rimbaud -- like I said, he owned slaves, but he almost consistently called the practice deplorable. From what I've read of his writings (a fair amount), he appears to be at odds with himself over slavery. He knows it is wrong, he says it is wrong, but he still does it because it is convienient and accepted. ------------------ "Any answer that can't be questioned is no answer at all. It's gibberish. It's the jabbering of startled monkeys flinging dung at the moon" -- Scott Christensen -- www.ewav.com
Yeah, Korea and Vietnam had nothing to do with world opinion..... Also, when I was a kid I'd think about all out nuclear war as a possibility. I bet kids nowadays don't think it's as much a threat as it was before Reagan/Bush. (Due to the crumbling of the USSR) Oh, and I bet those damn Kuwaities hate our friggin' guts too. ------------------ rimbaud, I guess not many people know of Teddy's bigotry. When we were trying to get a deal done with the Colombians for the Panama Canal, and they turned us down, I forget the exact quote, but it was not racially friendly. ------------------ My Rocket Page [This message has been edited by DREAMer (edited January 12, 2001).]
FDR is hands down the front runner. Taking the country out of derpression and the WW2 victories are something that no other President can come close to. Not only was he a great American leader, but one of the top three leaders of the 20th Century. JFK might have gotten us close to WW3, but he is the one that calmed down the situation in Cuba. So in my opinion he is one of the better Presidents. Clinton has to be way up there. The economic growth cant be overlooked. So he did a couple of shaddy things. But the older Presidents had slaves. JFK was a player. So why is only Clinton not allowed to get away with anything? ------------------ SUCK POLICE!!!!!! To point out individuals or teams that have managed to reach the pinnacle of SUCKINESS!!!!! ----- JAZZ SUCK!!!!!!!
Vengence, u are right...Clinton really didn't do anything that SIGNIFICANT to be making him the top 5, much less number 1...you guys know that the President doesn't have any control over the fluctuations of our economy right? SO he doesn't HAVE MUCH to do with our economy growing the way it is...even though you are lead to believe that... Rockets03, I was about the say the same thing about FDR. The New Deal saved our country from burning to the ground in the great depression years in the late 20-30's. He in my book has to be way up there. [This message has been edited by ChenZhen (edited January 12, 2001).]
Love him, hate him, one thing to say about Clinton is he took pride in his job. Yes, he was a hornball who took advantage of his position, but who on this forum wouldn't have ? Clinton is a top 5 president, even though you couldn't get a Republican to admit it. ------------------ "We don't have any plans. We just plan to win." Mack Brown
What about Monroe? The Era of Good Feelings and the Monroe Doctrine. I always thought Monroe was an underrated President. ------------------
As if Reagan and Bush had anything to do with that other than watching it like the rest of us. The constant social troubles within the former Soviet Union were the root cause of the dismantling of communism. Just because it happened on your watch doesn't make your responsible like Clinton and the country's economic successes. Of course, both of those presidents had their problems. Reagan was "bringing an end to communism" by giving arms to the Afghanastani rebels led by Oslama Ben Ladin - sound familiar? Oh, you mean all the rich sheiks and their oil? You betcha. ------------------ The way to use life is to do nothing through acting, The way to use life is to do everything through being. - Lao-Tzu
Thought this was appropriate for the thread: FDR's Wheelchair: Physical handicap did not limit his leadership During his presidency, no one mentioned that Franklin D. Roosevelt had to wear heavy leg braces to stand or use a wheelchair to get around in. Few pictures of Roosevelt in his wheelchair were taken by the press. Most Americans were unaware that their president, who saw them through the Depression and most of World War II, had lost the use of his legs in 1921 due to polio when he was 39. Many people believe Roosevelt's spirit and pluck, qualities which stood the nation so well during the dark days of the war, came about, in part, from his courageous efforts to cope with his crippling disability -- and do it with his trademark jaunty smile. So, while few Americans remember Roosevelt in a wheelchair, it is historically accurate and entirely appropriate that a new sculpture of FDR in a wheelchair has been added to the Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial in Washington, D.C. The former president once remarked that, should the nation ever feel the need to honor him with some memorial in the future, he would prefer a simple, plain rectangle of stone about the size of his desk. Well, the nation has chosen to erect a greater memorial than that. Accurately depicting FDR in his wheelchair will serve to remind people that those with handicaps can do much more with their lives than many of us may think. ------------------ The way to use life is to do nothing through acting, The way to use life is to do everything through being. - Lao-Tzu
JFK - Image can be important. Appearing to be the strongest nation in the world may be more important than actually having the substance to back it up. Many leaders throughout the world have power because of image, and while that may not be the right thing, it must be acknowledged as significant. Image has been significant since the beginning of time, and it takes no less importance now. JFK made us acknowledge that as a nation.. if nothing else. And that was a powerful accomplishment on it's own. Lincoln - Without a doubt, my number one, because of his long ranging impact on the United States. All while dealing with a wife who was insane. That is a job in itself. Clinton - The best waffle cone of all time. The man's fatal flaw was compromise. Gays in the military summed it up for me. What a joke that policy was. At least stand by what you believe to be true. ------------------ humble, but hungry.
