Who do you think was the greatest U.S President? (1 Viewer)

[ihavenothing]

Martin Van Buren --

First President whose first language was not English

 

[Lockhart]

... the Cold War ended not because of Reagan but because of Gorbachev. He was a reformer who backed away from the previous Soviet strategy of intervention in the Eastern bloc.

What rubbish! Gobachev didn't end the cold war, he contributed true, but if there had been another more Stalinist president it probably would have ended as well. The amount of surplus produced by a capitalist state is something that a communist state can never compete with.

Russia and the eastern block countries had been hollow shells for years. Self evident as it was that the capitalist system was vastly superior, things such as automatic dialling systems and photocopiers meant the stream of information that was being passed to the populace, previously been out of control, was now such that information against the government could not be stopped. Things such as the great famine in china, the starvation in the Ukraine (both instances where over 20 million people died) could not be confined. The fact that the west enjoyed a quality of life that many under communist oppression were not aware of became evident. Ideas such as Medicare, Social Services, Free and equal education for all, creation of national parks, and the fact that 99% of the populace in western countries were literate were all things that the socialist state reported to propound but completely failed to deliver.

The ability for personal enterprise and self initiative to flourish against a single monopoly ran by the state of all ownership became evident as the ability for information to pass freely occurred.

The superpower status granted to Russia in terms of its military capacity was overestimated. What leaders like Reagan, Thatcher and the pope did was to call in the bluff of the communist states and came right out and said what they were.

Russia reported technological space successes (the first man in space), war successes (stockpiling the atomic bomb and the victory over the Nazis was achieved by the deprivation of its people. In North Vietnam, in China, in Kampuchea, in the Ukraine; the arrival of a communist government resulted in mass starvation in each country and large scale military executions. In the First World War the Russian army is estimated to have lost 25 million men, in the main because of the lack of weaponry and industrial development.

The communist Lack of delivery of services was complemented and rationalised to the population by this idea of constantly taking the war to the enemy. The rational was that sacrifices had to be made in order to liberate others in countries that were being “socially oppressed". As long as there is an eternal enemy to unite populace against the system survives. That is while the red tide around the world continuos to expand in through south East Asia (Vietnam, Afghanistan, Korea,), in the middle east (Soviet states sponsored Iran while the west sponsored Iraq), in Africa (Egypt, Angola,), in Sth America (Cuba, Venezwala, Columbia,); the regime at home survives.

By 1980 that expansion movement around the world has stopped. The idea of perpetual struggle has been superseded. The inability to deliver can no longer be blamed on an incomplete revolution. A new generation of people have been risen in a reality w2hich is no longer a transition period and as a result the socialist state is ready to collapse.

What the likes of Reagan and the pope can be attributed to doing is starting the reaction that results in all the countries from East Germany to Russia capitulating. Gobachev is a leader who also assists in helping move Russia through that transition, but to claim that it was his doing that the communist states came apart is false, to say that Reagan’s contribution was not worthwhile or didn’t highly contribute to the states falling apart then, is also false.

What communist outposts left have changed themselves into closer reflecting a semi social military dictatorship government that is quickly recognising the benefits of personal enterprise and trade (with perhaps the exception of Nth Korea which is too backward to know it is backward).

LOOOOOONG Post I know but that is pretty much why Reagan is regarded as being a good president even though he got altsimers and relied on his advisers as well as some economic stuff he did.

 

[ihavenothing]

He hardly did anything to stop the HIV/AIDS virus

 

[Bobness]

You hardly did anything to stop the HIV/AIDS virus.

You AIDS contractor.

Reagan was as populist as he was economically conservative. Paradix? Or orsum?

 

[ihavenothing]

Reagan was so bumbling that he spent more on a fight to have the AIDS virus recognised by Americans when it was discovered simultaneously by the French. And all those loooong walks with Margaret Thatcher...definately one of the dumbest presidents the US has ever seen

 

[Captain Gh3y]

Why on earth would a US President try to stop AIDS when it was invented by the CIA to kill blacks in the first place?

 

[ur_inner_child]

Why don't you guys try and create a criteria?

Otherwise, this is destined for Light & Offbeat

 

[Bobness]

I believe Reagan was the best president because he was intelligent.

All others were light and offbeat news

3 things when it comes to Reagan stand out

1) Public persona. He was very comfrotable in the media spotlight, and became a popular culture icon who could connect with all americans via the burgeoning television industry.

