Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Giving people hope? Sure, I'll give you that one, mostly because I have no evidence or reason to think otherwise (I was not alive in the 30's). The Wagner act? The act he finally got passed after several of his earlier programs were (rightfully) declared unconstitutional? Sorry, but that's an example of precisely why he was a terrible president. The act dramatically expanded the the powers of the federal government into new arenas, increased the overall size of the federal government by establishing the National Labor Relations Board, and help to institutionalize the idea that the Federal Government is somehow the defender of the people against the evil corporations.
Would you prefer that the Communist Party or bands of Anarchist-Syndicalists defend the people against the evil corporations? And stand business owners and aristocrats up against the wall?
Ole FDR did you conservatives a big favor by allowing the system to carry on but you guys are so greedy you're not happy unless you have it all. So you hate the guy that saved your bacon because he made you give some bacon up.
Would you prefer that the Communist Party or bands of Anarchist-Syndicalists defend the people against the evil corporations? And stand business owners and aristocrats up against the wall?
Ole FDR did you conservatives a big favor by allowing the system to carry on but you guys are so greedy you're not happy unless you have it all. So you hate the guy that saved your bacon because he made you give some bacon up.
Example #1 of why using terms like capitalist and communist/socialist have bad precognition of the opposing POV.
Reagan could have held his head up high and say a billion people were freed by his actions....He knew that already as he had a 4 decade campaign.
Besides our founding forefathers there has not been any more historical of an event. I think some of you Reagan haters would like to play down the vodka filled moment where the soviets where seriously contemplating pressing the red button. That's from former KGB not internet chat.
Last edited by BigJon3475; 12-29-2008 at 04:05 PM..
James Buchanon. His presidency emboldend the sucessionists and he did nothing while the deep southern states suceded. Had he acted more aggressively to deal with South Carolina, and other radical southern states the civil war might have been abridged.
As for Reagan I really do not buy all of the Reagan ended the cold war stuff. I think George HW did most of the heavy lifting in regards to negotiation the peaceable dissolution of the Soviet Union. As for Reagan he also was royally stupid with his policies toward Lebanon 240 dead marines is a pretty big oops.
I'm going to disqualify the current president, only because it's too early to tell. Personally, I don't think history will be kind to W.
That being said, I would probably say that Lyndon Johnson was the worst president in the post-war era. His massive increase in the scope of government and taxation levels in this country hobbled the country economically until the 80s. Add to that his incompetent prosecution of the Vietnam War, his secretive nature and the systemic distrust he instilled in the American people probably damaged the country more than any single president. The looming entitlement crisis of Medicare Medicaid, the pilfering of Social Security, the destruction of the inner cities through the creation of huge public housing tracts, and the list goes on and on. The one unqualified positive of Johnson's administration was the Voting Rights Act.
One note on FDR. I think you can make a very strong argument that FDR did not pull the United States out of the Great Depression. Unemployment in this country proved intractable, remaining in the high teens into the late 30s. Only the onset of the Second World War brought unemployment to pre-Crash levels. In that sense, I would argue that FDR was a much better war president than economic president.
Overall, Buchanan has to be right up there. The country was clearly coming apart because of the Civil War, yet he did very little to prevent it or even prepare for it.
If life was the most important thing to you....no money equal...
What would you do in the Iran crisis? What would you do with a force focused on oppression (communist)?
What if you could end it all by just going a little into the red without millions dead?
What if you could provide....peace through strength? With only reactionary fired shots? I mean what more can you ask from someone as president? If you think it's easy watch how Obama has to deal with this Palestinian crisis.
I think some people hate him just because of his convictions... What if your only obligation to your job was the national security of those people that hired you.
James Buchanon. His presidency emboldend the sucessionists and he did nothing while the deep southern states suceded. Had he acted more aggressively to deal with South Carolina, and other radical southern states the civil war might have been abridged.
As for Reagan I really do not buy all of the Reagan ended the cold war stuff. I think George HW did most of the heavy lifting in regards to negotiation the peaceable dissolution of the Soviet Union. As for Reagan he also was royally stupid with his policies toward Lebanon 240 dead marines is a pretty big oops.
See, I don't necessarily agree with your assessment of Reagan, although I do agree with your assessment of Bush41's diplomatic skills. Reagan's response to the Soviet challenges of the 70s were the equivalent of economic warfare on the USSR. Once Reagan stood up and said, "Okay, if that's the way you want to play, we beat you at your own game." The Russians simply did not have either the economic or technological capacity to compete with the American military buildup. The wheels fell completely off the bus, so to speak, and Soviet leaders such as Gorbachev will tell you as much. So, by the time Bush41 came along, the signs of a collapse were already there. The Soviets had pulled out of Afghanistan, almost halted their adventures in Latin America, et al. While Bush skillfully finished Reagan's work, the lion's share had been done.
That has to be one of the most skewed points of view towards history that I have been witnessed to. Carter had nothing to do with the downfall of Soviets with two kisses on the cheek Brezhnev commenced the Afghanistan invasion....
Actually, Carter started supplying the mujaheddin in mid-1979, before the Soviet invasion. That was a very bad error, since nobody has ever explained how Soviet hegemony in Afghanistan was contrary to U.S. interests. If we thought it was in 1979, 9/11 should've prompted a reconsideration.
In any case, as I've said, it's schizophrenic to blame Carter for not ousting an Islamic regime in Iran and for letting the Soviets do the same thing on their own border, which cost them plenty and us nothing. A term like "Carter Derangement Syndrome" is beginning to occur to me, and Carter's never been a particular favorite of mine.
You are right Carter did start with small arms.....which later ended in satellite tech., anti tank missiles...etc...The Iran contra.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