I don't see how you could even see Clinton remotely a good president. Im not saying he was a bad president, but he does not even come close to ranking. What does it take to be a good leader? Honesty, Integrity, Pride, while being humble, Morals ect ... There are many of them. Compare the first president with the latest president .... Washington - Not only fought in war, but he led the militia to start a new country. He assisted starting the first government, covering every possible thing the future of the country might face. He did have slaves, which he did not approve, but did keep them. Clinton - He AVOIDED going to war. That is integrity? I bet it would be women and childre first for him. He has done nothing but manipulate and find every loophole in the Constition, much less upholding it. He has lied under Oath. He has sold out our nation (to the Chinese) (How can you call that pride) Smoked dope and tried to lie about it (who cares if he did, don't lie about it) He would no doubt have slaves if it were acceptable. What has this guy done good? Inflate the economy? Cut back on the military (to make it look like hes cutting back on his spending) Military is always going to be your highest spending and important staying on top in technology. The though of us having a strong economy blows my mind!! Do you not realize that all your money is nothing more than number in a computer, much less on a dollar? I don't call that a 'good economy' Clinton was far from the best, but not the worst. The presidents will continue getting worse and worse until we have a MAJOR change in the world. I don't see that happening for a while. ------------------ its all good and fun till someone gets hurt ... then its absolutely hilarious!
I don't really think Clinton was much of a president overall either but how on earth can you compare owning other human beings as possessions to lying under oath or dodging the draft? I know that things are relative, but there was no greater human tragedy in America and no darker practice in our country's history than the forced migration of humans to the United States for the purpose of ownership, enslavement and torture by Americans. There was no greater horror ever perpetrated by America than slavery. Period. ------------------ The way to use life is to do nothing through acting, The way to use life is to do everything through being. - Lao-Tzu
sex slaves? one thing he did was help out the african american community quite alot. That comment is out of line...you are talking through your a** there [This message has been edited by ChenZhen (edited January 12, 2001).]
I would. At least finish the f*ckin job once you start it. Who knows when Sadaam may decide to go back in and do a lot worse than last time? ------------------ "He was under more balls than a midget hooker."-Bobby Hill visit www.swirve.com, coming January 20th, the top 10 films of 2000! and, http://www.geocities.com/clutch34_2000 for great Rocket insight by some of your fellow BBS posters!
I have one of those "I have a friend who said..." comments to add. I have a friend who is a presidential and constitution historian. There is a lot of history that builds an argument that Lincoln forced the Civil War, and a more diplomatic president could have achieved a peaceful resolution, the South wanted it. Historian sources are usually Letters and other documents that represent the history from the pen of the leaders. Apparently, he snuffed the South based on economic reasons to disenfranchise them. Releasing the slaves was of lessor importance to him, and could have happened without a very bloody Civil War. The argument is that the War wasn't about slaves; it was about economic power in the union. Anyone want to read about this, I'll get some text titles. I have certainly meant to read about. For now, I'm just taking his word, because I trust his reasoning. He considers Lincoln the worst president. And if what he says is true, forcing a bloody Civil War based on economic power and using the Emancipation as a planned dividing issue that would cause War; then I would have to agree with his opinion. [This message has been edited by heypartner (edited January 12, 2001).]
the civil war was the fight for State's rights, NOT because of slavery, people forget that... HP, Lincon is not that bad to be called the worst president ever...have your friend ever heard of Ulysis S Grant? ------------------
heyp, I've read that as well -- the issue at stake wasn't so much slavery itself, but the expansion of slavery into the new territories. However, I think war would've happened at some point. If you look at what happened in Kansas before the war, and other incidents, conflict was inevitable. Lincoln didn't fight the war to end slavery, but he ended slavery anyways, so there wouldn't be a conflict like this again. As far as Clinton is concerned, there is NO WAY he can be in the top five presidents! At least wait a few years before you say he's the best president ever. Let's be fair, would anyone here say that Nixon was a great president? Probably not . . . why? Watergate. Yet we can't afford the same standards to Bill Clinton? I'm not a Clinton hater, but I really think it's premature and short-sighted to proclaim him to be such a great leader. Clinton did what this country needed -- nothing. He led one of the most corrupt and suspect administrations ever, and yet we want to canonize him. Clinton is an average president in my opinion. He didn't do anything great, and policy-wise, didn't do anything horrible. And no, he didn't cause the economy. No president or politician for that matter causes the economy, especially not single-handedly. ------------------ "Any answer that can't be questioned is no answer at all. It's gibberish. It's the jabbering of startled monkeys flinging dung at the moon" -- Scott Christensen -- www.ewav.com
I would suggest that the people fighting the war might argue something different. ------------------ humble, but hungry.
ChenZhen. Please read this thread. I started it, so I guess I'm giving myself props. Actually as that post grew, I had to do research on that very subject ('state rights' vs. 'slavery'). I think I formulated my opinion for the eons, unless someone constructs a better argument (in light of what we wrote in that thread, I don't think there is a better arg.). [This message has been edited by Achebe (edited January 12, 2001).]
We didn't really 'forced migration' of humans. We traded them from their fellow enemy tribes. And once they were here, most of them were not really treated all that bad. Sure there were cases where many were beating, but in return for their services, they were paid with food and boarding. They just didn't have freedom to go where they wanted to. If you want pity on people, take a look at africa where they are starving and have a choice to go where they want. You take your pick. And its naive to belive slavery still does not exist today. In America today, there are people who had it much worse than the slaves did. ------------------ its all good and fun till someone gets hurt ... then its absolutely hilarious!
Ahhh damn,this was a good thread then you early birds went and got all political. ------------------ Now chew through my ball sack
