Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Your most overrated US presidents?

106 replies to this topic
The Yokel
  • The Yokel

    Tokel. Never forget.

  • The Yardies
  • Joined: 30 Mar 2007
  • Jamaica

#91

Posted 28 December 2011 - 03:37 AM

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Tuesday, Dec 27 2011, 18:35)
Topic split off to here. Grandmaster, I will respond in that thread.

Back on-topic...

I'd like to tally my nomination for John F. Kennedy- as so many of his policies, particularly in relation to international relations and security policy, descended into farce. Bay of Pigs- absolute debacle. His handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis- extremely flawed. Early years of the US space race- disastrous. Initial Vietnam war involvement- incredibly poorly planned and conceived. Abdel Karim Kassem's coup in Iraq- funded by the CIA, eventually put everyone's favourite moustachio'd, genocidal Ba'athist, Saddam Hussein, in power. Arming the IRA- incredibly naive decision that still results in deaths today for no gain. Domestically, he may have been a reasonable choice, but as a statesman, he was terrible.

I thought that was common knowledge. I'm yet to see a person who thinks JFK was a good president.

Irviding
  • Irviding

    he's going to get into the ring and put boots to asses

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#92

Posted 28 December 2011 - 04:53 AM

I wouldn't call him a great President like people tend to rate him today, but he's definitely not a bad one. Sure he had foreign policy failures. Remember, Bay of Pigs was authorized and planned under Eisenhower. Could Kennedy have put more effort into it? Could he have ordered our navy to take steps to support the land invasion? Yes. That was a f*ck up. But the idea that he was a terrible President is pretty far fetched. He put the groundwork together for civil rights here in the US though, and if you know what went on in the South at that time period, you'd know he deserves a lot of props.

Typhus
  • Typhus

    OG

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2007

#93

Posted 28 December 2011 - 05:30 AM

QUOTE (Gtaman_92 @ Tuesday, Dec 27 2011, 23:32)
QUOTE (Irviding @ Tuesday, Dec 27 2011, 18:06)
QUOTE (Typhus @ Tuesday, Dec 27 2011, 05:53)
Getting back on topic, how do Americans see George Washington? I have seen a lot of people bitch about the fact that he was a slave owner and ignore his historical significance. Jefferson also owned slaves, do you feel it's fair to judge a President for exercising their legal rights? When we consider how many innocent people suffered under the slave system, I can understand the ill feelings. But great thinkers and warriors like Jefferson and Washington should not be maligned because our ideas of right and wrong have shifted. I just don't think it's fair.

It's like saying that people shouldn't celebrate Columbus day because he enjoyed setting hunting dogs on unarmed Natives. Just a way to try and stop Americans taking any pride in their history.

Washington was a great President. An aristocrat like him was what this country needed when it was first founded. The type of guy who "knows what's best". A man who wouldn't put up with rebellions of people not willing to pay taxes, etc. He kept us out of international bullsh*t which was especially important. Jefferson wanted to go help the French revolutionaries, but Washington used the argument that our alliance was with Louis XVI, and that the new government taking over broke that treaty. Very keen indeed on his part. Slaveholding was simply the economic way back then. If you owned a plantation, you had slaves. End of story.

Of course I sort of get a little agitated over his whole denouncing of the party system, since Washington basically allowed it to manifest with Hamilton and Jefferson in his cabinet (thankfully for our country, Hamilton won most of the arguments, Jefferson's views of creating a country of farmers was just not feasible), and yet complains about how evil it is.

They are not heroes to me.

Let me guess, you think that either because of slavery or because of how they treated the poor, innocent, saintly Natives?

Gtaman_92
  • Gtaman_92

    Picture me rollin.

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Apr 2011
  • United-States

#94

Posted 29 December 2011 - 12:09 AM

QUOTE (Irviding @ Wednesday, Dec 28 2011, 00:02)
QUOTE (Gtaman_92 @ Tuesday, Dec 27 2011, 18:32)
QUOTE (Irviding @ Tuesday, Dec 27 2011, 18:06)
QUOTE (Typhus @ Tuesday, Dec 27 2011, 05:53)
Getting back on topic, how do Americans see George Washington? I have seen a lot of people bitch about the fact that he was a slave owner and ignore his historical significance. Jefferson also owned slaves, do you feel it's fair to judge a President for exercising their legal rights? When we consider how many innocent people suffered under the slave system, I can understand the ill feelings. But great thinkers and warriors like Jefferson and Washington should not be maligned because our ideas of right and wrong have shifted. I just don't think it's fair.

It's like saying that people shouldn't celebrate Columbus day because he enjoyed setting hunting dogs on unarmed Natives. Just a way to try and stop Americans taking any pride in their history.

