A Question to Americans

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]texasguy1 wrote:
holifila wrote:
1-packlondoner wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Clinton? You are joking, right? I mean, this is T-Nation, but I still don’t think serious people would consider scoring a blowjob in the oval office a major accomplishment.

I have to go with Regan.

To be fair, not a single person outside the US gives a shit whether Clinton got a blow job off a fat chick and its fairly sad that, whatever you think of him, THAT’s the first thing anyone remembers about him.

And on a personal level, I always score getting a blow job a major accomplishment! :wink:

As I said, naturally people outside the US would gauge a US President almost exclusively on their foreign policy, which is why I was interested in you guys thoughts on their terms as a whole, the impact they made and the legacy they left.

Not many people in America cared about the blow job, and the fact that most people think thats what it all was about is also sad. I don’t want to start the whole argument again but the fact that people still think that it was about sex is a tribute to the Clinton PR machine.

Even forgetting about the loads of ethical issues, Clinton doesn’t even get a mention in the best lists. He had the fortune to be president in a time of relative peace and economic boom (neither or which should be attributed to him).

Yep. Clinton avoided middle east hot spots, letting them boil and saving them for the next president to deal with so as to maintain his own image. W inherited the problems and in a big way with the trade center falling.

I wonder how much of that would have been squashed had clinton been a man and taken care of issues as they presented themselves, rather than letting them fester and grow to our present situation?

He did inherit a good economy as well, largely due to Bush Sr. and Ronald Reagan before him. It’s funny how political parties capitalize on market fluctuations so readily. [/quote]

Nice.

42

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
For kicks, here is the Wall Street Journal’s OpinionJournal’s rankings of all presidents, as per a survey conducted among a group of “ideologically balanced group of 130 prominent professors of history, law, political science and economics”:

This goes wide of our subject at hand, since it it includes presindents beyond the last century. But interesting nonetheless.[/quote]

Interesting that the top three presidents were involved in the major conflicts in our history.

aleator

43

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
For kicks, here is the Wall Street Journal’s OpinionJournal’s rankings of all presidents, as per a survey conducted among a group of “ideologically balanced group of 130 prominent professors of history, law, political science and economics”:

This goes wide of our subject at hand, since it it includes presindents beyond the last century. But interesting nonetheless.[/quote]

Interesting that the top three presidents were involved in the major conflicts in our history.

aleator

44

It’s too bad that your field of enquiry did not include the 19th century, I am pretty sure that several posters would have told you that Jefferson Davis was the best American President (albeit not of the United States). After all, he was a good anti-federalist (definitely believed in States’ rights) and was a strong-believer in property rights.

45

[quote]koots wrote:
doogie wrote:

He wasn’t hounded out of office. He served the maximum two terms.

He was impeached, though, which could certainly be called hounding![/quote]

hounded out of office! i think it’s the ‘out of office’ part he was commenting on.

46

I like the WSJ list. Pretty accurate, in my view.

I’ll say I was delighted to see Washington at the top of the list. It’s strange to say but I think that Washington - for all the things named for him, etc. - is quite overlooked by modern Americans. I don’t find that a lot of people know much about the man and what he did before and during his years in office. He truly WAS America for much of the late 1700s.

I have always felt that Washington was the inspiration for the Maximus character’s situation in ‘Gladiator’. He was chosen to lead the Republic simply because he did not WANT the power. In the hands of someone else the presidency could have become something very different that what it became. Washington resisted all the rights and liberties that so many wanted to bestow upon him (and, ostensibly, on the office itself).

He has always been the historical figure that I’ve most wanted to meet.

47

[quote]DS 007 wrote:
I like the WSJ list. Pretty accurate, in my view.

I’ll say I was delighted to see Washington at the top of the list. It’s strange to say but I think that Washington - for all the things named for him, etc. - is quite overlooked by modern Americans. I don’t find that a lot of people know much about the man and what he did before and during his years in office. He truly WAS America for much of the late 1700s.

I have always felt that Washington was the inspiration for the Maximus character’s situation in ‘Gladiator’. He was chosen to lead the Republic simply because he did not WANT the power. In the hands of someone else the presidency could have become something very different that what it became. Washington resisted all the rights and liberties that so many wanted to bestow upon him (and, ostensibly, on the office itself).

He has always been the historical figure that I’ve most wanted to meet.[/quote]

Gladiator’s “Maximus” was loosely based on several Roman characters, one of the them notably was Cincinnatus (from something I read after the movie).

Washington was our “Cincinnatus”, straightaway - a perfect comparison, and one that Washington was aware of.

So the Maximus-Washington comparison is pretty close.

48

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[/quote]

Beat me to it.

49

[quote]nephorm wrote:

Beat me to it.[/quote]

Yes, but I was channeling you the whole time.

:>

50

[quote]1-packlondoner wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Clinton? You are joking, right? I mean, this is T-Nation, but I still don’t think serious people would consider scoring a blowjob in the oval office a major accomplishment.

I have to go with Regan.

