(shakes head) good god. That sounds atrocious. Aren't there any canadian books about muscle cars?

Did I miss something? What's with the Truman lovefest?

You know, with the picture, ... the newspaper...


...Dewey?

A-ha! That's why you like Dada so much...

Carter?

I'm also glad to see Nixon not on that list -- after all, he did pull us out.

Fuck Bush! There I said it.

He may not be THE worst president, but he certainly is down there. Still, I think it's unfair to blame him for everything going wrong, what with Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Tom DeLay (indict! indict!), Rick Santorum, etc. still in the picture. Frankly, my hatred for the modern republican party knows little to no bounds. I'm not too enamoured with many Democrats right about now either.

How will history judge Bush? To be blunt: I don't care. Sure, I'd love to be able to say, "I told you so" in 25 years, but honestly I'm more concerned with what is going on now and how it is affecting my life. I'm sure there are plenty of others who feel the same way.

*END RANT

they're all pussies! republicans and dems alike.

Carter was probably the least violent of all the presidents so at least he has that going for him. I mean, the guy after him was basically slaughtering priests, labor leaders, peasants, women, and students down in Central America for kicks. Reagan was like Darth Vader compared to the peanut farmer.

Nixon should probably be on the list of worst presidents. Through Kissinger, he basically called for genocide during the attack on Cambodia. Watergate was the least of his crimes.

damn those latte sippin, volvo drivin', east coast snooty intellectual... historians? sure, i've read my fair share of lefty historians, but they ain't all howard zinn, and it did seem like they had good reasons for their views that didn't amount to philosophy (i.e. huge deficits, ineffective war on terror, katrina, etc.) and i can accept why people think reagan was a great president, but i can't stand the "reagan won the cold war" argument. the collapse of the soviet union was due to a huge amount of internal factors that reagan had not a goddamn thing to do with. simplistic statements like "the soviets had to spend more to keep up so they collapsed" aren't anywhere close to the whole truth. do you really think they would have decided to stick around for a few more years if we had a president mondale? not to mention that while reagan was riding in valiantly on a white horse to defeat the soviets, he armed and trained osama fucking bin laden.

Yeah, you missed something.

Dude had the balls to drop the bomb. Then another one. Yeah, that bomb.

Also, after taking some real fucked up intelligence (i'll give you a brief History lesson here b/c I'm sure it dont take that to get into the big ol' "NYU LAW SCHOOL") he had the balls to fire the man who was at that time the most popular man in this country (that's Douglas MacArthur for those of you scoring at home, his name still rings out in certain circles); it cost Truman everything.

Read up, kids. read up...........................

[quote="Northern Soul"]

• He has taken the country into an unwinnable war and alienated friend and foe alike in the process;
• He has proved to be incompetent in affairs domestic (New Orleans) and foreign (
• Iraq and the battle against al-Qaida);

First. Let me say that I agree with Bloor. WAY too early to make any assessments of G.B. jr's presidency. And that is definitely the historian in me.

Second. Let me present some options about the above quoted list:

The country is not in an unwinnable war. In fact, the two countries that we have gone into either have a constitution and are trying to make it work or are in the process of finalizing the initiation of a new constitution. To state a fact, we already won the war in Iraq. We are now about the process of trying to contribute to rebuilding the country to something less volatile(to use a kind word). An interesting fact: you have a greater chance of being killed in Washington D.C. than being a soldier in Iraq.

As far as being incompetent in domestic affairs...you have to be overlooking some really significant issues in this arena. First, Bush has been in office during two of the most catastrophic events in U.S. History that have taken place on our soil. After the towers went down this country's economic system went to the shitter and was almost gone for good. Now, we are experiencing quite a boom and recovery since the attacks. Also, we have not had a single terrorist attack in our country since 9/11. That's pretty good considering we have so many vocal enemies on the offensive. The other aspect is about Katrina. We have to realize here that the Federal government is not allowed to simply usurp state's rights and governing power whenever it feels like it. No matter the severity of the situation. Remember the Civil War? Also, the governor of Louisianna refused initial help from the Federal government. However, we can't talk about that jackass because their governor is a democrat...and we can't have a bad democrat now can we?

What exactly are we not doing in the war on Al Qaida that should be happening? If you really want them gone then you're going to have to invade Iran, which as much as I hate war I wouldn't even be opposed to. they're just as fanatic, at least those in control. Multiple meetings with top al-qaida members and evidence of subtle alliances with al-qaida.

And I think that the reason why some of our "allies" are so vocal against us is because they're too scared to actually stand up and protect themselves. I have a hard time believing that if the Eiffel Tower was attacked and crashed to the ground, killing thousands, they would be any less inclined to do something about it and seek alliances in it as well. However, nothing has happened to them as of yet, so they can whine and moan about not getting the Olympics as their main worry.

Keep in mind, I am not even a Bush supporter, but that poll is a load of crap. It's filled with agenda and the answers seem indicative of the agenda specific to the liberal side of politics.