Washington was a great President. An aristocrat like him was what this country needed when it was first founded. The type of guy who "knows what's best". A man who wouldn't put up with rebellions of people not willing to pay taxes, etc. He kept us out of international bullsh*t which was especially important. Jefferson wanted to go help the French revolutionaries, but Washington used the argument that our alliance was with Louis XVI, and that the new government taking over broke that treaty. Very keen indeed on his part. Slaveholding was simply the economic way back then. If you owned a plantation, you had slaves. End of story.

Of course I sort of get a little agitated over his whole denouncing of the party system, since Washington basically allowed it to manifest with Hamilton and Jefferson in his cabinet (thankfully for our country, Hamilton won most of the arguments, Jefferson's views of creating a country of farmers was just not feasible), and yet complains about how evil it is.

They are not heroes to me.

Why?

Because they had no real impact apart from wars and sh*t. Sure they won my country freedom and sh*t but did they help the natives? did they free the f*cking slaves? did any of them give rights to women? what about that sh*t? if you respect them i dont care because you have a right for a opinion, but they mean sh*t to me apart from kicking the brits ass.

Irviding
  • Irviding

    he's going to get into the ring and put boots to asses

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#95

Posted 29 December 2011 - 02:04 AM Edited by Irviding, 29 December 2011 - 02:09 AM.

You are so wholly uneducated on American history, and whatever state you took US history in needs to have its ass kicked. We did not "kick the Brits ass". We would not have won that revolution without French and Spanish support. Wars and sh*t? No real impact? How avoit creating a totally unheard of system of government that has lasted for 225 years without any real trouble (civil war has nothing to do with system of government) the separation of powers is probably the most elaborate political mechanism ever created. Go read some of the Federalist papers. 10, 51, 69 are a few that may interest you to see the pure and great intellect of these men.

Second, slavery was normal then. If you owned a plantation, you had slaves. Hamilton lived in the Northeast and didn't (most likely) own slaves. Same with Franklin, who opposed slavery greatly. The idea in your head that our founding fathers are pieces of sh*t because they didn't hold ideas (women's rights like voting at the time were laughable and unheard of, they couldn't even own property at the time of the founders) that were not even talked about in the mainstream for 30+ years after their deaths is crazy. Lincoln, do you respect him? Yes or no answer to that. I'll continue based on your answer.

GrandMaster Smith
  • GrandMaster Smith

    ©

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Apr 2006
  • None

#96

Posted 29 December 2011 - 02:17 AM

QUOTE (GTAvanja @ Tuesday, Dec 27 2011, 19:37)
QUOTE (sivispacem @ Tuesday, Dec 27 2011, 18:35)
Topic split off to here. Grandmaster, I will respond in that thread.

Back on-topic...

I'd like to tally my nomination for John F. Kennedy- as so many of his policies, particularly in relation to international relations and security policy, descended into farce. Bay of Pigs- absolute debacle. His handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis- extremely flawed. Early years of the US space race- disastrous. Initial Vietnam war involvement- incredibly poorly planned and conceived. Abdel Karim Kassem's coup in Iraq- funded by the CIA, eventually put everyone's favourite moustachio'd, genocidal Ba'athist, Saddam Hussein, in power. Arming the IRA- incredibly naive decision that still results in deaths today for no gain. Domestically, he may have been a reasonable choice, but as a statesman, he was terrible.

I thought that was common knowledge. I'm yet to see a person who thinks JFK was a good president.

Well I never followed too much of JFK's policies and whatnot but anyone who turns down something like Operation Northwoods gotta have a decently leveled head on his shoulders compared to others we've had..

wiki Op. NW

pdf file

Gtaman_92
  • Gtaman_92

    Picture me rollin.

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Apr 2011
  • United-States

#97

Posted 29 December 2011 - 02:23 AM

QUOTE (Irviding @ Thursday, Dec 29 2011, 02:04)
You are so wholly uneducated on American history, and whatever state you took US history in needs to have its ass kicked. We did not "kick the Brits ass". We would not have won that revolution without French and Spanish support. Wars and sh*t? No real impact? How avoit creating a totally unheard of system of government that has lasted for 225 years without any real trouble (civil war has nothing to do with system of government) the separation of powers is probably the most elaborate political mechanism ever created. Go read some of the Federalist papers. 10, 51, 69 are a few that may interest you to see the pure and great intellect of these men.

Second, slavery was normal then. If you owned a plantation, you had slaves. Hamilton lived in the Northeast and didn't (most likely) own slaves. Same with Franklin, who opposed slavery greatly. The idea in your head that our founding fathers are pieces of sh*t because they didn't hold ideas (women's rights like voting at the time were laughable and unheard of, they couldn't even own property at the time of the founders) that were not even talked about in the mainstream for 30+ years after their deaths is crazy. Lincoln, do you respect him? Yes or no answer to that. I'll continue based on your answer.

