 Share Posted June 27, 2005 Best pre 1980: Washington - he could have been king, but had the humility and long-term vision to support the idea of having a temporary caretaker of the gov't. Worst pre 1980: Harding Best post 1980: Clinton Worst post 1980: Bush Jr. Most underrated: Teddy Roosevelt Most overrated: Reagan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted June 27, 2005 Share Posted June 27, 2005 The all knowing and mighty Oz has spoken! Please note that I never said that Chenney or Rumsfeld was an idiot, you are putting words in my mouth, trying to change the intent of my post. I was merely pointing out the continuing pattern of contradiction that the two men seem to engage in. I am not "confused" about what they said. Bush, Chenney, Rummsfeld and Rice all contradict eachother on a regular basis, giving me zero confidence that they have any sort of plan. Ah, the contradiction. One says that the insurgency is winding down, the other says we may be in Iraq for a dozen years. Never mind that the two are actually mutually exclusive points. We're looking for things that annoy us here. It's quite the change from the Dummycrat portrayal of the Administration as a bunch of locksteppers who use aloofness to totally stay on message. Yeah, OK? You should stick to one liners and zingers, you are much more effective, and occaisionaly entertaining. Gee, thanks for the advice. I'll let you know when I respect your opinion enough to even waste a moment thinking about it. As far as the American media's portrayal of what is going on in Iraq, seriously, how the f**ck do you know anything more than anyone else AD? It's called being plugged in. I'm a former military guy whose units did some time in the desert the first time around. I still have friends over there and work with the military on a regular basis on a AEF base. You? Did you know that there is currently an American soldier who is "blogging" from the front lines in Fallujah, and his portrayal of the situation is far different than what we are being told? There are reporters from various parts of the world, in Iraq, reporting what is going on there. From the sounds of it, our troops are more than a little disillusioned by what is going on over there, and about the direction (or lack thereof) they are receiving. There's a big change from every war we've ever fought/deployment to a hot zone we've ever had. [/sarcasm] Feel free to share the link. I will agree with you, our military personel are getting screwed. I currently have two cousins that has been in Iraq better part of a year and a half, and I really am starting to wonder if anyone will see them again. 368491[/snapback] War sucks and should generally never happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC-Bills Posted June 27, 2005 Share Posted June 27, 2005 Michael Moore is the guy who called the insurgents in Iraq "Minute Men." He also declared (over a year ago) that they were going to win (barely able to contain his glee). He does everything he can to undermine the war effort. And Carter, former POTUS, former Commander in Chief, embraces him. If that isn't embarassing. I don't know what is. 368443[/snapback] So that's what passes the embarrassing litmus test for you? I would have thought stuff like Watergate would be more embarrassing. I would have thought lying about getting your willie wet and then getting impeached would be more embarrassing. I would have thought lying about giving weapons to terrorists would have been more embarrassing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted June 27, 2005 Share Posted June 27, 2005 So that's what passes the embarrassing litmus test for you? I would have thought stuff like Watergate would be more embarrassing. I would have thought lying about getting your willie wet and then getting impeached would be more embarrassing. I would have thought lying about giving weapons to terrorists would have been more embarrassing... 368591[/snapback] Carter's performance in office is more embarrassing than hugging that toad Moore, anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC-Bills Posted June 27, 2005 Share Posted June 27, 2005 >>>>I always think of Carter as being a "progressive"<<<< Think of him as you will, but this thread was about presidents in office (or so I thought), so that is what I will address. Under Carter, there was HUGE unemployment. The intrerest rates were so high that mortages were approaching 20%. Gasoline almost tripled during his 4 years. Iran held American hostages as Carter sat idle, like a confused coward. When he DID try to do something about it, the mission was a dismal failure. Only when Reagan was being sworn in did Iran wisely free these Americans. When Reagan took over, there were jobs galore. Interest rates dropped, and people purchased homes. He drove the Soviet Union to collapse, and won the hearts of many Americans. He was re-elected by a landslide against Mondale, who of course was the VP in the Carter Administration. In any event, my answer, based on my lifetime would be easy.... Best: Reagan Worst: Carter 368498[/snapback] Not wanting to bring a premature end to your woody for Reagan, but let's try to be a little more realistic about a few things. There were not jobs galore once Reagan took over. That took time. Same with interest rates. If the economy hadn't started to perk up towards the middle to end of his first term, he could have very well been a one termer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted June 27, 2005 Share Posted June 27, 2005 So that's what passes the embarrassing litmus test for you? I would have thought stuff like Watergate would be more embarrassing. I would have thought lying about getting your willie wet and then getting impeached would be more embarrassing. I would have thought lying about giving weapons to terrorists would have been more embarrassing... 