Worst Presidents?

[qfnol31]

Woodrow Wilson wins the award for me. Not very many people know much about him (maybe they do, but I didn't). Come to find out, he's the one who's pushed us away from from what the country was founded to be.

I like Bush, he does what he says he will. A little over a year ago, most of the US was for the War in Iraq. It'd be stupid to leave now with an unfinished job still there. That would leave a mess for everyone else to clean up, and won't win us any friends, that's for sure. He got in it with support, now he needs to finish what he started and most people wanted him to start.

[Azriel]

[quote name='Mickey's_Girl' date='Jun 7 2004, 02:18 PM'] Azriel--

I totally hear you about this. Sometimes people catch the economic wave (late 90s dot-com bubble) and sometimes they don't (also late 90s dot-com bubble!). Just like in the depression--my grandparents' experience had nothing to do with what most people today think about the Depression. They were very poor, of course, but everyone was. According to them (not exact statistics) about 3/4 of the population still had jobs...which is not enough, of course. But they didn't see all the drama (Okies, Dust Bowl, people jumping out of buildings) that gets talked about in history books.

I can see where your folks are coming from.

(Don't they call economics the "dismal science"?)

Hsmom: War on Poverty and Great Society...same type of thing, right? My history is a tad rusty...

MG [/quote]
Thanks MG - I'm sure that there are tons of people who benefited during the Regan years, but in and around my world, there were very many who didn't.

Bah. That's why I didn't study economics. Too dismal for me, anyway.

[jasJis]

As StrongBad would say "What the Crapp???"

Reagan was a great President. The Tax Cuts helped the Economy so much that charitable contributions and employment was very high.

It's hard to judge from the bias of History books. I lived through Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush as an adult. My opinions are more based on my personal experiences instead of a larger (and possibly a biased viewpoint). That is one of the benefits of being older.

I voted Carter. Despite the Watergate scandal, Nixon was a foriegn affairs wiz. Reagan changed the way America thought of itself, re-established national pride, caring about others in the Country as a matter of National Integrity in the big scheme of things, whereas Carter and Clinton did it out of guilt and/or embarasment. (I don't think I'm explaining myself well). Bush H was about as memorable as Ford, but had 4 more years to make a difference. He wasn't as politically astute and I think he has less inegrity than his son. Bush H probably would have cut bait and abandonded Iraq and Afganistan by now. (And I think Clinton would have too.)

One thing is, people have gotten much more hysterically critical of Presidents since Nixon. At first, there was respect in disagreement. Now, since Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and now Bush W, people have ratcheted up the rhetoric and hate mongering. I did not like Clinton at all, but Clinton and Bush get attacked more on a personal level and the criticism lacks intellectual honesty in analizing policy failures and mistakes.

[homeschoolmom]

I've told RussianGirl time and again that if it weren't for Reagan and Pope John Paul II, she wouldn't even be in this country. When I was a teenager, if you'd have told me I'd have a Russian living in my house some day, it would have seemed as weird to me as if you'd said I'd have a martian living in my house. It just didn't seem possible. The collapse of the Soviet Union was good for her in that way-- new opportunity.

But for her family, it's been a financial disaster.

Sorry about hijacking the thread.

[Crusader_4]

I have a friend in my class not very rich at all by any means and of Russian Descent he is actually Russian Orthodox. But his admiration of the Pope is amazing his family was involved in Communist Russia and basically Communism wrecked his dads future and career and they moved to Canada to start over and had it not been for JPII and Regan that would of never happened. Now on another note i think the worst was Andrew Jackson he had little respect for Humanity within the nation i.e. Indian Wars as well as other battles and gave the President of the United States far too much excessive executive Power whcih shoudl soley rest upon the legistlative branch as well even some of Jacksons econonmic ideas were not the best all tho some were. But Jacksons foregin policy ostracized Britain (whom America could of soared with had both countries put their differences behind them...this didint happen till Churchill and FDR got together) so i think Jackson was really from a policy wise the worst.

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='Crusader_4' date='Jun 7 2004, 05:24 PM'] so i think Jackson was really from a policy wise the worst. [/quote]
Yeah... they should've impeached him... wait a minute...

[Oik]

I'm not really sure who to vote for, I didn't really pay attention in HS history and am not up on current policies (outside of moral aspects).

[Aloysius]

BUSH IS AWESOME

if he's elected again and gets to get some more cool stuff done, he should be ranked up with George Washington and Abraham Lincoln

[crusader1234]

Hahahaha, there are other Republicans with similar goals who could do a much better job. I hope you dont consider Iraq cool stuff .

[Ash Wednesday]

Dubya might, and I stress, [b]might[/b] increase in popularity over time, especially depending on what happens this fall, if he stays in the White House. If Iraq is brought under control (the fact that they have government transition underway and a president that the Iraqis and clergy seem to approve of might be of help) if the country heads in a better direction than the past few years, then Bush will be remembered by a lot of people as being the president that the nation rallied behind on 9/11 more than the president that brought us into a bunch of wars. But I think a lot of that depends on what happens this fall.