To be fair, not a single person outside the US gives a shit whether Clinton got a blow job off a fat chick and its fairly sad that, whatever you think of him, THAT’s the first thing anyone remembers about him.

And on a personal level, I always score getting a blow job a major accomplishment! :wink:

As I said, naturally people outside the US would gauge a US President almost exclusively on their foreign policy, which is why I was interested in you guys thoughts on their terms as a whole, the impact they made and the legacy they left.

[/quote]

I wouldn’t care if he got a BJ either except that he did it at work and on our time. We are not paying him to have sex at his desk at work.

As for his foreign policy, I think the “accidental” strategically placed missile he had sent to take out the Chinese embassy in 1999 tells the story of his policy quite well.

51

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
snipeout wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
FDR.

Hands fucking down.

Hands down? For what? Creating a society that becomes more and more dependent on the government because of all the BS social programs he started. All hail FDR for social security and welfare! You must be joking…

Well, laissez faire capitalism did a hell of a job on America, huh?

The New Deals were as good as anyone could have handled the Depression, and he handled World War II better than any wartime president this century.

Social security is a good thing- its mismanaged terribly, but the idea is good and it works.

Welfare I’m not a tremendous fan of, but at the time it was introduced it was a relief.

Hell, the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 was enough in my book to have him be number one, all the other stuff aside.

There was no one in the twentieth century that did a better job in a time of greater tribulation.[/quote]

The problem with all of that was the lack of expiration. It created an entire dependancy demographic. Oppresive regimnes are built in this way, see Cuba, Venezuela…hell any of them. Thay all started by giving hand outs and making people dependant. Freedom errosion started with FDR. I piss on his grave.

52

[quote]pat36 wrote:

The problem with all of that was the lack of expiration. It created an entire dependancy demographic. Oppresive regimnes are built in this way, see Cuba, Venezuela…hell any of them. Thay all started by giving hand outs and making people dependant. Freedom errosion started with FDR. I piss on his grave.[/quote]

Indeed. We love Washington for his willingness to step away after his two terms were up instead of being a king. Do you really think FDR would have walked away if he were in George’s shoes? Hell do you think FDR would have walked away after his 3rd term was over?

mike

53

[quote]1-packlondoner wrote:
Hiya,

I was just wondering… Who would you say your greatest President of the last century has been and why? Let’s say from 1900 up until now.

Any thoughts?
[/quote]

Giving the reasons as to why a given president is the worst or best would require extremely lengthy responses, perhaps even a book-length treatise. The best US president of the 20th century is almost impossible to list given the poor pickings. Listing the worst is in some respects somewhat less difficult.The following is a list of what are in my opinion the six worst (in chronological order) respectively:

Five Worst:

Teddy Roosevelt
Woodrow Wilson
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Lyndon B. Johnson
Richard Nixon
George W. Bush

Indeed, competition in the latter category is legion but the above six most immediately come to mind. The “best” (most tolerable; i.e., did the least damage) would probably be Warren G. Harding.

54

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
1-packlondoner wrote:

I have heard quite a lot of talk from yanks that the US is still paying the price for the economic freedoms enjoyed during his time as President and that it was a bubble always destined to burst and this may be true.

This sentiment seems to imply that some “exploitation” occurred, as the “economic freedoms” were “allowed” when Clinton should have reined in these forces. The way you stated it sounds as though the “economic freedoms” should not have been “permitted” - let me know if I am wrong.

Such a stance is woefully inaccurate - the New Economy was driven by creative, wildly-optimistic idealistic youngish people, not stodgy old corporate barons. The unfortunate result was too much optimism and speculation on the success of the technology sector - it sucks, but it wasn’t anything that required the government to “clamp down” on “economic freedoms”.[/quote]

Not making any claims or even giving opinions. Just presenting to you guys how the media has portrayed the man over here.

As for earlier chap saying ‘he wasn’t hounded out of office’. Well yeah, but wasn’t he impeached? You get my drift.

55

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
1-packlondoner wrote:
Any thoughts?

I’ve been seriously trying to think how to answer this question. I do think that too much credit is given to the presidential figurehead whether they are perceived to get it right or wrong. That said, I really only think the obvious way to judge the goodness of the president is in terms of the Constitution and how they uphold and defend it–that is the only responsibility the president has to the country.

There are other subjective measures that also come into play when making this kind of decision–such as character and charisma but to me they don’t really hold much weight because there really is no true measure.

Judging the past presidents on how well they upheld the constitution I would have to say that eliminates pretty much all of them. I would say that the president that did the most to correct the inadequacies of the constitution was JFK–despite what his perceived weaknesses were, he did raise the issue of civil rights.

The big downside of civil rights is that the solutions that eventually came into play had some consequences for all Americans–those being, addressing personal rights and liberties based on “group identity” and not the inherent rights of the individual person.[/quote]

Very interesting post. Over here, Winston Churchill wa currently voted ‘Greatest Briton ever’, beating out Isaac Newton, William Shakespeare - Even Posh Spice!