I ought to go seek out a handful of polls and analyses of Bush's presidencies that are positive...just to give the other side. I cannot make any assessments as to Bush's ultimate yea or nay as a president until after a significant amount of time elapses. It just can't be done, whether or not you believe that doesn't make it any less true. A lot of what you are experiencing in this country right now is a result of the previous presidents, all the way back, if not further, to the praised FDR. Previous presidents have piled shit onto shit and created a sesspool of politics. I feel sorry for any president that gets elected. I am glad I have never had the drive to seek that office. The issue of Social Security is not Bush's fault. Not even close. It's the previous presidents and congress sessions that have led to a misuse of tax money. People my age and younger are gonna be fucked when we need our social security because the money doesn't exist. And to think that in 6 years Bush has made some of these systemic problems come alive is naive and ignorant to the fact that multiple presidents and elected federal officials have screwed this country up.

Finally. I thank god that no one has said LBJ is one of the best. Talk about a bad president. whew.

Also, I am amazed that someone, if not others, would mention Andrew Jackson as a great. If anything, despite anything else he did, his policy on the "Indian problem" is enough to make him in the bottom 5. I have no respect for that man. And trust me, enough time has passed since his presidency for me to feel comfortable voicing my subjectivity on the matter.

<-- zero percent more convinced of Truman's greatness by what you just said, but it seems to mean a lot to you.

I don't like Bush, Cheney or most of his cabinet. I think we made up this war and lied boldfacedly about it.

However, it's not unwinnable and we might as well see it through at this point. Hegel's right.

FDR
Lincoln
Kennedy
Truman
Jefferson

Hey!, thanks for the kind words about my thoughts..............

As to LBJ: Probably one of the saddest/toughest presidencies to judge.... To wit: Kennedy (allegedly) would have had a hard time getting the Voting Rights and Civil Rights Acts through Congress without Lyn-dun....But Lyndon got that shit through......and then sent them free boys off to the rice paddy for some jungle-ass fun/ YAYYYYYY!!!!!!!!

I'd like to believe that Johnson was duped on Vietnam, and, as it was, has taken the fall for it historically. To wit: My parents (Republicans yes they are but my mom voted for Carter in '76 and Clinton in '96---they are actually the real Americans that most of us forget about); HATE LBJ because they hold him responsible for the deaths of a good number of their people.....Mentioning that the Nixon presidency was responsible for most of those deaths is moot-----LBJ KILLED THEIR FRIENDS and I think this, friends, is our grim reality.

I'd hold the fact that LBJ was an arrogant, sexist, impatient asshole against him except for the fact that most presidents have been.

I got no problem with that A.

So to your point:

A. Who you got as your top 5 presidents and why?

B. Why is Truman NOT Top 5? (seriously)

Truman had balls, true. And did what he thought had to be
done. He was a decisive and great leader.

I just can't personally condone the nuking of civilian populations under any circumstances. Others have their rationales for it. I don't agree with those rationales.

Phil, I could not have done it either.....



That's the thing man: Sometimes, you have to do something reprehensible.....

To wit: Lincoln sacrificed more lives in a given day than we have lost in Iraq just to preserve the "Union" Thats fucked up, right?

<--- drinks his coffee black
<--- don't drive no Volvo


Granted the "won the cold war" statement is simplistic. The collapse of communism was inevitable--it's not a sustainable political/economic ideology (sorry Borg). Reagan, however, was the one who called out the the proverbial elephant in the room. He didn't placate, he didn't appease, he didn't enable the east to continue their masquerade. He called their empire evil, he challenged them to release their clutch on eastern Europe. The ball may have been there all along, but Reagan picked it up and carried it over the goal line. He did this to the horror of the established diplomats in this and other countries. For that he deserves credit.

Is it the "nuking" aspect, or the bombing of cities in general? Can you personally condone the round-the-clock bombing campaign against Hitler's Germany?

Just trying to understand your position.

With. You. Brother.




Still waiting for credit from you for what Clinton did. C'mon Bill, McCain did it on MTP this morning, you can do it!

I would so be a Jimmy Carter president my first term. By the second term I'd probably be a disgruntled, disillusioned Jimmy packing a Beretta, but still Jimmy. Might make it to "reprehensible" by the 7th year or so, but probably would only get as far as "tough-minded."

I don't like any form of bombing of civilian populations, but atomic weaponry left generations of mutations, lingering sicknesses, drawn-out deaths, poisoned soil and water. I realize The Horrible is what it takes to definitively force complete surrender, but when it's at the cost of becoming The Horrible, I can't see doing it. I realize trying to force true surrender by decimating the Japanese military might not have worked. But there were lots of children, old people, pets, apolitical people who were nuked and I can't get my head around committing such an act in order to stop the battles.

Probably best that I wasn't president at the time, I guess.

My qualms with Clinton are mostly on the domestic side--the health care reform debacle, the tax hikes, that little perjury/obstruction thing, the brazen hubris that his sordid background and dishonest just shouldn't matter.

Our experience in Europe, especially the Balkans, was generally not bad. We rooted out some real monsters, with the help mostly of NATO, and not so much of the UN. If anything, he put too much faith in the UN, possibly because he's got a soft spot in his heart for liars and thieves.