368591[/snapback] Nope. I'm in my 20's and the GWOT is the most important issue so embracing the retard filmmaker who undermines our country is pretty poor behavior for a former President. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted June 27, 2005 Share Posted June 27, 2005 (Sigh) More "Bush Bad"? I still can't see how one can judge a presidency before it's even over. My opinion being just that, as far as National Security and Foreign Policy goes, they are the first administration to "get it" in a long, long time. I can't speak for domestic, because I don't follow it and really don't know. Unless we do things to shape the world a certain way, there won't BE an economy to worry about in a decade or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted June 27, 2005 Share Posted June 27, 2005 Worst: Gotta be Nixon (I'm no crook). Funny how the neocons won't name the trickester as the worst ever. 368530[/snapback] Watergate was incredibly insignificant compared to all the good Nixon did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave in VA Posted June 27, 2005 Share Posted June 27, 2005 Watergate was incredibly insignificant compared to all the good Nixon did. 368612[/snapback] You can't possibly be serious? You must not have lived through the period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted June 27, 2005 Share Posted June 27, 2005 Not wanting to bring a premature end to your woody for Reagan, but let's try to be a little more realistic about a few things. There were not jobs galore once Reagan took over. That took time. Same with interest rates. If the economy hadn't started to perk up towards the middle to end of his first term, he could have very well been a one termer. 368608[/snapback] Mostly because you can't turn a battleship around in a phone booth. Overall, Reagan's policies worked. It's just too bad Congress couldn't reign themselves in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobblehead Posted June 27, 2005 Share Posted June 27, 2005 Watergate was incredibly insignificant compared to all the good Nixon did. 368612[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC-Bills Posted June 27, 2005 Share Posted June 27, 2005 Mostly because you can't turn a battleship around in a phone booth. Overall, Reagan's policies worked. It's just too bad Congress couldn't reign themselves in. 368623[/snapback] And I am not denying that. I just dispute the instant turnaround theory that was being presented. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reuben Gant Posted June 27, 2005 Share Posted June 27, 2005 Best: Cleveland, Fillmore (What can I say, all things Buffalo!) but really: Best: TR, Lincoln, Jefferson Worst: Clinton, George W ( I agree with many that it may be too early to judge these men, and of course there is the bias of recency. But 50 years from now they will be talking about these men single handedly dismantled America's business/manafacturing infrastructure in favor of Corporate Multinationals) best ex-president: Carter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted June 27, 2005 Share Posted June 27, 2005 And I am not denying that. I just dispute the instant turnaround theory that was being presented. 368631[/snapback] When considering how large and complex the US economy was and how far back it had to come, 3 years-ish is pretty friggin' instantaneous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC-Bills Posted June 27, 2005 Share Posted June 27, 2005 When considering how large and complex the US economy was and how far back it had to come, 3 years-ish is pretty friggin' instantaneous. 368657[/snapback] In a broad context, yes. Where I disagree is on a more granular level. It was not instaneous for the people who were struggling to get by each month or had to look for new jobs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reuben Gant Posted June 27, 2005 Share Posted June 27, 2005 Watergate was incredibly insignificant compared to all the good Nixon did. 368612[/snapback] And if it weren't for World War I and World War II, Germany had a pretty good century. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted June 27, 2005 Share Posted June 27, 2005 In a broad context, yes. Where I disagree is on a more granular level. It was not instaneous for the people who were struggling to get by each month or had to look for new jobs. 368663[/snapback] sh-- has always run downhill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted June 27, 2005 Share Posted June 27, 2005 And if it weren't for World War I and World War II, Germany had a pretty good century. 368666[/snapback] You're comparing Watergate to what Nazi Germany did? Wow, talk about scale of things that should not even be said together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted June 27, 2005 Share Posted June 27, 2005 You're comparing Watergate to what Nazi Germany did? Wow, talk about scale of things that should not even be said together. 368677[/snapback] Break into the Dems file cabinets. Invade Europe. File Cabinets. Europe. Sorry, just can't put that one together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts