By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Best/Worst Presidents

bouzane on 30 May 2012
Dark_Lord_2008 said:
FDR(Dem), Lincoln(Rep.) and Wilson(Rep.) three heroic US Presidents united the country during difficult periods in history: WW2, Civil War and WW1. <b>George W. Bush did a good job, having to fight two wars against the terrorists that threatened US interests domestically and internationally.</b>

Numerous US Presidents reigned during peaceful and prosperous times and they did not have to deal with world war, terrorism or Civil War. The best Presidents were effective decisive leaders that lead the nation during the difficult times.


The two wars against terrorists were Afghanistan and...?



Around the Network
Marks on 30 May 2012
Rath said:
Marks said:
rocketpig said:
Marks said:
Obama will go down as one of the worst later on. He contributed more debt than all previous presidents combined, launched more invasions than Bush, failed to get the troops out of the middle east (which was a pre-election promise), bailed out big corporations, and much more. 

You've been watching too much Fox News. Only if you tack on Bush's stimulus package does Obama's "debt contribution" go that high.

And who cares how many "invasions" Obama "started"? Bush started an entire god-damned war that involved hundreds of thousands of troops, got thousands of troops killed, and what do we have to show for it? A country that nobody wants? Yay, America.

This partisan bullshit needs to stop. Bush was a lousy President. I don't think Obama is much better but I'm certainly not going to lay Bush's mistakes on him. He has enough to answer for after four years without taking on Dubya's clusterfuck of a Presidency.

I never said a good thing about Bush here man. And I also could have thrown on SOPA/PIPA and giving himself the right to imprison Americans without a warrant to Obama's resume. And these are just things I'm remembering off the top of my head, if I dug deeper I could find more goodies. 

And yeah Bush's war in Iraq/Afghanistan was terrible and nothing good came from it, but that doesn't take away from Obama continuing the war well into his presidency, as well as invading Libya and wherever else. What was to stop Obama from keeping his pre-election promise of bringing the troops home? Did Bush somehow still have some power to keep them there as of November 2008? 

1) SOPA/PIPA/CISPA have not been supported by the White House and Obama has threatened to use his veto on them. He cannot be blamed for them.

2) Obama has never suspended the writ of habeus corpus as far as I can see. Interestingly enough Bush did.

3) Obama never promised to bring the troops home straight away. Doing so would have left those countries without a stable government...

 

It's too early to judge Obama's presidency but some of the things he gets criticised for are simply incorrect.

1. Fair enough

2. Why do people keep comparing him to Bush? I never said Bush was good. But he did extend the patriot act, even though he may not have used it yet to imprison innocent americans.

3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p12cAclNCRU



Marks on 30 May 2012
Adinnieken said:
SamuelRSmith said:

Worst:

1 - FDR: soviet-style planning of agriculture, introduction of soviet-style rationing system, looking up citizens for the "crime" for being of Japanese decent, laws controlling gold ownership, public-works programs that led to the ideas of Keynes being locked into the political mindset until even today, questionable actions in regard to dealing with Japan before Pearl Harbour.

3 - Wilson: Prohibition. Federal Reserve.

Without either of these two men, your sorry ass would be speaking German. 

 

You mean without Josef Stalin our sorry asses would be speaking German. The Russians did way more than the rest of the allies, and were the first to reach Berlin. 

And don't use the line that America's aid helped the USSR beat Germany. I did an entire essay on lend-lease in history class last semester. Yes the Americans sent war materials, food, resources, etc. but the majority came in late 1944 and 1945, after the decisive battles of Moscow and Stalingrad when the USSR turned the tide. 



Mr Khan on 30 May 2012
Marks said:
Adinnieken said:
SamuelRSmith said:

Worst:

1 - FDR: soviet-style planning of agriculture, introduction of soviet-style rationing system, looking up citizens for the "crime" for being of Japanese decent, laws controlling gold ownership, public-works programs that led to the ideas of Keynes being locked into the political mindset until even today, questionable actions in regard to dealing with Japan before Pearl Harbour.

3 - Wilson: Prohibition. Federal Reserve.

Without either of these two men, your sorry ass would be speaking German. 

 

You mean without Josef Stalin our sorry asses would be speaking German. The Russians did way more than the rest of the allies, and were the first to reach Berlin. 

And don't use the line that America's aid helped the USSR beat Germany. I did an entire essay on lend-lease in history class last semester. Yes the Americans sent war materials, food, resources, etc. but the majority came in late 1944 and 1945, after the decisive battles of Moscow and Stalingrad when the USSR turned the tide. 

I will agree with that. American intervention likely made more of a difference in Europe in WWI than in Europe in WWII. Of course, our intervention was decisive in the Pacific. If the Japanese had felt they could get away with an invasion of Malaysia and the Dutch East Indies without having to boot the US out of the Philippines as well, they likely would have had the appropriate resources to win. Fighting America was too much of a drain on their resources, and the odd thing was, the Japanese high command knew it before they started.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Marks on 30 May 2012
Mr Khan said:
Marks said:
Adinnieken said:
SamuelRSmith said:

Worst:

1 - FDR: soviet-style planning of agriculture, introduction of soviet-style rationing system, looking up citizens for the "crime" for being of Japanese decent, laws controlling gold ownership, public-works programs that led to the ideas of Keynes being locked into the political mindset until even today, questionable actions in regard to dealing with Japan before Pearl Harbour.

3 - Wilson: Prohibition. Federal Reserve.

Without either of these two men, your sorry ass would be speaking German. 

 

You mean without Josef Stalin our sorry asses would be speaking German. The Russians did way more than the rest of the allies, and were the first to reach Berlin. 

And don't use the line that America's aid helped the USSR beat Germany. I did an entire essay on lend-lease in history class last semester. Yes the Americans sent war materials, food, resources, etc. but the majority came in late 1944 and 1945, after the decisive battles of Moscow and Stalingrad when the USSR turned the tide. 

I will agree with that. American intervention likely made more of a difference in Europe in WWI than in Europe in WWII. Of course, our intervention was decisive in the Pacific. If the Japanese had felt they could get away with an invasion of Malaysia and the Dutch East Indies without having to boot the US out of the Philippines as well, they likely would have had the appropriate resources to win. Fighting America was too much of a drain on their resources, and the odd thing was, the Japanese high command knew it before they started.


Hell yeah that's true. America most certainly played a big part by taking out Japan. 



Around the Network
Rath on 30 May 2012

That video doesn't show whether he is talking about Iraq or Afghanistan.

On the topic of WWII, don't ignore the British contribution! It was the British who turned one of the fronts against Germany in the Battle of Britain.



Mr Khan on 30 May 2012
Rath said:
That video doesn't show whether he is talking about Iraq or Afghanistan.

On the topic of WWII, don't ignore the British contribution! It was the British who turned one of the fronts against Germany in the Battle of Britain.

Certainly. It is between the loss of the battle of Britain and the later loss of Stalingrad that guaranteed that the Germans would lose eventually, and American involvement merely made it cleaner than it might have been.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

rocketpig on 30 May 2012
Mr Khan said:
Rath said:
That video doesn't show whether he is talking about Iraq or Afghanistan.

On the topic of WWII, don't ignore the British contribution! It was the British who turned one of the fronts against Germany in the Battle of Britain.

Certainly. It is between the loss of the battle of Britain and the later loss of Stalingrad that guaranteed that the Germans would lose eventually, and American involvement merely made it cleaner than it might have been.

There's a lot more to it than that. In both the Pacific and European fronts, Americans either held off or took land that Stalin most certainly would have claimed for the USSR after the war completed had the US not helped with the invasion. Namely, all of Germany, part of France, Austria, at least part of Italy, etc. would have been absorbed into the Soviet Union.

Not that it really matters. It's all theory (and pointless theory at that).




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/

bouzane on 30 May 2012
Mr Khan said:
Rath said:
That video doesn't show whether he is talking about Iraq or Afghanistan.

On the topic of WWII, don't ignore the British contribution! It was the British who turned one of the fronts against Germany in the Battle of Britain.

Certainly. It is between the loss of the battle of Britain and the later loss of Stalingrad that guaranteed that the Germans would lose eventually, and American involvement merely made it cleaner than it might have been.

It would be foolish to downplay the resistance offered by the British people during World War II but lets not kid ourselves. The Battle of Britain cost the Axis approximately 3,700 KIA/MIA + Captured whereas the war with the Soviet Union cost the Axis 9.9 million KIA/MIA + Captured.



rocketpig on 30 May 2012
bouzane said:
Mr Khan said:
Rath said:
That video doesn't show whether he is talking about Iraq or Afghanistan.

On the topic of WWII, don't ignore the British contribution! It was the British who turned one of the fronts against Germany in the Battle of Britain.

Certainly. It is between the loss of the battle of Britain and the later loss of Stalingrad that guaranteed that the Germans would lose eventually, and American involvement merely made it cleaner than it might have been.

It would be foolish to downplay the resistance offered by the British people during World War II but lets not kid ourselves. The Battle of Britain cost the Axis approximately 3,700 KIA/MIA + Captured whereas the war with the Soviet Union cost the Axis 9.9 million KIA/MIA + Captured.

What was important was keeping a second (or third if you count Africa/Italy) front open, stretching the Nazi forces more thinly than the relatively meager German population could support.




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/