Look, i dont look up to george washington or jefferson, they are not that special to me, so just accept that. Lincoln is not all that either but he did alot more then pervious presidents.

Irviding
  • Irviding

    he's going to get into the ring and put boots to asses

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#98

Posted 29 December 2011 - 04:37 AM

QUOTE (Gtaman_92 @ Wednesday, Dec 28 2011, 21:23)
QUOTE (Irviding @ Thursday, Dec 29 2011, 02:04)
You are so wholly uneducated on American history, and whatever state you took US history in needs to have its ass kicked. We did not "kick the Brits ass". We would not have won that revolution without French and Spanish support. Wars and sh*t? No real impact? How avoit creating a totally unheard of system of government that has lasted for 225 years without any real trouble (civil war has nothing to do with system of government) the separation of powers is probably the most elaborate political mechanism ever created. Go read some of the Federalist papers. 10, 51, 69 are a few that may interest you to see the pure and great intellect of these men.

Second, slavery was normal then. If you owned a plantation, you had slaves. Hamilton lived in the Northeast and didn't (most likely) own slaves. Same with Franklin, who opposed slavery greatly. The idea in your head that our founding fathers are pieces of sh*t because they didn't hold ideas (women's rights like voting at the time were laughable and unheard of, they couldn't even own property at the time of the founders)  that were not even talked about in the mainstream for 30+ years after their deaths is crazy. Lincoln, do you respect him? Yes or no answer to that. I'll continue based on your answer.

Look, i dont look up to george washington or jefferson, they are not that special to me, so just accept that. Lincoln is not all that either but he did alot more then pervious presidents.

Then you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. I'm not asking you to "look up" to them, but the idea that these Presidents and founding fathers did absolutely nothing other than "fight some wars and sh*t" is ridiculously ignorant and dumbfounded. Educate yourself and come back.

And Lincoln was alright with slavery by the way. He only wanted to stop its expansion into new US territories. He was not an abolitionist. So maybe now you think he's not worth your respect?

The Yokel
  • The Yokel

    Tokel. Never forget.

  • The Yardies
  • Joined: 30 Mar 2007
  • Jamaica

#99

Posted 29 December 2011 - 08:34 AM

QUOTE (GrandMaster Smith @ Thursday, Dec 29 2011, 04:17)
QUOTE (GTAvanja @ Tuesday, Dec 27 2011, 19:37)
QUOTE (sivispacem @ Tuesday, Dec 27 2011, 18:35)
Topic split off to here. Grandmaster, I will respond in that thread.

Back on-topic...

I'd like to tally my nomination for John F. Kennedy- as so many of his policies, particularly in relation to international relations and security policy, descended into farce. Bay of Pigs- absolute debacle. His handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis- extremely flawed. Early years of the US space race- disastrous. Initial Vietnam war involvement- incredibly poorly planned and conceived. Abdel Karim Kassem's coup in Iraq- funded by the CIA, eventually put everyone's favourite moustachio'd, genocidal Ba'athist, Saddam Hussein, in power. Arming the IRA- incredibly naive decision that still results in deaths today for no gain. Domestically, he may have been a reasonable choice, but as a statesman, he was terrible.

I thought that was common knowledge. I'm yet to see a person who thinks JFK was a good president.

Well I never followed too much of JFK's policies and whatnot but anyone who turns down something like Operation Northwoods gotta have a decently leveled head on his shoulders compared to others we've had..

wiki Op. NW

pdf file

Wow, what the f*ck? Someone actually came up with a plan like that? I think I'm beginning to understand the 9/11 conspiracy theorists. I'm not saying there was a conspiracy because I don't know anything about that, but if your own country can propose something like that once, who's to say they won't try again.

Irviding
  • Irviding

    he's going to get into the ring and put boots to asses

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#100

Posted 29 December 2011 - 09:11 AM Edited by Irviding, 29 December 2011 - 09:14 AM.

QUOTE (GTAvanja @ Thursday, Dec 29 2011, 03:34)
QUOTE (GrandMaster Smith @ Thursday, Dec 29 2011, 04:17)
QUOTE (GTAvanja @ Tuesday, Dec 27 2011, 19:37)
QUOTE (sivispacem @ Tuesday, Dec 27 2011, 18:35)
Topic split off to here. Grandmaster, I will respond in that thread.

Back on-topic...

I'd like to tally my nomination for John F. Kennedy- as so many of his policies, particularly in relation to international relations and security policy, descended into farce. Bay of Pigs- absolute debacle. His handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis- extremely flawed. Early years of the US space race- disastrous. Initial Vietnam war involvement- incredibly poorly planned and conceived. Abdel Karim Kassem's coup in Iraq- funded by the CIA, eventually put everyone's favourite moustachio'd, genocidal Ba'athist, Saddam Hussein, in power. Arming the IRA- incredibly naive decision that still results in deaths today for no gain. Domestically, he may have been a reasonable choice, but as a statesman, he was terrible.