2) Reaganomics. Love it or hate it, in the long run it has served America well. Ok this is quite a partisan viewpoint but understandably it has not BANKRUPTED the us and a (unless you believe Johnson's stance in Sleepwalking through History) and definitely saved the us and gay from the bungle that was Carter.

3) AIDSLOL. Ok actually not his social justice stance but his strong foreign policies which treated Communism as a real threat. Reagan might not have brought down the Berlin Wall himself but he did a lot to persuade Gorbachev to adopt his very anti-Russian stance through diplomacy.

 

[timlay]

George W. Bush.

He's funny.

 

[torrentperson]

I don't have a single one, but the best in my opinion were:

Ronald Reagan
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Theodore Roosevelt
Abraham Lincoln
George Washington

Truman and Jefferson are up there as well.

The worst:

George W. Bush
Richard Nixon
Jimmy Carter
Warren Harding
James Buchanan

 

[bshoc]

George Washington
Thomas Jefferson
James Madison
Dwight D. Eisenhower
Gerald Ford

As for the worst:

William Howard Taft (An ass in so many ways)
FDR (for grave violation of personal and financial freedoms, and the US constitution)
Jimmy Carter (May have made a good Red Cross worker, but a president should not under any cirumstances be in any way a liberal, lefty or peacenick)

The rest all have enough good and bad features to make it off either list, the critism against Clinton not doing enough against terrorism is retrospective, Bush is a far better president and leader than the idiots who berate him for his convictions - history will verify this, and Nixon isn't nearly as bad or evil as many people remember - read a biography or at least http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Nixon#Major_initiatives

 

[torrentperson]

The rest all have enough good and bad features to make it off either list, the critism against Clinton not doing enough against terrorism is retrospective, Bush is a far better president and leader than the idiots who berate him for his convictions - history will verify this, and Nixon isn't nearly as bad or evil as many people remember - read a biography or at least http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Nixon#Major_initiatives

Bush won't be vindicated. He will be remembered for creating a costly mess in Iraq, all the while failing to stop Iran and North Korea from developing nuclear weapons, running obscene budget deficits, and bollixing up the balance between state powers for national security and the rights and liberties of the individual; and he will be remembered for these things because he has no redeeming accomplishments to his name. The defining features of the Bush presidency will be seen, rightly, as ineffectiveness and incompetence.

I dislike Nixon for a number of reasons, not merely because he used government institutions to engage in criminal activity against his political opponents, consequently poisoning American democracy. I think that to establish relations with the People's Republic while the Cultural Revolution still raged, and to fawningly embrace Mao Zedong, a mass murderer, was a grave moral blunder and an embarrassment to the West.

I'm pleased you agree about Carter, though.

 

[cowface]

Roosevelt. Would it be too much to say he helped save American capitalism?

 

[bshoc]

Roosevelt. Would it be too much to say he helped save American capitalism?

Which Roosevelt? Because FDR nearly killed it and was probably the president most opposed to the ideas of capitalism.

 

[cowface]

Which Roosevelt? Because FDR nearly killed it and was probably the president most opposed to the ideas of capitalism.

Considering support for capitalism was looking pretty weak in the 1930s, regulating the economy didn't kill it, rather restored people's confidence in it.

 

[bshoc]

Bush won't be vindicated. He will be remembered for creating a costly mess in Iraq,

FDR was berated for trying to get the US involved in the costly mess in Europe, many people thought Reagan an idiot for initiating an arms buildup in a time of relative peace. But history will see with Bush, I do not think that the removal of Saddam or the insurgency was the true purpose of Iraq any more than nuclear war was the purpose of Reagans escalation. Iraq is an overdue confrontation, and yes enemies do shoot back, and yes you cannot get rid of a bee hive withoug stirring up the bees. Iraq has sure scared alot of regimes in the region into fighting terrorism for us. Just for the record, no, as a realist I did not support the invasion of Iraq, but I'm not going to be a blind idiot about the nature of the conflict itself.

all the while failing to stop Iran and North Korea from developing nuclear weapons,

North Korea looks very unlikely to make any more nukes and Iran doesen't have anything at the moment, nor will Israel or the US ever let them.

running obscene budget deficits,

As is the consequence of tax cuts, and the general policy of republican presidents since Reagan.

and bollixing up the balance between state powers for national security and the rights and liberties of the individual

And to this day the proponents of this ridiculous have yet to come up with a decent example, if its some muslim getting kicked off a plane for chanting the Koran, I'm not worried.

and he will be remembered for these things because he has no redeeming accomplishments to his name. The defining features of the Bush presidency will be seen, rightly, as ineffectiveness and incompetence.