As for Kerry, he really just doesn't seem to have a backbone as presidential material, so I'm skeptical that his presidency would be any better. He's like Jimmy Carter -- only Carter has moral integrity.

The two-term presidents in particular tend to be viewed in retrospect through rose-colored shades. Clinton, obviously not popular with conservatives and pro-life Catholics, will be viewed in a more forgiving light by the general public over time because he was considered "down-to-earth and likeable" to people, like Reagan -- and was in office during a time of economic prosperity.

All this, IMHO.

I have to laugh at what a smoothie Clinton is -- he's being so [i]nice[/i] about Bush, all things considered. He supposedly said nice things about him in his book being released (of course, he wants to sell the book, doesn't he?) and told fellow Democrats "He's just doing exactly what he said he would do!" If I had a crappy used car to sell, I'd put Bubba up to the job.

[Iacobus]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Jun 7 2004, 06:44 PM'] BUSH IS AWESOME

if he's elected again and gets to get some more cool stuff done, he should be ranked up with George Washington and Abraham Lincoln [/quote]
I would have said Washington (though we didn't listen to him if we did we wouldn't have pol. parties or NATO or the UN or anything) and Ike. Abe was well he wasn't the best really. I mean he gots us through the Civil War and all but he suspened a ton of civil rights and other stuff. Washington and Ike are better.

Esp bc Ike warned us about the Milatry Industrail Complex. (ie. Halabarton)

[Aloysius]

sometimes civil rights need to be suspended.

first comes the right to life. then the right to liberty. then the right to the persuit of happiness.

if life is threatened, liberty may be suspended for the sake of life. if liberty is threatened, the persuit of happiness may be suspended for the sake of liberty.

[Iacobus]

ANd just a question. I am kinda curious. I liked Clinton. I think he was a good pres. so I may be blind sighted here but I want to know.

What made the Clintion pres bad policywise? I mean I can see disliking them because of the whole sex thing. But that wasn't a policy. I really can't think of any real bad things. Plus he supported and signed Federal Defenseive MArraige act. So I don't know the isse with him. Can someone please tell me. It doesn't look like anyone has posted it yet but 10 voted so I ask.

Thank you.

[Iacobus]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Jun 7 2004, 10:01 PM'] sometimes civil rights need to be suspended.

first comes the right to life. then the right to liberty. then the right to the persuit of happiness.

if life is threatened, liberty may be suspended for the sake of life. if liberty is threatened, the persuit of happiness may be suspended for the sake of liberty. [/quote]
Factoid: You know Jefferson almost wrote "Life Liberty, and property?"

Yes and those words were pened by Jefferson. Jefferson would have had a FIT if his pres suspened civil rights. Look up the Alien and Sedation Acts and the VA and KY protest (I think). Jefferson favored state rights. Compact theory of goverment. During the Civil war he would have fought for the south. But moreover, he never thought one should be over ruled by another. "Endowed by a creator cenrtain inalienable rights, life, liberty, and the purisit of happyness."

The BP def of inalienable is un-take-awayable. Under no means can one be suspened.

[Iacobus]

VA res (one writen by Jefferson and Madison) of 1798 is avabilable online at [url="http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/virres.htm"]http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/virres.htm[/url]

[crusader1234]

[quote]sometimes civil rights need to be suspended.[/quote]

well.. they don't apply in cases where they infringe on others rights. didn't he suspend some rights for questionable reasons?

and i also liked clinton. he was a smooth talker and he certainly made canada weak in the knees. i'm not sure if hes the best political guy though... or moral... hes just a 'nice' guy if you know what i mean... came across as someone i'd like to play golf with on sunday afternoons

anyways, its a shame dubyas the head republican. couldnt they swap him with a better pro-lifer that doesnt seem to rub so many people the wrong way?

[littleflower+JMJ]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Jun 7 2004, 05:44 PM'] BUSH IS AWESOME

if he's elected again and gets to get some more cool stuff done, he should be ranked up with George Washington and Abraham Lincoln [/quote]
agreed!

[quote]first comes the right to life. then the right to liberty. then the right to the persuit of happiness.[/quote]

all i can say is.....[b]WORD![/b]

[Iacobus]

Okay Flowery and Al, I love you both. But as a US History nerd I am saddened by your either refusal to see Jefferson as Jefferson or lack of knowedlge.

Jefferson would have never meant that. And what is life without liberaty, without happyness. God given, not state controled (according to TJ) rights.

[littleflower+JMJ]

[quote name='Iacobus' date='Jun 7 2004, 09:54 PM'] Okay Flowery and Al, I love you both. But as a US History nerd I am saddened by your either refusal to see Jefferson as Jefferson or lack of knowedlge.

Jefferson would have never meant that. And what is life without liberaty, without happyness. God given, not state controled (according to TJ) rights. [/quote]
what is life if you cannot be born?

[Iacobus]

Jefferson wasn't talking about abortion in the DoI. He was talking about life. Rember he didn't have Roe v. Wade to deal with.

But life without being born isn't any better than life in a box. So yes useing the translation of life it is okay. But, to my mind, the life Al refered to was the life of Jefferson. Of life and limb. Risk to the phycial harm of people after brith by hostile means.