I thought that was common knowledge. I'm yet to see a person who thinks JFK was a good president.

Well I never followed too much of JFK's policies and whatnot but anyone who turns down something like Operation Northwoods gotta have a decently leveled head on his shoulders compared to others we've had..

wiki Op. NW

pdf file

Wow, what the f*ck? Someone actually came up with a plan like that? I think I'm beginning to understand the 9/11 conspiracy theorists. I'm not saying there was a conspiracy because I don't know anything about that, but if your own country can propose something like that once, who's to say they won't try again.

The military proposes a lot of whacky plans. Here is the map of a plan to invade Canada and fight the British Empire (War Plan Red)

user posted image



sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Skål, jævler!

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#101

Posted 29 December 2011 - 11:30 AM

QUOTE (Irviding @ Thursday, Dec 29 2011, 10:11)
The military proposes a lot of whacky plans. Here is the map of a plan to invade Canada and fight the British Empire (War Plan Red)


Plus there was running the remote viewing program until the mid 1980s. Seriously, that's what happens in a Cold War climate and a military with more money than sense. @GM- Northwoods was never actioned, so it couldn't have been "turned down" by a president. It was entirely theoretical discussion, was never properly funded and never got passed the most initial planning stages. Like many rather wacky ideas put forward by the DoD and CIA- psychic powers, nuclear powered cruise missiles, space-based weapons- it got abandoned pretty quickly.

trip
  • trip

    ~

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 10 Oct 2007
  • United-States
  • Contribution Award [GTAF]
    Contribution Award [Gen Chat]

#102

Posted 30 December 2011 - 09:10 PM

Ronald Reagan.

That guy f*cked up so many lives it isn't even funny.

leaflinks
  • leaflinks

    Peon

  • Members
  • Joined: 30 Jul 2005

#103

Posted 02 January 2012 - 04:48 PM

Ronald Reagan can be remembered for one foreign policy change, when he withdrew the Marines from Lebanon in 1983 after 241 were killed. He said the Middle East was a jungle and never understood Middle Eastern politics because of the irrationality of people's actions there.

Yet he did make one good choice and that was to get those soldiers out.

Jimmy Carter woke up Americans to the energy problems faced, as the decline of crude began forty years ago. Which in part explains W Bush's failed foreign policy over the last decade.

George W is one of America's most poorest leaders. Too many people died during his time.

Chunkyman
  • Chunkyman

    Foot Soldier

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 23 Jan 2012

#104

Posted 24 January 2012 - 05:58 AM Edited by Chunkyman, 24 January 2012 - 06:16 AM.

FDR, because he trampled on the Constitution and put people in internment camps.

Irviding
  • Irviding

    he's going to get into the ring and put boots to asses

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#105

Posted 24 January 2012 - 06:46 AM

QUOTE (Chunkyman @ Tuesday, Jan 24 2012, 00:58)
FDR, because he trampled on the Constitution and put people in internment camps.

I don't think you can judge his legacy on something like that. We're not talking about death camps here, first of all. Yes, they were taken from their homes. But again - this was wartime. We were fighting a war that we were not sure we could win. The Germans were plowing through Europe - basically all of continental Europe was in German hands - Spain and Portugal were both essentially axis aligned, and there was no hope for the Soviets at that time. Things didn't look good in 1941/1942, and even into 1943 until the fall of the sixth army, it was looking like an allied loss. I don't blame FDR for accepting advise from his military leadership to intern Japanese citizens. I really don't. Germans had been immigrating to the US since colonial times, and even more during the 1840s/50s, and then along with the Norwegians/Swedes due to the Homestead act. They'd been here a while is what I am basically saying. There really was no massive Japanese immigration to the US, and it was scary to see them here since they were so uncommon compared with other demographics. Again - it was wrong, it was racist, but I don't blame them for taking such a step during a massive world war where millions were dying every year.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Skål, jævler!

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#106

Posted 24 January 2012 - 07:44 AM

Prisons are internment camps, but you don't see people complaining about those. Anyway, national security should- and does- override rights and freedoms in times of threat. Also (I'm sure Ivirding will be able to give an answer)- is detaining individuals in internment camps in a time of conflict actually unconstitutional? It's permitted under the laws of war, for example.

Irviding
  • Irviding

    he's going to get into the ring and put boots to asses

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#107

Posted 24 January 2012 - 08:26 AM

Well, during the war itself, they used the stare decisis behind the actions taken during WWI in Korematsu v US, and the court did rule that it was constitutional because Korematsu's person liberty didn't outweigh the security of the West Coast. I haven't studied that case for a while but it certainly wasnt overturned by another supreme court case, and remains precedent today. The president also has a few war time posts that allow him to do that.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users