Bush's economic policy has been quite succesful, a moderate result in social policies, and the results of his foreign policy will not be known for quite some time, certainly not within the today tommorow timeframe.

I dislike Nixon for a number of reasons, not merely because he used government institutions to engage in criminal activity against his political opponents, consequently poisoning American democracy.

You do realize the difference between Nixon and most of the other presidents was not that Nixon was "abusing" his power, but rather that Nixon was unlucky enough to get caught.

I'm pleased you agree about Carter, though.

Carter's heart was in the right place, can't say the same for his brain though.

 

[bshoc]

Considering support for capitalism was looking pretty weak in the 1930s, regulating the economy didn't kill it, rather restored people's confidence in it.

Protected it how? With his 94% income tax rate? Or was it by shutting down the majority of financial insitutions? Or perhaps his establishment of inefficient overbearing bureaucracies to regulate every facet of American economic life? Whilst certainly not a socialist, FDR was certainly not a capitalist, his policies had far more in common with the corporatism of Mussolini's Italy or Franco's Spain.

 

[cowface]

Bush's economic policy has been quite succesful, a moderate result in social policies, and the results of his foreign policy will not be known for quite some time, certainly not within the today tommorow timeframe.

Tax Cuts for the wealthy while the minimum wage doesn't change for 10 years? Budget deficit after budget deficit. Real Wages haven't gone up yet productivity has. Inequality so great it's back to 1920's levels. All of that is 'quiet successful'?

Social policies? What social policies? Banning gay marriage and flag burning?

Protected it how? With his 94% income tax rate? Or was it by shutting down the majority of financial insitutions? Or perhaps his establishment of inefficient overbearing bureaucracies to regulate every facet of American economic life? Whilst certainly not a socialist, FDR was certainly not a capitalist, his policies had far more in common with the corporatism of Mussolini's Italy or Franco's Spain.

Only a small part of the population payed 94%. Regulating Wall Street was a good idea. Large Bureaucracies helped stablise the commanding heights of the economy when the country was in depression.

 

[torrentperson]

Iraq is an overdue confrontation, and yes enemies do shoot back, and yes you cannot get rid of a bee hive withoug stirring up the bees.

The Iraq war was clumsy and unnecessary, and based on the notion that the U.S. should confront everything it doesn't like in the world rather than managing threats and choosing its battles. What it meant was that two years into the Bush presidency, the U.S. military would be tied up and unable to deal with anything new for the remaining six. This was the foreign policy equivalent of early ejaculation.

Iraq has sure scared alot of regimes in the region into fighting terrorism for us.

There have been a few positive outcomes of this policy of confronting everyone, at least very early on. Pakistan became reasonably helpful, and Libya gave up its nuclear program. But other countries, such as Syria, Iran and North Korea, responded very differently to being labelled as enemies. They became more contumacious. North Korea and Iran sought nuclear weapons. Syria partnered with Iran in making Middle Eastern mayhem. And in doing so, they called America's bluff: it became apparent that there was no ill consequence to defying the U.S., now that it was entangled in its Mesopotamian adventure.

North Korea looks very unlikely to make any more nukes

Why not? Who's going to stop them? They can make as many as they like. If that's not a failure of U.S. policy, I'm a peanut.

Iran doesen't have anything at the moment, nor will Israel or the US ever let them.

This isn't Osirak Mark II. Iran's nuclear facilities are spread throughout the country and often underground. I'm not sure that the IAF, flying from Israel, can get them all, and in any case, Iran's response -- unlike Iraq's -- will be violent. A full-scale war will ensue.

The U.S. military has too much on its plate to deal with Iran, which would be difficult even with a free hand. Either Security Council sanctions will convince Iran to give up its program -- and I don't hold out much hope for this, given the irresponsibility of Russia and China and the obduracy of Iran -- or Iran will get nuclear weapons.

As is the consequence of tax cuts, and the general policy of republican presidents since Reagan.

Whatever the cause, and however popular the error, it's appalling mismanagement.

And to this day the proponents of this ridiculous have yet to come up with a decent example, if its some muslim getting kicked off a plane for chanting the Koran, I'm not worried.

What, are you joking?

You do realize the difference between Nixon and most of the other presidents was not that Nixon was "abusing" his power, but rather that Nixon was unlucky enough to get caught.

I think that's rubbish.

 

[_dhj_]

I do have a bit of a soft spot for Nixon and his lack of morality, although the greatest would probably be FDR.