This is the same man who was the first to use biological weapons agains the Kurds, a crime which we have pointed to time and time again as evidence of Saddam Hussein’s inherent evil. But, write a couple of really snappy speeches and unerringly send millions of men to their deaths with a stiff upper lip from behind a desk, and you are voted the best ever. Not just best leader, but best person ever to come from your country.

Dammit I hate the general public, especially at any point where they are allowed to vote on anything. I don’t doubt for a second that he was a ‘great’ man, but I truly do not believe for even a nano-second that he was a ‘good’ man.

But you are right. Maybe our countries do not need good men as leaders. Perhaps they need great men. Or maybe I am talking shit because I can’t lift my arms above my shoulders after tonight’s workout and I am getting dizzy looking at the screen…It’s making sense in my head. Will check in the morning and correct if it’s utter drivvel.

Must. Have… Carbs…

56

[quote]entheogens wrote:
It’s too bad that your field of enquiry did not include the 19th century, I am pretty sure that several posters would have told you that Jefferson Davis was the best American President (albeit not of the United States). After all, he was a good anti-federalist (definitely believed in States’ rights) and was a strong-believer in property rights.

[/quote]

Is it sacriligous to say I have never ever heard of this chap. Spill the beans… Gimme the lowdown. Came after who and before who else? Claims to fame?

57

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
1-packlondoner wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Clinton? You are joking, right? I mean, this is T-Nation, but I still don’t think serious people would consider scoring a blowjob in the oval office a major accomplishment.

I have to go with Regan.

To be fair, not a single person outside the US gives a shit whether Clinton got a blow job off a fat chick and its fairly sad that, whatever you think of him, THAT’s the first thing anyone remembers about him.

And on a personal level, I always score getting a blow job a major accomplishment! :wink:

As I said, naturally people outside the US would gauge a US President almost exclusively on their foreign policy, which is why I was interested in you guys thoughts on their terms as a whole, the impact they made and the legacy they left.

I wouldn’t care if he got a BJ either except that he did it at work and on our time. We are not paying him to have sex at his desk at work.

As for his foreign policy, I think the “accidental” strategically placed missile he had sent to take out the Chinese embassy in 1999 tells the story of his policy quite well.
[/quote]

If we’re knocking points off for dropping bombs…:slight_smile:

58

It’s like picking the most appealing pile of shit. They were all losers who barely did anything good for the people while committing atrocities in their name.

I really don’t know, but Harding and Eisenhower get extra honesty points for admitting that they are sock puppets.

59

[quote]1-packlondoner wrote:

Such a stance is woefully inaccurate - the New Economy was driven by creative, wildly-optimistic idealistic youngish people, not stodgy old corporate barons. The unfortunate result was too much optimism and speculation on the success of the technology sector - it sucks, but it wasn’t anything that required the government to “clamp down” on “economic freedoms”.
[/quote]

The �??New Economy�?? was pretty much a sham. It was built on a bunch of �??build to flip�?? companies whose sole purpose was to make money off of stocks and not off of products and services. Though I was weeping when the bubble burst, in the end it was a necessary correction. The stock market was artificially inflated based on companies who did little more than post a web page of any kind and then build a company out of it just enough to turn public sell stocks and sell out.

Throw Enron, Worldcom, and a few more corporate scandals in on top of that, and you have an economic disaster on your hands. The fact that it was not much worse than it was is a testament to the checks and balances put in place after the 1929 crash and the mini crashes that followed though out the century.

The New Economy was largely based on fraud and deceit. There is no such thing as a new economy, old economic principals still apply and always will. Clinton was an idiot in many ways, and that was one of them. 8 more years of that repulsive bitch, please NO!

60

[quote]1-packlondoner wrote:
entheogens wrote:
It’s too bad that your field of enquiry did not include the 19th century, I am pretty sure that several posters would have told you that Jefferson Davis was the best American President (albeit not of the United States). After all, he was a good anti-federalist (definitely believed in States’ rights) and was a strong-believer in property rights.

Is it sacriligous to say I have never ever heard of this chap. Spill the beans… Gimme the lowdown. Came after who and before who else? Claims to fame?[/quote]

Davis was the president of the Confederate States, also known as ‘The South’ during the Civil War. The poster was making the assumption that some on the board are the type to believe that the south was right.

This could mean two things; either he thinks they are racist, or they feel that the south was right for reasons of states rights (from the tone, I assume its the first).

I originally didn’t think much of the man, but a while ago I read a really interesting biography of him (the title escapes me) that painted him as a much more sympathetic figure.

In principle he was against secession and while in the Senate fought very hard to try to keep the south in the Union. But when secession went through, he felt his duty for his state required him to take charge over the Mississippi troops, he was then named president.

One interesting side note, when he was imprisoned for treason he arranged to sell his estate to one of his former slaves who was an inventor, something to do with steamboats I think (I know its not that meaningful but I was always fascinated by it).

By implying that everyone who fought for the south was racist and a bad guy is tremendously simplistic (but then again, with the way History is taught these days its not at all surprising).

Is that enough of a short explanation?